Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Let science be your reiligion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 126 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 12, 2013 10:00:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 12, 2013 1:00:50 PM PDT
Charles says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 12, 2013 10:13:06 AM PDT
Thanks, but I don't need a religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 12, 2013 10:19:24 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 12, 2013 6:21:44 PM PDT
J. Potter says:
Kick them bricks, Horsey! Eeeeee-YAH! Git'em!

'So-called' science? So you believe there is a false science and a true science?

You seem to be conflating process and knowledge.

I encourage you to be more specific when constructing your ... ummm ... 'arguments' (heh).

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 5:12:05 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Horsie is very, very jealous of scientists because he knows they're smarter than him.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 5:21:27 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
I have known some people for whom science may as well function as a religion, so is there really a difference for them?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 5:48:24 AM PDT
Astrocat says:
The reductionist scientists are the fundamentalists of that field.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 6:42:03 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
What Michael Altarriba said.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 6:55:36 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
Everybody's got to believe something, I believe I'll have another beer.

Posted on Mar 13, 2013 7:45:09 AM PDT
J. Potter says:
I'd love for the *ideals* and processes of science, civics, and philosophy to be taught and adhered to "religiously", but the idea of making any or all of them a religion seems to imply dogma / liturgy / fundamentalism. Knowledge must remain fluid. Any attempt to make sacred cows of any of their ideas would get these fields into the same sad shape as major fundamentalist religions are in. Speaking in terms of current understanding, today's religions are yesterday's ill-informed attempts at science. Science eventually broke free from enshrined tenets and moved on, leaving religion behind.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:20:29 AM PDT
andthe...,

And how often does anything "work" based on religion? It's all speculation; it's logically meaningless; lots of confirming evidence that the "data" is fudged; not proof of anything (except believers' gullibility).

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:26:32 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
Charles,
In one of my collections of Murphy's Laws and its corollaries, one defines the branches of scince something like this, "..If it's green or it wiggles it's biology, if it stinks it's chemistry, if it doesn't work it's physics."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:27:27 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy,

When science is made to function as a religion, it is called "scientism." Exactly what this means varies from person to person. Personally, I know I indulge scientism because (a) I've had enough science training to know something of the process and logic behind it, (b) I'm not a professional scientist and must, therefore, trust the findings of the professionals to the extent that they are trustworthy and (c) I know that scientific knowledge depends on experimental replication, not bald authority or popular opinion.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:29:13 AM PDT
(except believers' own evidence, personally and wonderfully ascribed to them by God Himself.)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:35:06 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
Charles,
I am both a scientist and a Christian and I have no problem with my belief in the ethical teachings of Yeshua/Jesus and what I know to be the search for ever better understanding of the world around us and ourselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:37:45 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
Clarissa, I understand you are in the market for some real estate in South Florida, Guaranteed to be above water at least 8 hours a day.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:40:41 AM PDT
Yes, Javana,

And every morning, a little garden gnome in a silver spandex jerkin and rainbow huaraches grants me every day's goodness before I awaken, and I stumble across his gifts as I live through each day. I'm forever grateful to my garden gnome because he sacrificed his favorite tomato plant to the great and terrible Fuzzy Hoo-hah to save me from my foolishness.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:47:21 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy,

I am aware that many scientists are religious in one way or another. I was foolishly going to wager that you adhere to a more liberal sect, but I realized that it doesn't matter; the needs a person finds satisfied by some particular cultural institution are individual and not to be gainsaid by anyone.

I'll wait to see if Javana/Clarissa responds to this.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 8:57:46 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
I have known Atheists who have been members of various churches because it met their needs. So I have no problem with atheists except when they start telling me what I believe.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 9:04:06 AM PDT
"So I have no problem with atheists except when they start telling me what I believe."

Does that happen often?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 9:08:14 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy,

We agree, then, that religion or non-religion is irrelevant as long as no effort is made to impose either upon another person.

There are areas of gray: how are you with the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in public schools? (Personally, I oppose it as I think ID is a trojan horse for religious creationism and further indoctrination.) Or the, mostly religiously motivated, crusade against women's health commonly known as the "pro-life movement"?

I guess I don't really need personal answers to those questions, and I don't want to divert this thread into those debates. I guess I ask about them as examples of gray areas where discussion about them is a matter of public policy, tangentially imputing some kind of ideology to all of us.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 9:10:31 AM PDT
Intelligent Design is Creationism (with the serial numbers filed off, and a bad coat of paint). As it is not science, it has no place in a science class being presented as if it were, in any way, shape or form, a legitimate alternative to modern evolutionary theory.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 9:19:54 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
There are some who when they discover I am a believer think they know everything they need to know and start talking about what I believe when all they know is that I believe. It is not common but not uncommon. some will let me show them that they are making assumptions without evidence others will never listen.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 9:27:39 AM PDT
Gneiss Guy says:
ID is not science, and cannot be taught as such, I do however feel that students should be taught how and why ID does not qualify as science so that they will be able to recognize the next ID when it comes around. As far as Choice I think we need to keep women's access to healthcare legal, safe and do the things we can to make as rare as possible. (It is never an easy choice, I prefer to minimize the need for the choice) I also think that is as much as I am allowed to think about it as a man.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 10:05:46 AM PDT
Mr. Altarriba,

I agree with you completely on this. Yet, others have varying opinions. Uncertainty and confusion have been created among the public by the Discovery Institute, by poor training of public school science teachers, and by some problematic efforts on the part of scientists themselves. It is much harder to quell confusion than to rouse it.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1223 16 days ago
A paradox? 42 18 minutes ago
Is being a Mean Girl morally wrong? 315 20 minutes ago
Aristotle's God 1 1 hour ago
The case for New Atheist "rationality"? 8 1 hour ago
The Atheist Make-Believe Psychology 8981 2 hours ago
Slowly through the Book of Job - Part 4 1163 2 hours ago
Another 10,000 Quotes... 3304 3 hours ago
Does God evolve? 67 3 hours ago
Atheists - Muslims ... not much difference there 66 3 hours ago
Debunking the Non-Religion of Atheism 121 4 hours ago
Distortions in the New Age Movement 538 5 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  126
Initial post:  Mar 12, 2013
Latest post:  Mar 15, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions