[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 150 KB, 411x330, asdfas.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3340388 No.3340388 [Reply] [Original]

why science is as futile as religion:

Science, in essence, is incapable of proving or disproving God soley because it is floating adtift in the same vast, metaphysical ocean as religion--it is just as trivial in this pursuit as religion. Science, in and of itself, works off of presuppositions--be it presuppositions of an empircial reality or presupposing causality. As a result , we ultimately reduce science to the process of shedding the garments of reality. Analogously, say you have a group of indiviudals attempting to dig a hole to the center of the earth; after putting in tremendous amounts of time and effort into their digging, they suddently realise it will only remain an infinitesimal and neglible amount when juxtaposed to the grand scheme of the process. Instead of continuing the prospect of knowing the ultimate truth, they settle with the minerals and laws of nature they stumble upon while digging. The process of shedding has become more intriguing than what lays underneath. science is almost as useless as religion; it is a forlorn and endless striving; a search which will never achieve truth.

>> No.3340399

since when did science ever give a fuck about god anyway?

>> No.3340402

"Science is futile" says the man sending a message over the internet after making it on his computer which is powered by a nuclear power plant.

>> No.3340405

>>3340399
when atheists humped science.

>> No.3340409

>>3340399
Hawkings, Dawkins, Mlodinow--i rest my case.

>> No.3340417

>>3340402
What proof do you have that we're better off than one who is incapable of accessing such technology? How do you know it won't, inevitably, become a detriment to humanity as a whole?

>> No.3340428

>>3340402
The only necessary pursuit is the one of God, the one that may truly change the course of humanity.

>> No.3340445

>Science, in essence, is incapable of proving or disproving God
>Religion, in essence, is incapable of proving or disproving God

Religion can cause you to ignore the evidence of your own eyes in favor of your beliefs

>> No.3340446

>>3340417
Science has helped humanity reach many common goals. One common goal of almost all humans is to be able to do anything and everything with less effort. Science has made literally everything about every aspect of life easier. No longer must a man hunt or farm if he doesn't wish to; he has the supermarket. No longer must a man walk; we have the car. No longer must the man stab and wrestle; we have the gun.

>in b4 OP says that the only goal of man is god because he's a huge faggot. I don't give a fuck about God and I'm a man, deal w/ it. Also arguing with "the goal of man is to find god" as an axiom is gaytarded because you're never proved it, faggot

>> No.3340454

>>3340409
the discoveries of these few led them to believe there was no god, not the opposite. just saying.

>> No.3340457

>>3340445
>_________ can cause you to ignore the evidence of your own eyes in favor of your beliefs

Insert, science
Insert, dogma
Insert, 12 year old girl
Insert, Chocolate
Insert, naked girl

Is there any vice that can't be inserted there?

>> No.3340466 [DELETED] 

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Religion denies observation so that belief's preserved.

>> No.3340468

>>3340457

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Religion denies observation so that belief's preserved.

>> No.3340479

>>3340466
Science does, humans don't

>Why are we anthropomorphising religion and science?

>> No.3340491

>>3340446
Precisely the kind of thinking I'm talking about: isolated on a physical level. We all still die, regardless of the technology we have. No matter how "technologically superior" we are in relation to our ancestors we still require the same fundamental needs and die. Science cannot do any more than simplify this and extend our lifespan indefinitely. To understand life, to find meaning is the only true way of reaching contentment. The physical plane is limited and those who view it in the way you do are narrowminded and void of though.

>> No.3340500

>>3340479

You don't speak for me.

>> No.3340509

>>3340491
>reaching contentment.

>implying that being a lazy NlGGER is a good idea

>> No.3340529

>>3340500
What if I give you sex. Can I speak for you then?

>> No.3340531

Being unable to disprove space-god does not mean the many varied proofs against sky-gods don't hold water.

>> No.3340538

>>3340531
what about water gods?

>> No.3340540

>>3340538

Pretty much any god that has been said to do stuff on earth.

>> No.3340542
File: 45 KB, 500x430, do-not-want.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3340542

>>3340529

No thanks. My imagination is better.

