The Problem with Science as a Substitute

[Warthaug]

clap clap clap clap....our copy and paste works...so, no, literacy did not prevail.....only CONTROL C and CONTROL V prevailed

Everything I types was from memory - I have a PhD in immunology after all, all of that is right up my alley...

Bryan

 

[AXL72]

AXL, you seem like a really clever dude. Maybe you can help AWAP with his psychoses?

Science is really good at cataloging these, and then prescribing therapy.

This is all about recording data, and then theorizing solutions.

This might be right up your alley? A little bit of science, and a lot of atheism, combined with impertinance and flippant irony, n'est pas?

A minister, on the other hand, would use a religious approach of confession and repentence, from a perspective of sin and forgiveness. But you would not be any good at that role, would you?

Nor do you seem to know jack squat about philosophy either, aye? So Plato and Aristotle do not need to worry about you writing any books on it then, huh?

Philosophically speaking, I think we are all waisting our time debating this. If there were a God, his word would not be that of the bible. Why would he care if we believe in him or not.

The notion of God sending me to a firey hell would be like you pouring gasoline on a pet dog and lighting him on fire after he pees on the floor a few times.

 

[nereas]

Philosophically speaking, I think we are all waisting our time debating this. If there were a God, his word would not be that of the bible. Why would he care if we believe in him or not.

The notion of God sending me to a firey hell would be like you pouring gasoline on a pet dog and lighting him on fire after he pees on the floor a few times.

Well, you yourself AXL got sidetracked onto religion, something you seem to know nothing about, and that you feel even less about.

The issue, to redirect, is about using science as a substitute for religion.

And the fascinating thing about atheists who use science as their religion, is that not only does this abuse science, but it also betrays within atheists a need for something, a need which convoluted quasi-science then fills.

And the notion that a god would care about an atheist is a contradiction in philosophy.

 

[nereas]

Seems to me the OP has substituted religion for science. Perhaps he feels the same about science as you do about religion.

AWAP, I (the O/P) keep science, philosophy, and religion in 3 different boxes.

They are 3 different tools that have nothing in common.

It can be argued that science is a subdivision and subset of philosophy, but then again, philosophy and science are so far apart that they are essentially separate things.

Science asks "how?"

Religion asks "why?"

And philosophy asks "what if?"

 

[nereas]

The problem with this thread, one from which it will never recover, is that the OP is based on a "do you still beat your wife?" style of logical fallacy. Science is not a substitute for religion, that very suggestion is repugnant. I have no religion, I've never had any religion, and I have no need whatever to replace something that is not and has never been part of my life. Science, on the other hand, has always been part of my life, but it is an approach to problems, tool, a modus operandi, not a belief system.

Science should not be a substitute for religion.

However with some people it has become exactly that.

And I have noticed that a lot, a whole bunch, of professed atheists take on science as their belief system. And this is the paradox. They have made it their religion. You can easily tell by the way they talk.

 

[AXL72]

pssst....atheists do not replace religion with science. Atheism is our religion. Duh! Dee Dee Dee.

Some atheists, will remind you that there is no God, because of scientific reasons.

Let me just refer back to faith...there just ain't no God! Why? Because my faith tells me so

I wuv ya, brother

atheism is actually a form of religion in an of itself

 

[Thalassamania]

Science should not be a substitute for religion.

However with some people it has become exactly that.

And I have noticed that a lot, a whole bunch, of professed atheists take on science as their belief system. And this is the paradox. They have made it their religion. You can easily tell by the way they talk.

Gee ... I guess you're the smartest and most observant dude on the block. Actually, what your doing is projecting your own needs and foibles onto others. Just because you have a hole in your head and/or a hole in your heart that you need to fill with claptrap does not mean everyone (or for that matter anyone) else does.

 

[redacted]

AWAP, I (the O/P) keep science, philosophy, and religion in 3 different boxes.

They are 3 different tools that have nothing in common.

It can be argued that science is a subdivision and subset of philosophy, but then again, philosophy and science are so far apart that they are essentially separate things.

Science asks "how?"

Religion asks "why?"

And philosophy asks "what if?"

So which one do you turn to for "when?".

 

[moshiach]

I apologize for the very late response. I only have time to visit SB about twice a month.

This:

Brainwashing creates a vacuum that will be filled later in life by some disfunctional nonsense. I made damn sure that he had (and continues to have) a broad suite of "religious experience." That assures that he sees first hand the similarities and differences between the various belief systems and in time, with exposure to many, and blind allegiance to none, is vaccinated against them because he comes to see them (much as I did through a similar broad exposure) as a collection of very similar mythologies with one no more correct than another and all equally absurd and egotistical.

I think he still believes in Santa (or at least pretends to), but then that's in his own best interest.

is wise. It shows a profound understanding of (applied) psychology.

It has however, absolutely nothing to do with neither actual science nor religion. Religion and in particular Christianity claims to have a purpose/meaning beyond being useful to humans. Therefore fundamentalists/fanatics are the only consequent religious people (Remember Abraham sacrificing his son?) while all others claiming to be religious do not believe in Dog but use religion for their purposes. However noble these purposes might be, the non-fanatic religious are simply hypocrites.

Again, I do not have the possibility to explain the above statements and it is up to you to either think hard and understand or else skim and misinterpret. But I assure you: There is no wrong. It is as clear as 1+1 to me.

 

[moshiach]

I just read through it again and noticed that Thalassamania called me a "greenhorn". That was not wise at all. Even assuming I was a baby or a typing monkey, the wrinkles on your face or your aging brain are not arguments in a discussion. I know that you are intelligent enough and understood I that was right but chose to do away with it by being (at best) condescending or insulting. So: Grow up old man!