Who's converted more 'followers', religion or science?

[The Grave]

Avoiding the urge to use bold print in huge font...


Bearing in mind, or I'd like to start by assuming, that years ago the majority of people were religious.

By that I mean they lacked the Scientific Knowledge to explain natural phenomena, so instead they threw their hands up and declared:"god knows!"

In this 'slightly' more enlightened age, Science is singularly responsible for the low turn-out at church... for example you should have seen the pathetic retches holding an easter service 'outside' their church, near where I live but thankfully out of eye sight and ear shot, instead of inside, trying (in vain) to drum up support. Truly sad.

Compare that to the sunday shoppers at Tesco!

Some of you 'atheists' I know will shout:"Science has nothing to say on religion or god!"

I can't be bothered with that side-tracking taunt.

The fact is that every 'testable' story/theory/idea put forward by the god-books have been laudably shown to be utter rubbish and nothing more than uneducated, ill-informed attempts at rationalising the Natural World by Stone-Aged people.

Some corkers:-


A rainbow - not, after all, a message to signal no more floods, but simple refraction of light. They are circular not arced and can only be viewed in front, from where you see it. Not from behind.
Brass, from the Earth - brass is an alloy and is not found in nature.
"Separated light from dark" - what a quote! There is no such thing as 'dark' or 'darkness'. You can't 'shine' darkness into a room or fill a room with darkness; you can only empty it of light!
The Earth is flat - No it's bloody well not!
The Sun and All the planets and stars etc. goes round the Earth - DUMB.Oh, there are plenty of others but "Time is always against us" - Morpheus (The Matrix).

So, to Poll... and post.

[Complexity]

Religion has.

Most people are fools.

[MG1962]

Please feel free to show any relligious doctrine that claimed the Earth was flat.

Please show evidence that an Earth Centred Universe was required by Religious doctrine, I will throw you a cookie - try googling Ptolemy.

[linusrichard]

Please show evidence that an Earth Centred Universe was required by Religious doctrine, I will throw you a herring - try googling Ptolemy.

Fixed your post.

Googling "Galileo" gets you better results (http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_7.html).

[Tricky]

Who's converted more 'followers', religion or science?

Okay, look for all the websites that try to prove that science supports their religion. You'll find many. The Discovery Institute is notable among them.

Now try to find sites that show that try to show that religion supports a genuine scientific study. That will be a good deal harder.

Religious groups are screaming to be recognized by science. You hear no such outcry in the reverse direction, except the occasional case when a doctor pleads with one of the anti-medical religious groups to let them treat a sick person in their group.

I think it is obvious who needs who.

[Hokulele]

Please show evidence that an Earth Centred Universe was required by Religious doctrine, I will throw you a cookie - try googling Ptolemy.


Some people seem to think so (http://www.geocentricbible.com/).

[Normal Dude]

Some people seem to think so (http://www.geocentricbible.com/).

Anyone wants a real laugh needs to read the "Ch. 9 Proof" link inside this link. The stupid almost leaped out the screen and struck me in the nose.

[JoeEllison]

Engineering wins. Find me someone who doesn't use and put some amount of faith or confidence in a wheel and axle, pulley, wedge, or one of the other simple machines, no matter what their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

[MG1962]

Fixed your post.

Googling "Galileo" gets you better results (http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_7.html).

So are you publicly claiming that the Christian Church invented the Earth Centred cosmological model?

[MG1962]

Some people seem to think so (http://www.geocentricbible.com/).

So then 911 was an inside job, because some people think so?

[dahduh]

Please feel free to show any relligious doctrine that claimed the Earth was flat.

Isaiah 40:22 (New International version):

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Ok, so the picture is of the Earth as a flat circle with the sky spread as a tent over it. Interestingly, this same verse has been used to claim that the bible stated the earth was a sphere (http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8a0581ced549451f31f7).

But fear not, a more modern 'translation' (The Message) now reads:

God sits high above the round ball of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas—
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.

