A Conversation for Science as Religion

Writing Workshop: A861347 - Science as religion

Post 1

Gone again

Entry: Science as religion - A861347
Author: Pattern-chaser - U131178

Originally written as a stand-alone item, this proposed entry has been included in "Project: Belief" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A853751).

Science is NOT bad or wrong, this entry says, but sometimes it is misapplied....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 2

Spiff


Hi PC, smiley - smiley

i read this and found it very interesting, informative, and well-written. smiley - ok

I think you know it isn't classic EG material, but i wish you all the best with it. smiley - biggrin

cya
spiff


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 3

Gone again

Thanks, Spiff. smiley - ok

What's all this about the Great British article? D'you mean "a" and "the", or a magazine/newspaper article, or ...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 4

Gone again

I've made some minor changes to the text. As far as I can see, this entry is complete. If anyone disagrees, I'd welcome their observations....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 5

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

Hi PC. I know my remarks will be unwelcome, but so what? You are wrong in almost all you say! An egregious example is that stuff about believing involving choosing to believe. 'Little mystery' eh! You can't do that!

Can you choose to believe that you can fly, that 2+2=5 etc? Of course not. People might believe such things on the basis of experience, mental illness etc; and, sure, we can choose to have experiences which might convince us of certain things. But we can't just choose to believe.

I could point out further errors, but I'd better stop at this point before I start getting pre-modded or something. smiley - smiley


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 6

Gone again

<...that stuff about believing involving choosing to believe. 'Little mystery' eh!>

Are these really in http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A861347? I can't find them.... Are you commenting on the correct entry page, Toxxin?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 7

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

Ah yep, that stuff is on your other contribution to Ben's project 'Musings on Belief'. I don't disagree with your science entry! It's stuff that I've previously come across under the guise of 'the sociology of knowledge' and tends to be a critique of academia and scientists rather than science as such.

A more rigorous approach (IMHO) is D Bloor's paper 'Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus' which I can only find as a bare reference on the net! If anyone knows where the text can be found, I would be most greatful. As you can see from the title, it nicely combines mathematics and religion.


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 8

Spiff


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 9

Gone again

Toxxin: odd that "egregious" features in your vocabulary, but "sorry" doesn't.... smiley - sadface

The thread you're after is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F57153

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 10

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

Well I guess I happen to be feeling more egregious than penitent today. Shame that so many people are too pusillanimous to use that wonderful word.


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 11

Spiff


tocsin, smiley - smiley

'friendliness' has more letters than 'sorry', and is also a nice word. smiley - smiley

what's going wrong here?

spiff


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 12

Gone again

Hi Spiff, smiley - biggrin

Thanks for the thought, but when someone introduces themselves to a thread by saying "I know my remarks will be unwelcome, but so what?", I think it's fairly obvious what (or who) is going wrong. smiley - sadface

In the end, there comes a point where bending over backwards to be friendly, positive and courteous is dishonest: a refusal to recognise the real world as it is. smiley - erm Sadly, I think some people just enjoy being unpleasant.

I *ought* to be big enough to ignore it. smiley - zen Oh well, no-one's perfect. smiley - winkeye

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 13

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

Hi Spiff. I happen to know from previous interactions that PC isn't particularly receptive to criticism - however accurate and well-intentioned. I was clearly right in supposing that my comments on PC's 'musings on belief' item would be met with a less than grateful response. I suppose the stuff about 'sorry' is to do with the fact that I didn't post my response in quite the right slot. Oops! How terrible of me. What abject contrition I feel as a result. Excuse me while I scourge myself for an hour or two. smiley - biggrin


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 14

Gone again

Toxxin: how do you ? I think we have only encountered one another once before, while discussing *someone else's* proposed Guide Entry. The comments we exchanged did not concern my own work. [I think Spiff was there too, so you've no need to explain to him.]

So how *do* you come to know my attitude to criticism?

On my planet, it is normal to apologise if you make a mistake.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 15

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

I noted that you threw a bit of a tantrum about my criticism of someone else's work. I didn't exactly say 'criticism of yourself' in my post did I PC? So that answers your question does it not.

Yep Spiff was there and I appreciated the fair reaction - cheers again Spiff.

On my planet it is usual to thank someone for valid criticism of ones efforts before one embarrasses oneself more by going public with them. Instead I get a petty moan about what message should be sent where. That isn't exactly a setup that is calculated to elicit a polite response. Will 'Oops!' do?


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 16

Gone again

I certainly became impatient with your comments about Ben's proposed entry. I couldn't understand the point(s) you were trying to make; I still don't.

This thread concerns the proposed entry "Science as religion", with which I understand you have no quarrel. So can we terminate this conversation, in case there is someone out there who's being discouraged from making comments by this off-topic exchange? TIA.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 17

toxxin - ¡umop apisdn w,I 'aw dlaH

I take the view that people prefer to post to a lively discussion rather than one where people seem to be hanging about waiting for something. You wouldn't have expected me to agree though would you?

I also doubt whether there is an awful lot of meat left on this particular bone. smiley - smiley


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 18

Gone again

There *is* no bone, nor has there been, AIUI. Please post to the other thread if you want to discuss the other entry. TIA.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"


A861347 - Science as religion

Post 19

a girl called Ben

(I am going to ignore Toxxin's reluctance to adhere to standard and site netiquette surrounding WW threads and move on to the post which I had drafted off-line).

Pattern Chaser, I did read this when you first wrote it, I am not sure how I lost sight of it. I certainly missed it while all the hissing and spitting (by all three of you) was taking place.

I know it is a personal piece, but I am not sure it actually needs the disclaimer. You don't use the first person beyond the first two paragraphs, and the arguments are put forward cogently and coherently. (Extremely cogently and coherently if Toxxin approves it! smiley - winkeye) My instinct is to remove the first two paragrapsh and go straight in.

Ok - commentary:

Bullet 1 - both science and religion seek to understand and interpret the universe (imho). They do it in different ways, with different priorities, axioms and methodologies. But I am not sure you need to equate the Universe with God. This is a personal opinion, and the only paragraph I had any unease about. It is your entry, keep it the way it is, if that is what you mean.

And a nit:

I suggest you remove 'a good example' from the bullet about Eric Laithwaite. All three are good examples. I'd have liked a footnote or a linke about his work on gyroscopes though.

So - it is a good entry, and I apologise for ignoring it for so long. It sits well alongside A857694 and my own A827381 though that is not part of the project proper.

Many thanks for your thoughtful entry.

B


Writing Workshop: A861347 - Science as religion

Post 20

abrahams_mum

Hi, I am a christian and am quite interested in all points of view about opinions from any other religions or non believers. I think science has it's role to play in our past, but I do find it hard to think of religion as a science.

I love it when science is used for things like comfirming relics are real or not ( a bit like the many theories about the shroud of Turin). It proves beyond a doubt that there was a Jesus Christ, but there is no way to prove or disprove if he is God. or is he the only god , the only true God?? who can be 10000% definite. That all comes down to your personal beliefs.

I think that as long as you live your life true to your beliefs, there will be reward awaiting for you at the end of this mortal life. I hope science will not burst my hopes!!!!smiley - erm no I am sure my God will have my place waiting for me.


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more