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?

[Divine Insight]

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.

This is simply not true. Science doesn't "want" anything. Science is just a method to discover the truth of our world. What anyone does with the truth that science uncovers is there business.

Some people have used scientific knowledge to build weapons of war to kills large numbers of people. The Atom Bomb is a prime example of this.

Other people try to apply scientific knowledge for the betterment of humanity. And in many cases even that backfires due to misuse or abuse of the scientific knowledge.

Science itself is not a theology, or is it ever a doctrine or dogma. Science just reports what is true about the world in which we live. If you want to call that a theological dogma more power to you. But I would personally see that as an abuse of those terms.

Also, what would be the purpose of this attempt to label science as theological dogma? I'm guessing the motivation for this could only be to try to bring it down to the level of religious theology in an attempt to try to claim that there is no difference between science (which is based on observed facts of reality) versus religious doctrines (which have no basis for the supernatural claims they make).

There's just no comparison.

Also, any attempt to bring science down to the level of theology is really nothing more than a confession that theology can never be lifted up to the level of science.

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight
"Science itself is not a theology, or is it ever a doctrine or dogma. Science just reports what is true about the world in which we live. If you want to call that a theological dogma more power to you."

Thomas 123
" What else could you call that?"

Divine Insight
"This is simply not true. Science doesn't "want" anything. Science is just a method to discover the truth of our world. What anyone does with the truth that science uncovers is there business."

Thomas123
This just resonates with me personally, as an apology for a mediocre religion.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

Also, what would be the purpose of this attempt to label science as theological dogma? I'm guessing the motivation for this could only be to try to bring it down to the level of religious theology.....

Precisely. It's a bit like someone saying "Well your beliefs are really just as ridiculous as mine". Science is as far from religion as it is possible to get. I can't see any purpose in resurrecting this dead horse just to give it another flogging.
<rant over>

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 8 by Thomas123]

How is the scientific method not doctrine?

Because it is a process, without predetermined conclusions. Religious doctrine has no basis other than human opinion and human formulation of ideas and rules pieced together to create the doctrine. The rules and conclusions of the doctrine are predetermined and not found by experiment, measurement, etc. They are essentially made up by humans, which is evidenced by the large numbers of religions and gods humans have created, many of which are incompatible with each other.

The scientific method is a process whereby hypotheses are created to try and explain observations, and the hypothesis is tested by experiment and additional observations which can be carried out by anyone suitable skilled. Anyone can throw darts at the hypothesis and try to disprove it, and this process may result in changes to the original hypothesis until a valid explanation is obtained that is consistent with known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. If enough supporting evidence is obtained then the hypothesis becomes a theory and is generally accepted to be true.

Religious doctrine goes through none of this process of experimentation, testing, refinement, etc., and in many cases changes are expressly forbidden (eg. Islam). It is in no way comparable to the scientific method, which is a process or methodology for arriving at explanations based on experiment and observation, reproducibility of results, and being subject to refinement, change, or discard as new information comes along.

Your submission to the topic, DrNoGods, is an excellent example of the generic response that attempts to maintain a dichotomy between religion and scientific endeavour. You attempt to narrow our focus towards the fundamental difference that you declare exists between doctrine and scientific method. I stumbled across this methodology during my reading...

Something that is presented as “95% fat-free� sounds healthier than “5% fat�, for instance – a phenomenon known as the framing bias.

I wanted to applaud your success in this effort but I cannot. I have been reading about Intelligence and I.Q. and Critical thinking and such matters. It appears to be a scientific fact that human intelligence has evolved , incredibly slowly,over vast periods of time.(700,000+). It would appear that religions and doctrinal thought were attended to by people ,in our past who were just as bright as the thinking minds of today. There is no evidence to suggest that the scientific method is a brilliantly fool proof modus that is unique and uncontaminated by the limitations of the human.


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2019 ... telligence

Scientific method is 'hypothesis' driven as you suggest and its enquiry runs the same gauntlet of uncertainty that theistic doctrine formulation encounters.

The faculty of Critical thinking is battered off course by the onslaught of considerations such as the following.

Sunk cost bias
Confirmation bias
Temporal discounting
Challenging assumptions
Identifying missing information
Looking at alternative explanations( please read article)

"Given these looser correlations, it would make sense that the rise in IQs has not been accompanied by a similarly miraculous improvement in all kinds of decision making".

Science presents lies as the truth, imho.
Like false religions, the vast human family place their trust in this church's offerings in blind faith and in acceptance of their beneficial effects.

The number 16 has entered my head.
I might make it my lucky number.
It is sixteen ones. Eight two's. Four Fours and Two eights.
Sixteen is a talking donkey in my book.
It might as well be an angel.
If you extract it from numbers then the whole system collapses.
There is no fact or truth about this entity other than as a subjective human prop to a scientific method. Imho.

[Tcg]

Science presents lies as the truth, imho.

There is no reason to leave this as your humble opinion. Just support your claim with actual evidence. Of course if you have no actual evidence, this will be left as nothing other than a personal opinion which has no value in reasoned debate or science.


Tcg

[Thomas123]

Idolatry: extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone

This is just another definition that could easily be ascribed to the product and manifestations of scientific endeavour.

Take the aeroplane ,for example.
100,000+ jet flights daily, millions of people.
10,000 private jet flights daily in U.S.
Most defence forces see these creations as vital.
We have managed without them for the last two months and the atmosphere is the better for it.

This is an idol of science.