So in a few more hundred years that awkward little problem should be solved.

[MG1962]

Isaiah 40:22 (New International version):

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Ok, so the picture is of the Earth as a flat circle with the sky spread as a tent over it. Interestingly, this same verse has been used to claim that the bible stated the earth was a sphere (http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=8a0581ced549451f31f7).

Granted it could be interpreted both ways. There is no doubt though that the proofs for the Earth being a sphere existed even Isaiahs time.

However the question then becomes, where the Jews instructed to believe the Earth was flat as commanded by God because of this passage?

[dahduh]

Who's converted more 'followers', religion or science?
Religious groups are screaming to be recognized by science. You hear no such outcry in the reverse direction, except the occasional case when a doctor pleads with one of the anti-medical religious groups to let them treat a sick person in their group.

I think it is obvious who needs who.

But there's a strategic danger for a religion to try and co-opt science; the classic example is the Intelligent Design movement. I would recommend getting hold of "Flock of Dodos", a documentary by Randy Olson, in which this point is very nicely discussed. In essence:

1. Due to its successes, science has acquired enormous credibility.
2. Religious movements are jelous of this success, and try to buttress their belief by drawing on science (think Intelligent Design, irriducible complexity)
3. But, science has really not revealed any need for a God, so God has to live in the 'gaps' left over by science (think evolution of the bacterial flagellum).
4. As science advances, the gaps get smaller and smaller (think a ton of papers describing evolution of the bacterial flagellum).
5. If you've been taught that science supports God, then over time this base is eroded away and you are forced to make a choice between God and science (think Michael Behe, poor sod).

The absolutely irrefutible point is that science is a voodoo that works, predictably and reliably, and it gets more and more comprehensive and reliable. The only way religious doctrine can survive in the face of this is to suppress it (evolution in school) and/or corrupt it ("teach the 'controversy'"), but any society that tries to do this will rapidly fall behind and become irrelevant (United States, stem cell research). Even the dumbest of the dumb will eventually convert to science when they have to travel from San Francisco to get their therapy in Mexico City.

[dahduh]

...were the Jews instructed to believe the Earth was flat as commanded by God because of this passage?

Nope, and personally I think the concrete metaphors were all just poetry. The idiocy begins when you try to take poetry and pretend it's real, which is what tends to happen when you have a priest who draws his sole authority about the world from a crusty old book.

[MG1962]

Nope, and personally I think the concrete metaphors were all just poetry. The idiocy begins when you try to take poetry and pretend it's real, which is what tends to happen when you have a priest who draws his sole authority about the world from a crusty old book.

Unfortunately as a thesist I have to agree with you. The Bible is meant to be a book of philosophy, not science 101

[linusrichard]

Has anybody seen my goalposts? White, shaped like a big "H"?


Please show evidence that an Earth Centred Universe was required by Religious doctrine, I will throw you a cookie - try googling Ptolemy.
I know I saw them around somewhere...
So are you publicly claiming that the Christian Church invented the Earth Centred cosmological model?

Oh, there they are!

Someone must have moved them...

[MG1962]

Has anybody seen my goalposts? White, shaped like a big "H"?


I know I saw them around somewhere...


Oh, there they are!

Someone must have moved them...

Maybe you should read the OP before trying so hard to be clever

[linusrichard]

Maybe you should read the OP before trying so hard to be clever

So you can digress from the OP and claim that an Earth-Centered universe was never required by religious doctrine, but if I call you on it, you can move the goalposts back, and if I call you on that, it's only because I didn't read the OP carefully enough? Have I got that about right?

[Just thinking]

Religion, by far. Why?

Science is hard --- one must think.

[Rufo]

Avoiding the urge to use bold print in huge font...
Appreciated, although I very much wonder why you have that urge to begin with.

Bearing in mind, or I'd like to start by assuming, that years ago the majority of people were religious.
The majority of people are still religious.

