Science Is/As A Religion

[Old Rocks]

I don't see living a lie as quality control. Silly me.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm no more arguing in favor of the promises and reassurances of religious authorities or sacred texts than I am the wishful thinking of those who foresee technology gradually taking away those things that make us human. The empty quest for immortality from both camps tends to have the unpleasant effect of crowding out the more important quest for a life well-lived and well-ended.

I would have to disagree with you here. At 67, I realize just how little I know. If one had a indefinate lifespan, one in which you did not die of old age, but of some accident, then the amount of knowledge, and ability to put that knowledge together in a new way, would be vastly increased.

As far as immortality is concerned, ain't gonna happen. The universe will eventually terminate each and every one of us in some manner.

Disruptions caused by a large portion of the population gaining a much longer life span would be very great. Interesting ideas for Sci-Fi stories there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am curious too. Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions.

I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.

I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.

Someone had donated them.

Scientology was made up by a hack SF author from the Golden Age and really doesn't answer anything, but the most singular lack is its addressing good v evil dichotomy. It is a bit like Buddhism, except you have to achieve enlightenment through self awareness instead of giving up self.

I am no fan of Scientology. I find their assault on Psychiatry to be an offensive insult to the collective intelligence of the world.

That being said, like all religions they have their own set of mythos to explain the crucial questions. To include good and bad (Xenu).

If there was a starter kit for a religion, it would have instructions on addressing all the questions that STH referenced. People are attracted to religion because it answers those questions.

I am not knocking religion (other than scientology which I don't consider to be an actual religion), I am just pointing out that the fear of the unknown is what drives people to adhere to adopt a "faith" that their beliefs are right.

Feel free to mock Scientology as much as you want. If you ever need more ammo just read Hubbard's other books, or even watch the movie Battlefied Earth if you can stomach it. Scientology does not really address the concept of evil, or even good and bad. Actions are either positive or negative depending on how they align with the 8 dynamics. Some people suffer, but that is because the universe has them trapped, and they can overcome suffering by understanding themselves and paying buckoo bucks to erase their engrams.

There is great debate in Christianity about suffering and why it exists. Some people pretend to have an answer, and they all end up looking like fools when people look at the real world. The intelligent believers understand this, and admit that the answers are not their. No religion has the answers, and anyone that claims they do is lying.

Trust in a religion is not about knowing the answers as much as it is about knowing that there is more to life than what we can perceive. Most people who believe in whatever they believe in do so because they obtain a sense of hope and peace, not because they are afraid of the unknown. It is actually pretty easy to dismiss belief as fear of the unknown, but that sells its real value short.

There are a lot of things I am afraid of, but the unknown is not really one of them. I have way to many real dangers to worry about, including crossing the street every day, to worry about things I do not know about. I did not turn to God because I was afraid, I turned to Him because He loves me, and everyone else on the planet.

No one is going to hell for not believing in God. As far as I know no one is actually going to hell. God is not vindictive, and does not need worship. Believing in God is a bit like being married, no matter how bad life gets there is always someone there to talk to. It may not make life better, but it does make me better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years. That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.

Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements. This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most. When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.

Faith is the sugar pill. Cloning will be the cure.

What evidence do you have that we could live a couple of hundred years? I have been looking around for a quarter of that time and I have never seen anyone survive more than 130 years, and most people don't get anywhere near that. Maybe if you weren't so afraid of the unknown yourself you would not be making absurd claims for science and treating it like it has, or can get, all the answers. It is impossible for us to know everything, even if we live forever. Science will never have all the answers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years. That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.

I'd argue that the quest to continually tack on life-years is misguided (and, perhaps, tragic). The immortality fantasy is exactly why religions exist. And that's a shame because I have no doubt that for many people spirituality can provide a much richer life, as can many forms of philosophy. Yet people persist in preferring quantity to quality, opting for cheap promises and empty reassurances over the pursuit of deeper insights. Everyone will die; every lifespan is finite. I'd much prefer to see the quality of that lifespan improved (materially, intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, etc) than seeing it artificially lengthened.

I don't see why we cannot have both myself, but I essentially agree with what you are saying. It is better to have a short, rich life than to have a long one stuck in a life support capsule never interacting with the real world.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Scientology does not really address the concept of evil

You mean, aside from the source you yourself just cited with a large bolded section heading of "Why Evil?" Right.

Most people who believe in whatever they believe in do so because they obtain a sense of hope and peace, not because they are afraid of the unknown.

These things are not mutually exclusive. Most people find hope and peace when fears of the unknown are removed. One of the largest fears, for example, fear of permanently dying, is one of the largest concepts addressed by most religions. Claiming people don't really permanently die gives people hope and peace. So it's not that people fear the unknown, because the unknown is "removed" by the religion. The alternative of not believing in the religion re-introduces that unknown, which is why it's avoided.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because the 'sceptics' cannot argue the science that it is based on. Therefore, the red herring used is to claim it is a religion to be accepted on faith. Of course, sites like this show the science that the fact of AGW is based on;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

It is a religion because the High Priest of AGW (aka Al Gore) uses it to line his own pockets and tells lies, and his disciples call for the death of disbelievers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[quote=SmarterThanHick;3146539]You mean, aside from the source you yourself just cited with a large bolded section heading of "Why Evil?" Right. [/quote]

You mean this?

Painful experiences and harmful acts in one's prebirth, current, and past lives become imprinted in the reactive mind and lead to irrational behavior. Departures from rational thought and untrue ideas ("aberrations") can result in wrongdoing.

Here is what the official Scientology site says about good and evil.

Yes, in Scientology, a very clear distinction is made between good and evil. Those actions which enhance survival on the majority of the eight aspects of life are good, and those which destroy or deny these aspects of life are evil. Scientologists strive to make decisions that will enhance the majority of these dynamics of life.

Good may be defined as constructive. Evil may be defined as destructive.

Does Scientology recognize good and evil?

Good and evil are concepts that lie outside of us, they are not the results of us trying to get better, or of refusing to do so. All Scientology talks about is self improvement and the positive and negative in relation to the 8 dynamics. If you insist on defending a hack SF writer at least understand exactly what it is he is saying and defend him on terms that relate to his concepts, do not apply your own definitions to his words

[quote=SmarterThanHick;3146539]These things are not mutually exclusive. Most people find hope and peace when fears of the unknown are removed. One of the largest fears, for example, fear of permanently dying, is one of the largest concepts addressed by most religions. Claiming people don't really permanently die gives people hope and peace. So it's not that people fear the unknown, because the unknown is "removed" by the religion. The alternative of not believing in the religion re-introduces that unknown, which is why it's avoided.[/quote]

Where did I say they were exclusive? I just said that fear of the unknown is not the driving force. Also, where did I say people do not die? Are you again attempting to confine me in your definitions of what I believe? If so, I will again concede the debate to you as you are incapable of admitting you are not doing exactly that, and always insist that you are the one that is right. Must be nice to be right all the time, I always get upset when I find out I was wrong and it would be wonderful never to feel that way again.

Maybe you should join Scientology, your thought processes make as much sense as theirs.

 

[Muhammed]

Sometimes religions are falsely presented as science. For instance Al Gore's Global Warming Cult and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology.

how is the concept of global warming a religion?

It's not the concept that the Earth warms and cools. It's man-made global warming alarmism such as that preached by Al Gore and the like that I'm talking about. I've been studying religious cults and how they operate for decades. And in my expert opinion the global warming alarmist movement has all the trappings of a cult. To be more specific, it is what is known to experts as a 'doomsday cult'.

The Manson family is another famous doomsday cult you may be familiar with. And interestingly enough, it's leader Charles Manson was one of the first Global Warming gurus to gain fame in the US. He was preaching that global warming alarmism BS long before Al Gore got famous.

There have been several recent violent incidents committed by the global warming fanatics. For example, the couple in Agentina that made a suicide pact because of their fear of global warming. In that incident the father shot the two children and his wife, then shot himself. Only the baby survived. Then there is the guy who took hostages at the Discovery Channel Building before committing suicide by cop.

Doomsday cults are generally classified as being either benign or dangerous. The Global Warming Cult is an example of a dangerous doomsday cult because of the violence, threats of violence and corruption associated with it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It is a religion because the High Priest of AGW (aka Al Gore) uses it to line his own pockets and tells lies, and his disciples call for the death of disbelievers.

Except, he doesn't actually call for people to die, and it has nothing to do with spiritual beliefs. So again I ask: how is it a religion?

Perhaps you don't actually understand what a religion entails. This may help: Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, in Scientology, a very clear distinction is made between good and evil. Those actions which enhance survival on the majority of the eight aspects of life are good, and those which destroy or deny these aspects of life are evil. Scientologists strive to make decisions that will enhance the majority of these dynamics of life.

Good may be defined as constructive. Evil may be defined as destructive.

