Religion is science?

[Willum]

As we find out more, we refine our theories, I think this is agreeable.

So let's roll back the clock.
Isn't it reasonable the first scientific theories were that a father-like figure created lightning and made the crops grow?
That guided our fortunes,just like when we were children?

Then as we learn more, we need to explain less with mommy and daddy gods? and more and more with fundamental particles and evolution?

Aren't gods just a psychologically driven scientific model to describe non-psychological phenomenon?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 29 by Guy Threepwood]

Same goes for science v athiesm. Especially when it comes to 'creation'- the very notion was dismissed and mocked by athiests as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'Big Bang' before it became proven beyond most reasonable doubt.

Are you equating creation events as described by religions, with the physics-derived "Big Bang" hypothesis? The former are pure myths and not even pseudoscience, while the latter is a hypothesis based on current physics and does not take wildly different forms based on what physics is used. There is a very big difference.

Science is the method of learning about creation.

Really? Then which of the various creation events listed here is science investigating in order to learn about the subject?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Let me guess ... the one that you happen to believe is the correct version (the Christian biblical version perhaps)? Creation myths are common to many religions, and like their many different god concepts are wildly different and inconsistent and therefore can't possibly all be true. The Big Bang hypothesis is based on one current compilation of modern physics and is not related in any way to the many religious creation events, or even a single one of them. It doesn't describe a "creation" event in the same way that religions do.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 30 by DrNoGods]

Are you equating creation events as described by religions, with the physics-derived "Big Bang" hypothesis? The former are pure myths and not even pseudoscience, while the latter is a hypothesis based on current physics and does not take wildly different forms based on what physics is used. There is a very big difference.

You would have had to have argued that assertion with atheist Fred Hoyle, he mocked and rejected Lemaitre's Primeval Atom as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang' till the day he died, explicitly because of the overt theistic implications he and many other atheists saw in such a specific creation event.

They overwhelmingly preferred the opposite rationale; 'no creation = no creator' aka steady state

which of the various creation events listed here is science investigating in order to learn about the subject?

as above, it was only very recently we learned (grudgingly for some) that there even was a creation event as Genesis predicted, credit where it's due..

the static, eternal models as put forth by the likes of Hoyle and Einstein turned out the be the myths, didn't they?

As did Hawking's 'big crunch'.

Whichever religious creation story you pick, they were all more scientifically accurate than academic consensus - yet another coincidence perhaps!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 31 by Guy Threepwood]

You would have had to have argued that assertion with atheist Fred Hoyle, he mocked and rejected Lemaitre's Primeval Atom as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang' till the day he died, explicitly because of the overt theistic implications he and many other atheists saw in such a specific creation event.

Why do you keep bringing up Hoyle as if his singular opinion means anything at all to the modern consensus in physics? He is one person with his own opinions, and like anyone else, individual opinions don't mean anything at all when stood up against the accepted consensus in any particular field. I understand that it is standard procedure by theists to try and find any Ph.D scientist who has an opinion that supports their particular viewpoint and then trot them out as the authority, but there is no need to do that sort of thing for real science vs. pseudoscience or opinion. The consensus is based on a large number of published research in peer reviewed journals and the current interpretation and acceptance of those results. One person's personal opinion means nothing.

it was only very recently we learned (grudgingly for some) that there even was a creation event as Genesis predicted, credit where it's due..

You are clearly equating the Big Bang hypothesis with a religious-type creation event, and implying that this is what Genesis predicted. Genesis describes a god poofing things into existence from nothing because of his supernatural powers. The Big Bang hypothesis is the result of extrapolating observations of an expanding universe, combined with predictions from the theory of General Relativity and the Standard Model of physics. There is no correlation.

the static, eternal models as put forth by the likes of Hoyle and Einstein turned out the be the myths, didn't they?

Why stop with Hoyle and Einstein? Why not reference the models of Plato, Aristotle or Socrates and claim that since they were wrong there is some problem with science? One person's opinion means nothing, and science continually advances and abandons ideas that are shown to be wrong and replaces them with ideas that are better supported by observation and analysis. Hoyle's opinions aren't some gold standard that if proven wrong shows that all of science is therefore wrong. If his opinions had percolated to the top of the consensus and were accepted by everyone and confirmed by experiment and observation, then you'd have a point. But that isn't the case.

Whichever religious creation story you pick, they were all more scientifically accurate than academic consensus - yet another coincidence perhaps!

Demonstrably wrong. None of the religious creation myths have a shred of evidence to support them. And their complete inconsistency is proof enough that most of them have no validity... including the one from Genesis.

[WPG12]

[Replying to Guy Threepwood]

Actually this is not science

"Science is the method of learning about creation"

Using science to prove what you already think to be true, not science. Unless you think Graham Hancock is a scientist.

Scientists, accept what ever answer science proves, or disproves. While they may hope for what they think the answer to be, if it isn't the answer they want, then they have to accept it.
Sceintists look for truth in a physical world, not to prove themselves to be right, but because they love science, and the truths of what they find in it.

It seems religion has lost this completely, and instead of loving the process they use religion to prove their own thoughts to be right.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

The scientific method, developed by Francis Bacon, was born out of the reformation. The idea of "sola scriptura" was then brought to the other disciplines of life. The idea of "sola scriptura" is the following. That nothing should be believed that is not in Scripture or anything that Scripture condemns.

In Romans Scripture tells us that we can know God by the things that He hath made. So this is what started the Reformers down the road of observing nature and ushered in the scientific revolution we have today.