By that I mean they lacked the Scientific Knowledge to explain natural phenomena, so instead they threw their hands up and declared:"god knows!"
We still lack the scientific knowledge to explain all natural phenomena, and we most likely always will.

In this 'slightly' more enlightened age, Science is singularly responsible for the low turn-out at church... for example you should have seen the pathetic retches holding an easter service 'outside' their church, near where I live but thankfully out of eye sight and ear shot, instead of inside, trying (in vain) to drum up support. Truly sad.

Compare that to the sunday shoppers at Tesco!
That's an interesting observation, and it is pretty sad, because it means a lot of us have simply exchanged one irrational need for another.

Some of you 'atheists' I know will shout:"Science has nothing to say on religion or god!"

I can't be bothered with that side-tracking taunt.

The fact is that every 'testable' story/theory/idea put forward by the god-books have been laudably shown to be utter rubbish and nothing more than uneducated, ill-informed attempts at rationalising the Natural World by Stone-Aged people.
The view that "Science has nothing to say on religion or god!" may also refer to the untestable claims put forward by religion. Science has nothing to say to them, because it deals with the testable. Also, are you saying that every testable claim ever made by a book of religion has been proven wrong? I strongly doubt that.

Some corkers:-


A rainbow - not, after all, a message to signal no more floods, but simple refraction of light. They are circular not arced and can only be viewed in front, from where you see it. Not from behind.
Brass, from the Earth - brass is an alloy and is not found in nature.
"Separated light from dark" - what a quote! There is no such thing as 'dark' or 'darkness'. You can't 'shine' darkness into a room or fill a room with darkness; you can only empty it of light!
The Earth is flat - No it's bloody well not!
The Sun and All the planets and stars etc. goes round the Earth - DUMB.Oh, there are plenty of others but "Time is always against us" - Morpheus (The Matrix).
To whom exactly are you trying to prove that the Bible is not a scientific authority? Most on this forum, even the religious, already recognize that it's not.

So, to Poll... and post.
Science is a principle. To some extent, everyone uses it. Saying it has 'followers' is pretty meaningless. Religion is a too loosely defined concept to determine how many 'followers' it has. Planet X.

[fuelair]

Religion, by far. Why?

Science is hard --- one must think.
Actually, science isn't hard - it's just a little harder than answering every question with "godidit".:)

[A Christian Sceptic]

deleted - someone already made the point.

[Tricky]

But there's a strategic danger for a religion to try and co-opt science; the classic example is the Intelligent Design movement. I would recommend getting hold of "Flock of Dodos", a documentary by Randy Olson, in which this point is very nicely discussed. In essence:

1. Due to its successes, science has acquired enormous credibility.
2. Religious movements are jelous of this success, and try to buttress their belief by drawing on science (think Intelligent Design, irriducible complexity)
3. But, science has really not revealed any need for a God, so God has to live in the 'gaps' left over by science (think evolution of the bacterial flagellum).
4. As science advances, the gaps get smaller and smaller (think a ton of papers describing evolution of the bacterial flagellum).
5. If you've been taught that science supports God, then over time this base is eroded away and you are forced to make a choice between God and science (think Michael Behe, poor sod).

The absolutely irrefutible point is that science is a voodoo that works, predictably and reliably, and it gets more and more comprehensive and reliable. The only way religious doctrine can survive in the face of this is to suppress it (evolution in school) and/or corrupt it ("teach the 'controversy'"), but any society that tries to do this will rapidly fall behind and become irrelevant (United States, stem cell research). Even the dumbest of the dumb will eventually convert to science when they have to travel from San Francisco to get their therapy in Mexico City.
That was pretty much my point. You fleshed it out well.

But really, the question is silly. Science doesn't have many "converts". You convert from one religion to another. You can't convert from one science to another. A person who learns science doesn't (necessarily) stop believing a religion and a scientist who is "saved" doesn't stop believing in science.

But more people rely on science (and technology/engineering) to give them accurate, straightforward, objective and dependable answers than they do for any given religion, even if the number of people who believe in both is very large.

