The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)
You're at a 10. You need to be at a 2 (none / 1)
EveningStar can be a little abrasive sometimes.  Don't jump to the conclusion that he/(she?) was attacking you.

One thing that I did notice in your post though (and this is not an attack, I'm just pointing out something that you might not have noticed before) is that you anthropomorphized science.  I've done it before too.  We have to remember that science is not a person, it does not have whims, it doesn't make decisions.  It is also not a system of beliefs, which is how some other people seem to think of it.  It is a tool, nothing more.  If used correctly (and there are plenty of people who do not use it correctly) it can be used to learn some truly amazing things.  Because of this I think our human nature is to approach it with some kind of awe.  But we must remember that science (or more specifically the scientific method) was "created" by humans (so was religion!).  It was brought about by people as a way to apply reason and logic to try to come up with rules/concepts/theories to explain phenomena in the natural world.

I believe this is also how religion began.  Some ancient tribe sees some lightning one night strike a tree near their camp.  They didn't have the tools to figure out what that phenomenon represented.  So they invent a deity (individually or by fiat) that must have done it, and pretty soon you have Zeus.  Then along comes other un-explainable phenomena and you get other deities, like Helios, Yaweh, Allah, etc.

Where these two ways of looking at the natural world differ however is their approach to learning the truth.  With religion, generally the truth is just made up.  It works better if it is self-consistent with the other beliefs, but this is not a requirement because of the nature of deities.  If you apply science to learn the truth about a phenomenon, you don't have that luxury and if it isn't consistent with your other scientific beliefs, thats a big red-flag.  You make a theory (a best guess using what you already know about the natural world) and then devise a way to test that theory.  You say to yourself, "I think A is caused by B".  Then apply logic, "If A is caused by B, then I would expect C if I looked here".  Then if you do not find C when doing your experiment, this means your theory was probably flawed (or your experiment) you should consider your findings and come up with a new theory.  If you do find C however, this does not mean that you have come up with the truth, you have just come up with a good way to describe the truth.

A great example of this is Gravity.  Newton's theory on gravity lasted quite a long time, and it does an excellent job of describing most phenomena that have something to do with gravity.  Then along came Einstein and he proposed a theory for how gravity worked that got the same results as Newton's theory in most cases.  So why is Einstein's theory better?  Because his was able to explain the natural world better.  Among other things, his theory said that light's path would be bent by the gravity of a star, Newton's didn't.  They were able to do an experiment, and Einstein's theory was supported (not proved) so his theory is said to better represent reallity.  We have to remember that this is still just a theory, not THE TRUTH.

Well I've done it again, I've put the entire forum to sleep with my long-winded ramblings.  In conclusion, I'll just say that I see religion as something like wisdom teeth in people.  It was useful for what it did in the ancient past, but we have gotten to the point where we don't need it anymore.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 02:37:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
theory ≠ hypothesis (5.00 / 2)

I know it sounds like semantics, but what you described when you said,

" You make a theory (a best guess using what you already know about the natural world) and then devise a way to test that theory"

that is called a hypothesis not a theory. A theory is, to quote the dictionary

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

 

There is a diffrence in the way the term "theory" is used by the general public and the scientific community. A theory is not a blind guess in the dark, It is an accumulation of facts and proven hypothesis' that has been rigorously tested by peer review, subsequent publication of your theory in a scientific journal and duplication and even more tests by other scientist.

That's not to say that theories are infalable, if they don't fit right into other known theories, can't be duplicated, or other theories come along that fit better then the old theory eventualy loses credibility and acceptance.

by cowpacino on 06/17/2009 04:05:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
no you're right, thanks (none / 0)
Yes I should have writte hypothesis, my bad.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 04:29:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not at all (none / 0)
I'm still wide awake.  I like this particular rambling, because it is true.  

one thing you forgot to mention though, the beginning of organized religion was just a way to keep order.  Look at all of the ancient civilizations.  Just to name a few- Egypt, Huang He river valley, Indus River valley, mesopotamia.  3 out of 4 of those civilizations saw their leader as a deity or some sort of divine form.  Now look at the incas.  Their leader was supposed to be a descendant of the sun god.  If the people believed that the leader had some sort of divine power, they would be more likely to comply with the society.

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 03:19:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great points. (none / 0)
But if I started to consider organized religion, I'd have to go even deeper.  I'd have to point out how entities or groups that are started by humans seem to somehow also take on a life of their own.  Organized religions like Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, heck even Scientology (gawd, don't get me started on Scientology) have properties in common with bureaucracies, corporations, political parties, and governments.  Once they get a certain amount of power, they seem to have the will (and now I'm anthropomorphizing again) to retain or increase that power.  This will comes from the collective wills of the people involved in the group, and sometimes a charismatic leader.  But what is interesting is that the really strong organizations survive even after that charismatic leader has left the game.  I can't think of good individual examples right now, but I'm sure you can think of some.

Some people tend to view these groups with suspicion, which is healthy.  They can be responsible for the most horrible atrocities (holocausts, genocides, terrorism).  But they can also be responsible for some great (in the full sense of the word) things that advance the human race (democracy, science-based medicine, public education).

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 04:27:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The Fall of Theism | 103 comments (103 topical, 0 hidden)