>> No.3340560

So wait, OP is saying that we should believe in god, because if god is real then there's a reason to believe in god? Is that right?

>> No.3340566

>>3340540
How bout nickel-iron god, he's beneath the earth?

>> No.3340572

> The whole thread implying science and religion can never coexist peacefully.

You people should grow up.

>> No.3340615

>>3340572

They can....just as my awesome computer and the rotten salami sandwich under my bed. I wont eat neither....but ill sure as hell use the computer (and not the sandwich).

Eat = absolutly believe (opposed to just hold)

>> No.3340627

>>3340615
Behold, the demented atheist, in all his profundity.

>> No.3340640

>>3340627

Behold, the individual incapable of understanding an (a little rude i accept) analogy and devoid of any rational argument (other than the middle point fallacy here:>>3340572 .... ok im just forcing things here haha)
.

>> No.3340653

>>3340627
>>3340627

But he is right...he doesnt believe in science absolutly..he just uses it as the best system of producing models describing reality imperfectly.

He is not the dawkings cock sucking atheist you want him to look like.

>> No.3340671
File: 989 KB, 1200x1600, Candy For breakfast.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3340671

>>3340627
Is religion a science?

Is science a religion?

Is this candy?!... For breakfast?

>> No.3340689

>>3340653
No, I just want him to make sense, and not require a biased atheist filter to decipher his cryptic fecundity.

>> No.3340693
File: 12 KB, 433x249, lounge5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3340693

>>3340671
Science and religion are not people.

>> No.3340698

>>3340446
so making humanity stupider and lazier is a good thing?

fuck you faggot, i like some challenge in my life.

you little pussy bitch, go back in your lab.

>> No.3340699

OP's statement: Science is futile as a religion.

How can there not be total agreement. Science IS futile as a religion. I mean, he then goes on to describe the process of science in a somewhat disparaging way, but still.

No philosophy offers ultimate truth. Science is a philosophy that offers a more complete and useful truth than the previous paradigm.

>> No.3340708

>>3340699
>science is futile as a religion

you might want to re-read what op actually wrote.

>> No.3340710

>>3340689

Dude its pretty simple. He is taking an skeptic position towards everything, including science. He never claims something is a fact, rather he just holds models as imperfect (but ever-improving) descriptions of reality.

Also he mentioned he will use the system that will offer the best results (in this case science, since it is the one that has let us re-shape reality the most)

>> No.3340719

I notice a great deal of you didn't catch the implication that science is useless in its attempt to prove God. The fact that it is compared to religion leaves the assumption that we're discussing God's existence, not who is able to develop technology which may or may not benefit humanity. When considered in this way, it is quite difficult to refute. The fact that you conclude that the poster is speaking of science in general terms is quite foolish on your part.

>> No.3340722

>>3340693
>Science and religion are not people.

A lot of what we think about is not people.

Is breakfast a candy?

>> No.3340727

>>3340693

Technically it is part of some peoples cultural systems (memes for the dawkinator). There is no science without people (no people > no ideas the stuff in your mind isnt in some cloudly idea-land my friend...as far as we know of course...although im 99% sure)...And well...people is just a bunch of configurations, biological or cultural.

>> No.3340732

>>3340708
Attacking clear typos is just reinforcing OP's argument and your lack of one.

>> No.3340737

>>3340719

But he is assuming our goal is to find a god.

Also he is wrong in the part science is futile (im assuming that futile for humans) since science allows us to manipulate reality to some extent and therefore perpetuate our existance (which is our original purpose in a way)

>> No.3340740

>>3340727
right and religion has continued to service humanity gloriously.

Feel free to replace the poor's religiousity with atheism and see how long society will remain stable when they begin to understand just how much you're fucking them in the ass.

Good luck with your message of truth.

>> No.3340749

>>3340737
your problem is assuming reality. once again, you're stranded on a physical plane. you presuppose, which is a prime facet of science as a whole

>> No.3340750

>>3340708

Allow me to put another spin on it. He is saying that science is a branch of philosophy devoted to finding certain truths. Unlike other philosophies, we have made some real headway in science. The others sit around on the surface, imagining great things at the center. Science digs. Now science finds things that the others have never imagined. At first they rant and rave at how even digging is abhorrent, an insult. Science digs on. Then they claim they had imagined just what science found in the dig. Science digs on. They now claim that scientists are so interested in what they dig up, they have stopped caring about the things they had imagined in the first place. That you can't find out what lies at the very center by digging. That at the very center, deeper than science, the things they imagine exist exist, and science is not even interested in finding them. Science digs on. And it will never reach the center. And people will never stop talking about the amazing things there are at the center, about how far science is from ever finding them, since they spend their time digging and not just contemplating the center.

So science is futile as a religion. It does not even seek to fill any of the same niches as religion to begin with. Those who treat science as a religion find it totally lacking, it has no authority, it has no final word. But then it was never supposed to be a religion, and those engaged in it do not treat it as such.

>> No.3340759

>>3340740

EDUCATION!

Thats a good plan...not just any education, but one with emphasis on critical thinking and common good.

REFORMS!

Big taxes (but not that big so it becomes really painful beign big) for the big company to help small enterprises to get bigger for the sake of a perfect competition situation (and the beautiful part of this is you are mergin cooperation and competition)

>> No.3340760

>>3340402
thinks the enitre world runs off of nuke power.

>> No.3340766

>>3340749

And if we're irrevocably stranded on the physical plane, then what use is investigating the other planes?

Explain how to leave the physical plane. Show us people who some information about the non-physical plane, and explain why you believe them.

>> No.3340773

>>3340749

Well...the shit that is outside (or that i see outside and iteracts with other things i perceive as beigns) can be manipulated thanks to science aquired knowledge.
So it doesnt matter if it is reality or not, im working with it.

>> No.3340776

>>3340759
you need quite a step up on maslows hierarchy before you can pretend to honestly be able to teach the impoverished.

>> No.3340778

>>3340750
Well, one cannot disagree with the original intent of science, but it, quite clearly, has become a tool to propel atheism.

>> No.3340786

>>3340766
>>3340773
science relies on perception, induction, rather than deduction. Both philosophy and mathematics exist off the premise that something must be deduced, not assumed from what "appears" to be true. What can one say for a fact without presupposing with one's senses?

>> No.3340791

>>3340778

By refusing to find evidence of god?

The proto-scientists spent most of their time looking for this, and never found any. Any scientist who brings some forward now would go down in history forever.

>> No.3340792

>>3340776

Maslows herarchy gets shakier the highest on the pyramid you go. But yeah...first the should be not starving...GOOD SCHOOL FOOD!

>> No.3340793

Religion: YOU CAN'T DISPROVE OR PROVE GOD, SCIENCE.

Science: Wut? I can't hear you over the sound of my awesome tesla coil.

>> No.3340801

>>3340791
more like supplying the "unlikelihood" of God's existence. Dawkins arguments as well as Hawkings revolve around the unlikelihood of the existence of a God--which atheism often uses to its advantage

>> No.3340804

>>3340786

Nothing, and >>3340710
>>3340653
>>3340615 putted that clearly since they explicitly said they claim nothing for a fact.

>> No.3340809
File: 76 KB, 705x726, tesla_coil1_172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3340809

>>3340793
Aw yeah!

>> No.3340811

>>3340786

That is a presupposition that takes us out of solipsism and into useful philosophy. Not that there is nothing to solipsism, it's just a dead-end when it comes to relating to the rest of the world.

So we assume we can trust our senses. That it is indicative of a consistent and comprehensible universe. This is where science begins.

How do we get to these realms you say science doesn't touch upon? By going back in and assuming what our senses tell use about the universe is not reliable?

>> No.3340812

/b/, therefore God.

>> No.3340826

>>3340801

It says nothing about likelihood. It says that we have found no evidence of intervention from any kind of supernatural agency. And we haven't. Wherever we have looked for one, none has been there.