[Hokulele]

Please show evidence that an Earth Centred Universe was required by Religious doctrine, I will throw you a cookie - try googling Ptolemy.

Some people seem to think so (http://www.geocentricbible.com/).

So then 911 was an inside job, because some people think so?


You asked if anyone could show that that geocentrism was required by religious doctrine. Not whether or not it is true. There were many heated debates in Europe over whether or not heliocentrism could be true and many were tied to a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Koran uses very similar phrasing most everywhere, and Islamic literalists have gone though the same arguments (Earth is flat and fixed).

Although we can interpret these passages as being poetic and metaphoric today, back when they were written, I would argue that the authors really did mean the sun rose and set literally, not poetically. Since we have learned otherwise, but not bothered to change the language, we see the literal meaning as absurd, but we should not assume modern knowledge when reading historical works.

[MG1962]

So you can digress from the OP and claim that an Earth-Centered universe was never required by religious doctrine, but if I call you on it, you can move the goalposts back, and if I call you on that, it's only because I didn't read the OP carefully enough? Have I got that about right?

No because the Earth Centered Universe was a cosmological theory produced by a Greek scientist living in Eygpt around 150AD. Although the Catholic Church supported it well past its use by date, there is nothing in the Bible to support the concept over any other.

The Catholic Church got caught out because it refused to accept the paradigm shift underway. It wasn't the first and wont be the last organisation caught out this way. One only has to look at the controversy in the 1950's over Continental Drift theory to see the process still in action today

On the other hand, the OP mentions rainbows. When we look at Genesis 9:8

I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

We see a very clear cut explanation of what a rainbow is, why it exists, and what to think when we see one. And proves the OP's point on that particular issue.

So if that is a case of moving goal posts, so be it. I will leave it for others to judge.

[Kaizen]

I voted for the religion option, simply because there's a great deal of misunderstanding of what science actually is. However, the real culprit IMHO is the uncritical acceptance of beliefs that have such dramatic impacts on our daily decision making process and thus our lives in general.

Considering that, a person may very well be guilty of that act in regards to science or scientific authorities. The very method of science is constantly "proving" previous scientific conclusions dead wrong (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn), and I'd have it no other way. I'm far more concerned about the process we use in coming to our various conclusions of what reality is.

I believe their was a scientist who was quoted sometime in the 1950's stating that science has figured everything out and there was nothing left to discover. I just as quickly throw this guy in the same category as the extremist/fundamentalist _____ (pick your label).

[MG1962]

I believe their was a scientist who was quoted sometime in the 1950's stating that science has figured everything out and there was nothing left to discover. I just as quickly throw this guy in the same category as the extremist/fundamentalist _____ (pick your label).

I have heard the same quote, and I believe it dates to the 1890's and was a British physicist, who's name escapes me at the momment :o

[Hokulele]

I have heard the same quote, and I believe it dates to the 1890's and was a British physicist, who's name escapes me at the momment :o


Many scientists have said this (or something very similar), but I think you are thinking of Lord Kelvin.

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

Silly scientists! ;)

[GreyICE]

Religion.

Science has no need of followers. Science has need of thinkers.

Engineering probably has more believers, simply because engineering is to the level now where so few things go wrong its absurd. Given the complexity of modern devices, and the shoddy, shoddy treatment they receive, its virtually incomprehensible that they still function (I've seen buildings with functional mechanical systems after 40 years of no preventative maintenance and no real functional care). People believe certain things should 'just work.'

[MG1962]

Many scientists have said this (or something very similar), but I think you are thinking of Lord Kelvin.

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

Silly scientists! ;)

Yeah I did a quick search to see the context of the quote - Cause Kelvin was not slouch as a scientist. Seems he made a habit of these types of statements

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

[Hokulele]

Bringing across a thought from the "Inherent Rights" thread, it seems that all people have the inherent right to make asses out of themselves. :p

[The Grave]

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living. Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

[articulett]

It was a tad embarrassing for believers to realize their most important book inspired an an omniscient guy failed to reflect some of the most compelling things science has since discovered. They've often fought science where it disagrees with their authority.