Now to be "clearly evident by the things that He hath made" one must observe it. So unless you have observed a Big Bang event lately. Which I do not believe you have or at least I have not seen it in the news. Then the Big Bang event is not even a theory it is simply a hypothesis.

So unless you believe that the creation of a big boltzmann brain that is imagining all of this as a big bang. Or you could believe information flattening out on the surface of the event horizon of a black hole as a big bang. Or some freckled face alien making this computer generated universe as a big bang.

Well then it seems that the bang seems to be out of your big bang.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 34 by EarthScienceguy]

Now to be "clearly evident by the things that He hath made" one must observe it. So unless you have observed a Big Bang event lately. Which I do not believe you have or at least I have not seen it in the news. Then the Big Bang event is not even a theory it is simply a hypothesis.

Have I not referred to the Big Bang as a hypothesis in every post I've made that referenced it? Go back and read them if you want to check. Just more twisting of someone's words which you seem to have fun doing to try and make a point.

Are you saying that anything a human has not directly observed, doesn't exist? That anything and everything that is inferred from observation and analysis rather than being directly seen by a human, doesn't exist. That is a weak and ridiculous argument and I assume you are not serious.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 35 by DrNoGods]

That is the scientific method. If you cannot observe it and you cannot measure it and I also should have put in there repeat it. It falls outside the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to Guy Threepwood]

Actually this is not science

"Science is the method of learning about creation"

Using science to prove what you already think to be true, not science. Unless you think Graham Hancock is a scientist.

Scientists, accept what ever answer science proves, or disproves. While they may hope for what they think the answer to be, if it isn't the answer they want, then they have to accept it.
Sceintists look for truth in a physical world, not to prove themselves to be right, but because they love science, and the truths of what they find in it.

It seems religion has lost this completely, and instead of loving the process they use religion to prove their own thoughts to be right.

We see the exact opposite, again Atheists like Hoyle rejected the Big Bang explicitly because of the theistic implications he saw, it didn't fit with his world view- and so he refused to accept it till his dying day in the 80's. a clear case of science versus atheism regarding arguably the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time

the priest Lemaitre in stark contrast, went out of his was to disassociate his theory with God- even telling the Pope to quit gloating!.

THAT'S the scientific approach. - we all have beliefs, and we have to try to separate those from our scientific conclusions- and follow the evidence wherever it leads, right?

So that's the fundamental problem with atheism here- how does a person separate a personal belief, that he stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge as such?

blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

[Bust Nak]

So that's the fundamental problem with atheism here- how does a person separate a personal belief, that he stubbornly refuses to even acknowledge as such?

How is this a fundamental problem with atheism though? We are quite open minded, it's much easier for us to separate our beliefs from our scientific conclusions and follow the evidence wherever it leads, as our identity isn't tied to a particular religion.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 32 by DrNoGods]

Why do you keep bringing up Hoyle as if his singular opinion means anything at all to the modern consensus in physics? He is one person with his own opinions, and like anyone else, individual opinions don't mean anything at all when stood up against the accepted consensus in any particular field. I understand that it is standard procedure by theists to try and find any Ph.D scientist who has an opinion that supports their particular viewpoint and then trot them out as the authority, but there is no need to do that sort of thing for real science vs. pseudoscience or opinion. The consensus is based on a large number of published research in peer reviewed journals and the current interpretation and acceptance of those results. One person's personal opinion means nothing.

That would be my point also
the opinion of scientists means nothing to science the method, but means everything to science 'the opinion', the 'academic consensus' at any time.

So I don't bring it up any more often than somebody offers their opinion that something is inherently 'pseudoscience' v 'scientific fact'- the BB was arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and 'pseudoscience' is exactly what most scientists particularly atheists at the time, labelled it.

You are clearly equating the Big Bang hypothesis with a religious-type creation event, and implying that this is what Genesis predicted. Genesis describes a god poofing things into existence from nothing because of his supernatural powers. The Big Bang hypothesis is the result of extrapolating observations of an expanding universe, combined with predictions from the theory of General Relativity and the Standard Model of physics. There is no correlation.

once again, it was atheists who overwhelmingly made this correlation- they preferred the opposite rationale 'no creation = no creator'

Of course there being a beginning to the universe complies with Genesis better than a static one- that does not prove everything in Genesis to be true, just that we have to follow the evidence where it leads, not away from it- simply because we don't like the 'theistic implications' of something.

Why not reference the models of Plato, Aristotle or Socrates and claim that since they were wrong there is some problem with science? One person's opinion means nothing, and science continually advances and abandons ideas that are shown to be wrong and replaces them with ideas that are better supported by observation and analysis.

Again not just 'one person's opinion' Hoyle, Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan, Hawking and many more- all explicitly link(ed) their positions with their ideological materialist beliefs- creating a constant battle between scientific progress and atheist preferences.

i.e. it's not just that their theories were wrong, but WHY they were wrong, they were founded on preferences for particular conclusions rather than the evidence itself

None of the religious creation myths have a shred of evidence to support them. And their complete inconsistency is proof enough that most of them have no validity... including the one from Genesis.

that the universe did in fact begin with a specific creation event, much to the chagrin of many atheists- right there is a pretty remarkable 'coincidence' if you like, I am not the one claiming any facts here. The wise man knows himself to be a fool!

Also that the Earth was once one vast ocean, and then one vast land mass and one ocean, that life began in the ocean and culminated with mankind... all lucky guesses also perhaps?

But what did steady state correctly predict? how about 'Big Crunch' 'string theory' 'M theory' the flying spaghetti multiverse? any luck there yet?