>> No.3340828

>>3340804
I hope you're joking. Also, you seem to be diverging from the inital argument: Science cannot prove God's existence. It doesn't matter whether we're capable, at our current state, of determining God's existence without presuppositions, it matters that we use science as a tool to attempt to determine the unlikelihood of the existence of a God when it works off of presuppositions. If I assume I have an apple, then I can conclude a million more things, but what if I didn't have an apple, doesn't that change the circumstance entirely?

>> No.3340837

>>3340828
I'm eating an apple

>> No.3340839

>>3340837
>>3340828
And am using an apple computer

>> No.3340849

>>3340826
I'm arguing that individuals, not myself, argue for the unlikelihood of God's existence with a scientific (and even pseudo-scienfitic at times) backing. For instance, Dawkins' arguments exist to support atheism with an evolutionary backing

>> No.3340850

>>3340839
For what? The cup-holder?

>> No.3340855

>>3340850
For Science!

>> No.3340856

>>3340839
>>3340837
so clever! i wish i made those comments

>> No.3340859

>>3340828
>it matters that we use science as a tool to attempt to determine the unlikelihood of the existence of a God when it works off of presuppositions

Only jerks do that...unlikelyhood demands statistical proof...and not even that we got about god..so yeah....anyone that claims to use and take science seriously should know that science has nothing to say about god yet.

The apple in your example is the trust in our senses (and even it is only a partial trust since we measure nature with nature, like in a hadron collider for example)...and without the apple we fall in solipsism, which isnt very useful (but closer to the truth you could say in the sense we can only trust our minds existence)

And an advice, next time you pick up a science book, when the author starts talking about god or something unfalsifiable, its like his opinion bro.

>> No.3340862

>>3340855
>For Science!

Liar. That's like engineering without touching balls.

>> No.3340867

>>3340859
cont

Also...the "your are joking" part isnt constructive at all, specially since those post effectively (yet in a rude way) and explicitly stated and skeptic stance about everything, including science.

>> No.3340873

Oh fuck off. All of you.

>> No.3340879

>>3340849

Nowhere science has looked has it found the fingerprints of the divine. What does this say about the likelihood of gods existence? It fairly well discredits any sources who claim to speak for god, for one thing. It shows us that no god was required to account for the nature of the world around us.

The example you give, with evolution, shows us how the variety of life on Earth formed. It is implicitly atheistic, in that there is no evidence that a god had anything to do with it. I don't see why that would be contentious.

For a deist, for an atheist, or for somebody who believes in a god that is deliberately and capriciously hiding itself, this is just business as usual in the universe.

>> No.3340885

>>3340859
Since when has the truth ever needed to be useful. Your worse than the science fags who argue time was created with the big bang solely because anything before was scientifically irrelevant.

>> No.3340893

>>3340879
Once again, and I try to emphasize this in my posts, it is only likely in the empirical world that science encompasses; if we look at science as a collection of presuppositions with subsequent inferences, we realize that removing said presuppositions could change the role of science and its ability to prove God.

>> No.3340894

Religion: YOU CAN'T DISPROVE OR PROVE GOD, SCIENCE.

Science: The rules of the universe don't need a God looking after them all the time. Plus, he could've made a nicer universe if he actually created it specifically for us.

Religion: THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NO GOD.

Science: So?

Religion: YOU CLAIM THAT THERES NO GOD.

Science: No I didn't. I don't really care either.

Religion: BUT THAT'S YOUR ULTIMATE GOAL.

Science: Wut? Tesla Coil!!!!

>> No.3340896

>>3340885

Not irrelevant, exactly. But anybody who claims to know what happens outside the universe had better show their work.

And truth is inherently useful. It is useful to know the truth about how cars work. It is useful for driving them, it is useful for fixing them, and it is very useful for making them.

>> No.3340897

>>3340862
Someone doesn't do science :(

>> No.3340923

>>3340893

Suppositions such as? Sciences suppositions are subject to as much review as any other part of it. And they are not an arbitrary set of suppositions, nor are they designed to obfuscate the divine.