The poll is bad. More theists become atheists than vice versa. And facts and use of science tends to erase peoples' reliance on superstition. But there is just one reality. Science is much better at explaining it than theism has been. Hence the fact that there is a convergence of opinion among skeptics, scientists, and educated people and a divergence of opinion regarding woo.

Science builds it's understanding on evidence that is freely available to all.

Religion claims knowledge and builds their claims on faith that are subjective and only the "chosen" have access to.

[edge]

The greatest scientist is God and that knowledge is infinite so is God.
The only thing we can do logically is to progress but science will never disprove God.

[articulett]

The greatest scientist is God and that knowledge is infinite so is God.
The only thing we can do logically is to progress but science will never disprove God.

And we'll never disprove demons, the matrix, or Xenu either.

Saying something about an invisible immeasurable entity you believe in, does not make it so.

Believing that god has infinite knowledge and is the greatest scientist doesn't make god real... nor does it mean that he has those qualities... and there is no reason to think that you, in particular, or anyone else --would know enough about this invisible immeasurable guy to make such claims. And yet believers of woo do... all the time. And they call non believers and skeptics arrogant.

Try proving that divine knowledge exists before claiming to have it.

Your religious beliefs are no more based in "evidence" than Scientology. And that is why Scientists don't take religion seriously. We have to follow the facts where they lead... not spin the fact to fit the truth we want--as all woo does.

[quarky]

Science, as religion, has failed us.

True, religion has also failed us.
But science is supposed to be better than religion, yet, it has failed us.

There is no science.
There is no religion.

If our species is headed for extinction, which seems probable, religion is no more to blame than science...possibly less.
The religious do believe in science. If they didn't, they wouldn't be here, on Earth.
The strictest fundamentalists believe in radio waves and internal combustion engines.
Whereas, devout scientists don't believe in religion.

Me thinks that gives religion the edge, however misguided it is.

Scientists fail to recognize this:

science has failed us.
we're done for.

religion has also failed us, but has somewhat addressed the "done for" part.

As far as the evolution of our species goes, what's the difference, in 10,000 years?

I like science; I hate religion.
If we humans survive the ravages of science and/or religion, I trust that science will emerge victorious, as it is rational and honest.

But in the long run, both have failed us, horribly.
Religion knows this; science can't admit it.

Strange, our reluctance to admit this failure of reason.
Woo lives in the wake of science's failure, which is something scientists can't get their minds around.
many people distrust science. They are not insane to distrust science.
religion picks up the slack, because it mostly addresses the state of things after we die, which is beyond the realm of science, or beneath it...doesn't really matter.

as we all die, in spite of science's best efforts, it is not illogical to cling to religion.

Science stops being cuddily when you are dying.
science has allowed us to destroy the world.
religion has only allowed us to destroy our reason.
religion isn't smart enough to take us down, as a species; much less, take down the rest of life as we go down.

Hence, the undying popularity of religion.

Its all about the moment of personal death.
Science has made zero in-roads in that realm.
Religion pretends to.

The scientific will eventually kill the religious, which I applaud, btw, but we are doomed regardless.

Or do we still have people that assume we will populate other galaxies, because science is so hot?

Ain't gonna happen.
In the long run, science is just another bad religion, even though it is based on facts.

Don't wait around for science to save your sorry ass.
And try to understand religion before things gets really embarrassing.
Religion is a coping device that science is too dumb to replace.

[AkuManiMani]

Who's converted more 'followers', religion or science?

I think what you meant to ask was if there are more religious people than non-religious. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive so there is no zero-sum game between them.

[Complexity]

Quarky has a talent for expressing itsy-bitsy silliness in unpleasant ways.

Talk about being 'not even wrong'.

[quarky]

Quarky has a talent for expressing itsy-bitsy silliness in unpleasant ways.