The human was never designed to fly but now that we can , we are understandably infatuated with its potentials. Let us be blunt here, the facility to 'uninvent' has long left us. Our technologies will never fester in some futuristic Atlantis. Do we even factor in the consequential implications of our enquiries. Are we entranced by this shape shifting Deity. I think we are,

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/pro ... emissions/

[Clownboat]

Idolatry: extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone

This is just another definition that could easily be ascribed to the product and manifestations of scientific endeavour.

Take the aeroplane ,for example.
100,000+ jet flights daily, millions of people.
10,000 private jet flights daily in U.S.
Most defence forces see these creations as vital.
We have managed without them for the last two months and the atmosphere is the better for it.

This is an idol of science.

The human was never designed to fly but now that we can , we are understandably infatuated with its potentials. Let us be blunt here, the facility to 'uninvent' has long left us. Our technologies will never fester in some futuristic Atlantis. Do we even factor in the consequential implications of our enquiries. Are we entranced by this shape shifting Deity. I think we are,

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/pro ... emissions/

Is it possible that you are too religiously minded to think scientifically? This would sure blur the line between religious beliefs and science as you seem to.

The methedology of how science is different then religion was laid out for you and yet seems completely lost on you, thus I wonder.

You asked: "How is the scientific method not doctrine?"
DrNoGods response seemed on point: "Because it is a process, without predetermined conclusions. Religious doctrine has no basis other than human opinion and human formulation of ideas and rules pieced together to create the doctrine. The rules and conclusions of the doctrine are predetermined and not found by experiment, measurement, etc. They are essentially made up by humans, which is evidenced by the large numbers of religions and gods humans have created, many of which are incompatible with each other.

The scientific method is a process whereby hypotheses are created to try and explain observations, and the hypothesis is tested by experiment and additional observations which can be carried out by anyone suitable skilled. Anyone can throw darts at the hypothesis and try to disprove it, and this process may result in changes to the original hypothesis until a valid explanation is obtained that is consistent with known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. If enough supporting evidence is obtained then the hypothesis becomes a theory and is generally accepted to be true.

Religious doctrine goes through none of this process of experimentation, testing, refinement, etc., and in many cases changes are expressly forbidden (eg. Islam). It is in no way comparable to the scientific method, which is a process or methodology for arriving at explanations based on experiment and observation, reproducibility of results, and being subject to refinement, change, or discard as new information comes along."

And yet, here you are seeming to play pretend and inventing idols of science. What's next, scientific faith?


In regards to flying you stated: "This is an idol of science."

The words by Divine Insight seem true: "Also, any attempt to bring science down to the level of theology is really nothing more than a confession that theology can never be lifted up to the level of science."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 14 by Thomas123]

There is no evidence to suggest that the scientific method is a brilliantly fool proof modus that is unique and uncontaminated by the limitations of the human.

And who has ever made that claim? If humans engage in it, then it is subject to all of the faults humans have in terms of bias, cheating, etc. But that is true of anything humans do. This doesn't mean that the entire process is flawed because a tiny minority of humans break the rules.

The very fact that anyone can challenge any scientific claim, and force changes to them or have them discarded entirely if they are shown to be in error, makes it very different from any religion. It is possible to show that it is biologically impossible for a human being to become clinically dead for an extended period of time and then come back to life by any means. Yet the reported resurrection of Jesus will never be expunged from the Christian narrative because it is fundamental to it. So things like miracles are invoked, or omnipotence, and under those rules virtually anything becomes possible and you have a ready made shield against anything that could challenge the claims.

Science works exactly the opposite from religion in that claims can and are challenged, routinely, and anyone can do it. There isn't some secret body who enforces the rules and blocks challenges to claims, and there is no role for anything resembling magic, miracles and the like. Just look at the situation now with Covid-19 and vaccines and treatments that are being worked on. These either work or they don't, and it doesn't matter who touts them (a president, or otherwise). The scientific method, and real world testing (experimentation), will determine what actually does work, and what does not. There is no ambiguity or subjectiveness for something like this in the scientific method unlike, for example, prayer.

[Thomas123]

Post 14 link
"Besides a resistance to these kinds of biases, there are also more general critical thinking skills – such as the capacity to challenge your assumptions, identify missing information, and look for alternative explanations for events before drawing conclusions. These are crucial to good thinking, but they do not correlate very strongly with IQ, and do not necessarily come with higher education. One study in the USA found almost no improvement in critical thinking throughout many people’s degrees"

How does that happen?

The more material that I load into this argument the stronger the resistance appears to become. I could easily refute any of the latest counter submissions and watch this fizzle out into obscurity. After all , people seem intent on winning. Can I suggest that opponents to the claim consider any plausibility that is contained in my argument and attempt to focus on that. If you see nothing then dismiss it as normal.

I have already addressed scientific faith, Clownboat, you just missed it, along with the aeroplane, the number 16, the intelligence of the "primitive" nomadic compilers, etc etc. Somebody wants to use science to disprove a resurrection claim, what's next?

[Thomas123]

The Doctrine of Maths

I have never seen a number in reality, but now I think about them all the time.
Most of Maths had very humble tactile origins. We have ten digits as a norm.
We measure a horse in hands and it was sad to hear that the Kg in Paris had started to change its weight and had become defunct as a reference because of this.


https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... ht-science

A vertical line is gravity and a horizontal line is the ground. All very reasonable if you are not an evolved tree dweller ,more tuned into ripening fruit.i now live in a geometric box with a flat floor. It is worse than that, I have zero visual tolerance for a picture hanging slightly off. Are you the same? The doctrine and discipline of Maths has me longing for a tree house or a cave, even an eco dome, to 'revive my drooping spirit'