Again you claim scientology doesn't address good and evil and then quote where it does exactly that. You seem very confused on the matter, as you just proved my point again: scientology, like many other religions, address matters of good and evil in some way. Or are you now trying to claim that the manner in which they address good and evil doesn't count per your made up definition?

Also, where did I say people do not die? Are you again attempting to confine me in your definitions of what I believe?

You didn't say such a thing. If you think I insinuated such, perhaps you should go reread. If you are still unconvinced, please copy and paste so I can laugh at your misinterpretation.

If so, I will again concede the debate to you as you are incapable of admitting you are not doing exactly that, and always insist that you are the one that is right. Must be nice to be right all the time, I always get upset when I find out I was wrong and it would be wonderful never to feel that way again.

Oh too late, I'm already laughing at this grumpy whining stemming from you trying to victimize yourself so hard you misinterpret things other people say.

It's not the concept that the Earth warms and cools. It's man-made global warming alarmism such as that preached by Al Gore and the like that I'm talking about. I've been studying religious cults and how they operate for decades. And in my expert opinion the global warming alarmist movement has all the trappings of a cult.

Fanatics and crazies do not a religion make. People can be fanatical about a number of things, including but not limited to politics, sports, and movie star stalking. That does not make it religious. Your "expert opinion" is laughable. But please, elaborate as to which specific aspects of this have anything to do with religion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar what religion is as well? See the link above.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is a religion because the High Priest of AGW (aka Al Gore) uses it to line his own pockets and tells lies, and his disciples call for the death of disbelievers.

Except, he doesn't actually call for people to die, and it has nothing to do with spiritual beliefs. So again I ask: how is it a religion?

Perhaps you don't actually understand what a religion entails. This may help: Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Again you claim scientology doesn't address good and evil and then quote where it does exactly that. You seem very confused on the matter, as you just proved my point again: scientology, like many other religions, address matters of good and evil in some way. Or are you now trying to claim that the manner in which they address good and evil doesn't count per your made up definition?


You didn't say such a thing. If you think I insinuated such, perhaps you should go reread. If you are still unconvinced, please copy and paste so I can laugh at your misinterpretation.

If so, I will again concede the debate to you as you are incapable of admitting you are not doing exactly that, and always insist that you are the one that is right. Must be nice to be right all the time, I always get upset when I find out I was wrong and it would be wonderful never to feel that way again.

Oh too late, I'm already laughing at this grumpy whining stemming from you trying to victimize yourself so hard you misinterpret things other people say.

It's not the concept that the Earth warms and cools. It's man-made global warming alarmism such as that preached by Al Gore and the like that I'm talking about. I've been studying religious cults and how they operate for decades. And in my expert opinion the global warming alarmist movement has all the trappings of a cult.

Fanatics and crazies do not a religion make. People can be fanatical about a number of things, including but not limited to politics, sports, and movie star stalking. That does not make it religious. Your "expert opinion" is laughable. But please, elaborate as to which specific aspects of this have anything to do with religion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar what religion is as well? See the link above.

I'll make it really simple for you.

If Scientology actually meets whatever definition you have for religion, than I can easily fit AGW into the same definition. There is no way you can define Scientology as a religion that would exclude AGW unless you require that a religion define itself by applying to the US Government for tax exempt status. I am not even sure that would apply since Al Gore routinely applies for subsidies for his "business" interests.

Bet feel free to continue to apply your own interpretation of English, since you will anyway.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'll make it really simple for you.

If Scientology actually meets whatever definition you have for religion, than I can easily fit AGW into the same definition. There is no way you can define Scientology as a religion that would exclude AGW unless you require that a religion define itself by applying to the US Government for tax exempt status. I am not even sure that would apply since Al Gore routinely applies for subsidies for his "business" interests.

Bet feel free to continue to apply your own interpretation of English, since you will anyway.

That's not quite how it works. You don't get to call global warming a religion just because I call scientology a religion. You're wrong, regardless of what correct points I make. This has nothing to do with my personal interpretation of English. I just gave you a Wikipedia article to read which you clearly didn't. If you don't like that source, you can select any standard dictionary in the country. It will still show me to be correct, and you to be making things up.

You seem incapable of distinguishing between religious beliefs and political beliefs. EVEN IF they have something in common, it does not make them equal.

But here, instead of relying on your avoidance of the actual issue, I'll just provide the definitions for you:

Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.

Applies to scientology, and not global warming.

re·li·gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn]
–noun a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Applies to scientology, and not global warming.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power

Applies to scientology, and not global warming.