Talk about being 'not even wrong'.

I was feeling philosophical. I think I made a valid point. What's your beef?

[edge]

And yet believers of woo do... all the time. And they call non-believers and skeptics arrogant.

I never called you arrogant, blind maybe.
You believe in skeptic woo and we are all skeptical to a point I just don't believe in your woo about God.
So woo away all you want it doesn’t make it so.

[Tricky]

I was feeling philosophical. I think I made a valid point. What's your beef?
Really? What was your point? How has science "failed us"? And how is science a religion?

[quarky]

Science is religion-like in that it is something to have faith in; something bigger and smarter than our individual selves. Science will save us; we can bank on that; it provides comfort; it has high-priests that know things we can't fathom; we yield to their wisdom,as we should, because we sure don't know how our computer works, or how our power is generated (for the most part)

Science has failed us because it should have been the thing that kept us from the mess we're in; because its smart, and fair, and honest. It should have seen global warming coming, for instance. (and, in fact, it did...but it hardly matters)

Science has failed us because it has no power over its use.
Science should have easily beaten the pope, and we shouldn't live on such a crowded planet.
science should have led us to the promised land by now; instead, it monitors the rate of our decline, in precise figures.
science should have kicked religion's butt out of the discussion by now, but it is rendered impotent by commercial concerns; by ass-kissing industry barons that aren't worthy or smart.

Don't misread me , please. My allegiance is with science, and its method.
I'm merely trying to imagine how the population of the planet, at large, is still willing to distrust science in favor of complete woo nonsense.

Uneducated people that mistrust science do so, partly, because science is associated with negative symbols...like the hydrogen bomb; sophisticated weapons; mad-cow disease; thalidimide babies; s.u.v.s; traffic jams; bottled water that costs alot,yet replaces polluted water, polluted with certain chemicals that sound sciency.

The planet is dying. People sense that. Some blame science.
I don't. But i can imagine where they're coming from.

when science comes to your neighborhood, you can't swim in the creek anymore.
never mind that religion has never had a good plan, and is often the pawn of greed; that it encouraged reproduction without offering a place for the extra poop to go.

We hold science to a higher standard. And yet it is impotent. we go down.
no flying away to star-trek worlds; no jet-packs for flying around; no solution for our overall material woes.
In some sense, science has failed us because it has no moral compass.
In other ways, it has failed us because it has no means to avoid commercial corruption and exploitation.

Science is busy building the new great pyramid. it is busy designing our demise, as if it doesn't matter.

In conclusion, my problem with science is the same as my problem with religion:

It is corruptible. It functions as the whore of business. It has molested our children.
Science has figured out how to destroy the world.
People that aren't scientific notice stuff like that.

[Irony]

Science also kicks puppies and runs red lights.

Science is a big meany who used to tease me in elementary school, and steal my lunch money.

Seriously, what are you talking about? If you think of science as a religion then it's no wonder it failed in your eyes. That, however, is not a failing of science.

[articulett]

Yes, I think the failing of science is actually a failure in quarky's understand of science... not to mention his personification.

It's the creationist meme, isn't it--science=darwin="social darwinism"=Nazis ?

We live longer healthier lives than any humans ever-- we know more at younger ages about how our world works--we have technology that our ancestors could not begin to imagine and we can talk to anyone all over the world for free from our homes.

This is what science has give us. If you missed it, perhaps you have a blind spot or bias you are not aware of, quarky. What other field can compare. Science is about the natural world... how it works... what has faith given humanity that has come close?

[Ichneumonwasp]

No because the Earth Centered Universe was a cosmological theory produced by a Greek scientist living in Eygpt around 150AD. Although the Catholic Church supported it well past its use by date, there is nothing in the Bible to support the concept over any other.

The Catholic Church got caught out because it refused to accept the paradigm shift underway. It wasn't the first and wont be the last organisation caught out this way. One only has to look at the controversy in the 1950's over Continental Drift theory to see the process still in action today

On the other hand, the OP mentions rainbows. When we look at Genesis 9:8

I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

We see a very clear cut explanation of what a rainbow is, why it exists, and what to think when we see one. And proves the OP's point on that particular issue.

