Is Scientific Endeavour a Doctrinal Theology?

[Thomas123]

People often refer to false Gods!

I consider that this is a matter of human abilities failing.

False:1.not according with truth or fact; incorrect

Scientific endeavour appears to me to have a theology.

It appears to want to make life better for its fellow humans.
It appears to want to sustain more humans.
It appears to want to make humans live longer.

Are these the aspirational goals of this religious worship?
Many people in the sciences are sincere and well intentioned and much of our modern convenience can be attributed to scientific endeavour.
Is it incorrect to call this worship?

Have these sciences anything to do with objective fact or truth?
Are the Sciences false?

A false God doesn't work!
Is science working?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by Thomas123]

Take the Hawkings* quote,that squarely pits Science against religion. To have such unflinching zeal and belief in an imperfect ideal is religious in nature.

You seem to be confusing zeal with religious zeal. The latter is exemplified by the great energy and enthusiasm demonstrated by the Spanish as the hacked and chopped their Christianity in the unwilling minds of the people in the new World. You don't need religion to show zeal in the pursuit of any cause or objective.

Is Science just lining it's own pockets by selling guns to the Indians or is it intellectually being the unwitting sponsor of human revolution against our own rejected , and scientifically described , nature.?

What has science got to do with this? Guns don't sell themselves. Guns don't fire themselves. If you ask the gun lobby they will even tell that guns don't kill people: "Guns don't kill people - people kill people". If you have a better or more reliable process than the scientific method for investigating reality and sifting the real from the imaginary, then please present it.

[* Hawking]

[Thomas123]

  Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio ... t_Einstein

There is a lot in this link but my basic point about the connect between, well meaning and rational scientific endeavour and religion is reinforced throughout. This scientist's general conclusions, reinforce my basic point that we are chipping at an iceberg here.


The best we can hope for from intuitive scientific scrutiny, is a subjective ,working model of our existence, which will most likely be a lie, or false., except to us. In the meantime we will have dismissed the original validity produced by our own instinctive interactions with this existence that were based primarily on an evolved empathy. Our science will kill our soul.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 22 by Thomas123]

God tells people to bash kids heads on rocks! Bad God! Science kills and is blameless or does it blame God as well. I am thinking of the never ending proliferation, and upgrading of scientific warfare.

That comparison is absurd. Science is not a sentient being. It doesn't tell anyone to do anything. Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them. Science doesn't kill. People kill. God kills.

ETA: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.�
― Stephen Hawking

Exactly. All these accusations against science amount to are theists trying to bring science down to the meaningless level of their own failed theologies.

If they had a theology that had any merit they could support it on its own merit. The mere fact that all they have left is to desperately try to discredit science is really nothing short of an open admission that their theology has nothing meaningful to offer.

If their theology could stand on its own two feet they wouldn't have any need to try to cut the legs out from under science.

These kinds of threads only confirm the failed state of theology.

[Thomas123]

There is a strong hypothesis that science will reach its limit and burn itself out. The idea that we will find an answer that we are prepared to accept. No chance!.
We will continue to play with the matches on the peripheries of this catastrophe.

This meddling is most obvious in the medical sciences and in genetics where we experiment while being blinded by complexity. Again I have to state that we were a generally healthy and thriving species, by default,as were our crops and our food. What malaise does this army crusade against and for what purpose. As I asked in the opening post, Do they want us to live longer? Why? Do they want more humans? Why? Einstein attempted to abstain science from consequence but if you do that then surely the whole experiment/result paradigm in science becomes a nonsense.

It doesn't really matter, the money is good!
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/glassdo ... -2019.html

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 22 by Thomas123]

God tells people to bash kids heads on rocks! Bad God! Science kills and is blameless or does it blame God as well. I am thinking of the never ending proliferation, and upgrading of scientific warfare.

That comparison is absurd. Science is not a sentient being. It doesn't tell anyone to do anything. Science is the study of the nature and behaviour of natural things and the knowledge that we obtain about them. Science doesn't kill. People kill. God kills.

ETA: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.�
― Stephen Hawking

Exactly. All these accusations against science amount to are theists trying to bring science down to the meaningless level of their own failed theologies.

If they had a theology that had any merit they could support it on its own merit. The mere fact that all they have left is to desperately try to discredit science is really nothing short of an open admission that their theology has nothing meaningful to offer.

If their theology could stand on its own two feet they wouldn't have any need to try to cut the legs out from under science.

These kinds of threads only confirm the failed state of theology.

Exactly, is a pleading!
Did you look at the Einstein link?
Was he one of your 'special pleading ' theists!
The conviction of your own assertions has you charging like a bull at a cape.
Well, anyway,...more bewilderment from the great man,himself.

Einstein:
“Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem–in my opinion–to characterize our age"

It hasn't changed much, Albert!

[Thomas123]

Einstein seems to have been on the circuit for quite a while and his words were gathered voraciously. I agree with much of what he appears to suggest but feel that he again, ran with the hare and the hounds.
......

"Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter, the poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientist do, each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way the peace and security which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience."
— Albert Einstein
Address at The Physical Society, Berlin (1918) for Max Planck’s 60th birthday, 'Principles of Research', collected in Essays in Science (1934

The narrow whirlpool of personal experience?
That must be just the raw fact of our nature, the boredom of the primate, the impulse to meddle ,just to pass the time. A creature fighting schizophrenic madness. This hypothesis is a very strange one on which to build an apology for the natural sciences.

Am I reading this incorrectly?