Are you starting to catch the trend now? Yes, if you do continue to make your ridiculous point, I will continue to shoot you down with those pesky things called facts and reason.

 

[sangha]

Ahem.

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it.

--

Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (Wiley: 2010). He is an associate professor of Physics at Drexel University.​

Looks like it's not a lie.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The author does not say he believes that dark matter exists. He says there is "compelling evidence" that it does exist. He even admits that it could be wrong and goes on to say " I'll put my money on Dark Matter and general relativity any day." which makes it clear his position is not certain.

It is a lie. Try again

No, it's not a lie, your childish petulance and foot-stamping notwithstanding.

If Sangha didn't have tantrums, he'd have nothing to say.

Once again, after destroying this wingnuts lies, the only response he can muster is "You're wrong!!"

davey boy claimed that scientists believe that dark matter exists, but he can't post any evidence to support his lie

 

[sangha]

Funny...you make that same statement (or a variation) whenever you've been proven wrong.

If Sangha didn't claim he won teh innternets, he'd have nothing to say.

Wrong.

I only say that when a wingnut fails to post anything but childish insults and claims they're too afraid to back up

The way you won't defend your lie about how I denied that some dumb people share my opinion on this issue

So how about it, fairy boy? Are you going to defend your lie about me denying that, or are you going to run away like the fairy that you are?

Here, for one, you childish little git.

You'd rather call me a liar than accept that stupid people share your views.

Now, quick! Pretend I didn't just prove my point!

dave lie #1 - scientists believe in dark matter

dave lie #2 - I denied that there are stupid people on either side

That's why dave won't post the quote. He knows the post doesn't say what he claims it says. Dave thinks his newest lie will cover up his earlier lies. Here's what my post says:

Once again, Dave can't support his lies, so he's going to insist that mythical "sciencers" believe that evolution explains the origins of life.

Let us know when you have the balls to identify any of these mythical "sciencers

 

[sangha]

WTF?! I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists".

Right. You spoke about sciencers that don't exist, and you spoke about stupid people who agree with me about something (but you don't mention what we agree on)

You're just making shit up, now, Skippy. If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making. But that's a common leftist failing. You idiots subscribe to the "Fake But Accurate" method.

So now you want to deny that you made up some nonsense about sciencers?

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

You're being irrational. Once again, I've never talked about "stupid people who think dark matter exists" as you claim I have. If you think I have, you'd best be linking it. I'm getting tired of your nonsense.

Translation - dave won't repeat and clarify his accusation because he knows it's a lie

For the record - fave accused me of denying that there are stupid people on both sides of this issue, but he's too scared to post a quote of mine to prove his point. All he has is his childish insults. I'll repeat

Do you want to continue to claim that I denied something true in the post you linked to? Maybe you could actually state, using your own words, what you think I denied?

Or you can continue to post your childish taunts

 

[sangha]

"The List" is not supposed to be an intelligent discussion thread. This one started out with some hope of sharing views with some respect.

I shared an experience I had. Somebody got all butthurt about it. Shit happens.

Did it need to happen over a hundred replies to the point that the thread was rendered beyond repair?

Shit doesn't "just happen". You deposit it intentionally. Thanks. Grow up.

It is impossible for a wingnut to take responsibility for his actions

 

[sangha]

I am reposting this post by QW to show that he was right. He did not say that I was "half right" He said that I was "almost right"

But he can't say what isn't right

You are almost right.

Sure I can, I just didn't, it is more fun watching you twist in the wind.

The part you got where you are wrong is where you say God's existence is unprovable.

How is Gods' existence provable?

 

[sangha]

What the sciencers fail to realize a lot of times is that evolution explains only the differentiation of species. It doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

evolution and abiogenisis are two differant subjects.

I know, as I've made quite plain throughout this entire thread.

However...not everyone knows they're different...including some who don't believe in creation.

 

[IanC]

unfortunately science has been distorted by the influence of outsiders who supply the money. climate science is a stark example but there are many others. the trend is to have political scientists that excel at raising funds for project that they are lead authors but do little of the actual research. this has been at the expense of small groups doing independent work in different directions. zombie science is when an area should naturally whither and die off but the constant influx of funds keeps it going.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse? well you're probably right.

nonetheless, none of it is religion.

 

[IanC]

I thought zombie science is when we experiment on zombies trying to find the fountain of youth and one gets out, causing zombie apocalypse? well you're probably right.

nonetheless, none of it is religion.

I think most people are saying that science is a religion because so many are deferring to science to give them the answers to things they dont understand rather than organized religion. they would rather just believe than think or be unsure.