So if that is a case of moving goal posts, so be it. I will leave it for others to judge.

Um, no. It dates to Aristotle and Aristarchus. Aristotle influenced Ptolemy. But it wasn't just a scientific idea.

The earth-centered idea was philosophical primarily. It derived from Neo-Platonism, largely from Plotinus' scheme which posited the earth at the center of the universe not because it was most important but because it was material (and, hence, farthest from the divine realm, which created the universe through a series of emanations). The cosmos were considered to be the realm of the divine and the Greeks well knew that the farthest point from the surface of a sphere that comprised everything was its center.

That is why Hell was conceived as the center of the earth -- it was the point in the earth farthest from God - the center of the center.

The Neo-Platonists were probably more influential philosophically on the church than Aristotle initially, since most of his work was lost to the West until the 12th or 13th century. Christianity has always been considered Judaism + some form of Platonism.

ETA:

Come to think of it, this may even go back to the Timaeus, but I've never been able to get more than 10 pages into that one without going bonkers, so I wouldn't know. The Timaeus was one of the few Platonic works to survive in the West all along. But I always had the impression that they got most of their Plato through Plotinus.

[quarky]

Yes, I think the failing of science is actually a failure in quarky's understand of science... not to mention his personification.

It's the creationist meme, isn't it--science=darwin="social darwinism"=Nazis ?

We live longer healthier lives than any humans ever-- we know more at younger ages about how our world works--we have technology that our ancestors could not begin to imagine and we can talk to anyone all over the world for free from our homes.

This is what science has give us. If you missed it, perhaps you have a blind spot or bias you are not aware of, quarky. What other field can compare. Science is about the natural world... how it works... what has faith given humanity that has come close?

I thought I already responded, but my post doesn't seem to be here.
Anyway, I was attempting an explanation of how non-science might view science; trying to take some of the mystery out of why woo lives on with such strength of conviction.
I believe I pointed that out in my post.

(perhaps I'm overly empathetic, but not woo. I'm actually a chemist by training and haven't been to a church since I was 13, when i was forced to attend. I'm inclined to see both sides of an argument, but as mentioned frequently, my allegiance is with the scientific method.)

[Fnord]

Religion has.

Most people are fools.

Most people are ignorant. Those who choose to remain so are fools.

Example: Some people who have read 2Chronicles 4:2 believe that 3 is the the correct value for Pi. This is ignorance. When confronted with a simple demonstration involving a 10-inch plate and a tape measure many of them still believe that 3 is the correct value for Pi. This is foolishness.

"How can you not see the truth?" - Fox Mulder, "X-Files"

[MasQuater]

Religion silly, been around for thousands of years longer. One of the oldest institutions around along government and prostitution.

[Fnord]

Science is religion-like in that it is something to have faith in...

Hold it right there! Science is an investigative practice. It is used to study the universe by direct observation and experiment. You can repeat the same science experiment any number of times under the same conditions and achieve the same results each time, even if you have faith that the results will change. Science is reliable.

Religion, on the other hand, is the politics of faith, which is the belief in unprovable things. You can repeat the same prayer under the same conditions any number of times and achieve different results each time, even if you have faith that the results will be the same. Thus, it is Religion that is unreliable.

... something bigger and smarter than our individual selves. Science will save us; we can bank on that; it provides comfort; it has high-priests that know things we can't fathom; we yield to their wisdom,as we should, because we sure don't know how our computer works, or how our power is generated (for the most part)

Ignorance of Scientific principles can be cured by learning. Ignorance of God's will can not be cured, as God's will is unfathomable. Science teaches. Theology guesses.

Science has failed us because it should have been the thing that kept us from the mess we're in; because its smart, and fair, and honest. It should have seen global warming coming, for instance. (and, in fact, it did...but it hardly matters). Science has failed us because it has no power over its use. Science should have easily beaten the pope, and we shouldn't live on such a crowded planet. Science should have led us to the promised land by now; instead, it monitors the rate of our decline, in precise figures. Science should have kicked religion's butt out of the discussion by now, but it is rendered impotent by commercial concerns; by ass-kissing industry barons that aren't worthy or smart.

Politicians control the money that goes into scientific research. Politicians also have vested interests in greenhouse-gas- producing industries; maintaining a large, cheap labor force; and keeping the huddled masses opiated. Science hasn't failed us, politicians have.

Don't misread me , please. My allegiance is with science, and its method.

That's a relief. You had me going there for a while.


I'm merely trying to imagine how the population of the planet, at large, is still willing to distrust science in favor of complete woo nonsense.

Uneducated people that mistrust science do so, partly, because science is associated with negative symbols...like the hydrogen bomb; sophisticated weapons; mad-cow disease; thalidimide babies; s.u.v.s; traffic jams; bottled water that costs alot,yet replaces polluted water, polluted with certain chemicals that sound sciency.

The planet is dying. People sense that. Some blame science.
I don't. But i can imagine where they're coming from.

when science comes to your neighborhood, you can't swim in the creek anymore.
never mind that religion has never had a good plan, and is often the pawn of greed; that it encouraged reproduction without offering a place for the extra poop to go.

It's more that believing in woo does not require even so much as a high-school education, and most people would rather take the easy path and remain in a state of blissful vacuity than crack open a textbook and learn what is really going on.

We hold science to a higher standard. And yet it is impotent. we go down. No flying away to star-trek worlds; no jet-packs for flying around; no solution for our overall material woes. In some sense, science has failed us because it has no moral compass. In other ways, it has failed us because it has no means to avoid commercial corruption and exploitation.

This is called "Open Source / Open License": anyone with the wherewithall to contribute to science or exploit its principles is free to do so. Would you rather restrict the study of the univers to a select few "High Priests" who determine the morality of each discovery? Ask that astronomer -- Galileo What's-His-Name -- how that turns out.

Science is busy building the new great pyramid. it is busy designing our demise, as if it doesn't matter.

Science plans nothing. A plan implies a planner, which would imply an intelligence, which would imply a person. Science is not a person, therefore it can not plan. Thus Science is not planning our demise. Please do not anthropomorphize Science.

In conclusion, my problem with science is the same as my problem with religion:

It is corruptible. It functions as the whore of business. It has molested our children.
Science has figured out how to destroy the world.
People that aren't scientific notice stuff like that.

No, no, no...

Scientists are corruptible. Lawyers function as whores of business. Perverts molest our children. Engineers have figured out how to destroy the world. Politicians notice stuff like that

Science doesn't kill people. People kill people.

And they'll take my science books away from me when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

[H3LL]

I'm puzzled by the responses.

Science is perhaps exemplified by the word "discovered" not "invented".

Science drives technology, exemplified by "invented" and not "discovered".

The simplest hut warmed by the most basic fire providing cooking of food caught with the rudest weapons and carried home in the most basic pouch is science and the scientific method working and working well.

Simple scientific principles, proven by experience to be repeatable and effective over and over again provide the above basics.

Every god ever imagined has totally and utterly failed to provide even those basics.

Gods may win in the "comfort blanket" poll.

When it comes to survival and everything else that a technological civilisation requires - 100% converts to science.

Perhaps the naked man scratching for bugs and berries to eat is the only true convert to religion.

.

[H3LL]

And they'll take my science books away from me when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

:D

.


Nominated.

[FireGarden]

Perhaps the naked man scratching for bugs and berries to eat is the only true convert to religion.

There is a strong temptation to mention Juniper Bushes!

[H3LL]

There is a strong temptation to mention Juniper Bushes!

A temptation you totally failed to resist. ;)

I was thinking more on the lines of Small Gods and mushrooms but juniper bushes is good. Very good.



:D

.