I think you do early scientists a disservice. They spent centuries assuming god existed, and trying to show his work in nature. Finding no such handiwork, they gradually arrived at the null hypothesis of 'any given phenomenon is likely the result of the interaction of impersonal laws of nature'; since in their studies they found countless examples of this explanation, and zero examples of any others.

And you seem to be coming from a position that assumes god is out there, yet to be proven. If you could show your work, no scientist in the world would ignore it.

>> No.3340932

>>3340896
>truth is inherently useful
Usefulness is subjective. Youre just pushing your own bias and claiming it for science.

>> No.3340950

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism

Any niggers heard of it?

>> No.3340954

>>3340932

Not the same guy, but usefulness maybe isnt the right word, but rather power is. The closer to truth something is, reality (or non reality in case there is none) will respond better to deductions from that knowledge.

This even applies to solipsism, since if you know something very close to the truth about your mind, you will be able to change it more easily.

Power = ability to change something

>> No.3340955

>>3340923
I stated it in the premises I put forward to begin with. Science supposes a physical reality exists, causality exists, substance, etc. If we were to remove all of these things, maybe God's existence wouldn't appear very unlikely--or even if we removed one of them. Science as a whole could change with such alterations, and in the process the likelihood of a God will invariably change as well.

>> No.3340956

>>3340932

Usefulness couldn't be anything but subjective. Nobody claimed it was anything but subjective.

To be useful, something must assist an agency achieve a purpose. Understanding the truth about a situation will usually assist the agency in manipulating or exploiting the situation to their ends.

Understanding the laws of nature has proved very useful to us. This does not equal truth, we are almost certainly wrong in some greater or lesser degree, but it would be perverse to suggest that we understand the laws of nature less than our ancestors.

>> No.3340959

____________________________

how do we gain more awareness then ?

>> No.3340961

>>3340950

Seems like atheism with a sleek new title.

>> No.3340963

>>3340959

Figure out what assumptions we need to make in order to conclude god exists, without explicitly mentioning god in any of the assumptions.

It's a tough one.

>> No.3340965

>>3340961
More like Agnosticism trying not to be a pussy

>> No.3340970

>>3340965
>More like Agnosticism trying not to be a pussy

thatswhatIsaid.jpg

>> No.3340971

>>3340959
acknowledge the futility of science's involvement in anything outside of the small sphere it encapsulates. Faith is an equally illogical option to fall upon. We merely have philosophy and mathematics to grasp the ultimate truth.

>> No.3340975

>>3340971
13.7 billion lightyear sphere.
(for now)

>> No.3340978

>>3340971

Math is a human creation too, its subjective...hell 100 years ago it didnt even considered states of superposition (well...its mathemathical equivalent).

Math is a dynamic object that also imperfectly describes concepts of our human minds.

Also you look cute trying to act all not human and all.

>> No.3340981

>>3340971

Science is a philosophy. It seeks to uncover the laws of nature.

>> No.3340983

>>3340978
>Math
>Subjective
Pick one

>> No.3340984

>>3340975
you seem very unaware. How do you know 13.7 billion light years aren't merely an atom compared to the vast, inscrutable contents of what may lay beyond it?

>> No.3340989

>>3340971

The problem with mathematics and philosophy is precisely that they are unconfined to the small bubble that science is.

This bubble, called 'the universe', 'reality' and 'everything that exists' is the only area in which theory can be applied to reality.

Mathematics can construct systems of as many dimensions as you desire. You can create new, hypothetical worlds with different laws of physics. And these are useless if they do not coincide with reality.

>> No.3340990

>>3340978
Math, subjective.
Yes we chose our axioms, but go take a look at them (wiki ZFT).
Then we use objective logic.

>> No.3340992

>>3340984

Nobody knows. And if they claim to know what is outside the universe, they MUST SHOW THEIR WORK. How else could we tell the ones who are lying from the ones who are mistaken from the ones who are accurate?

>> No.3341000

>>3340978
Math works off of deductive reasoning, a seemingly self-proving facet of our world. Logic and mathematics are innate and cannot be argued as they're a priori, almost intuitive in nature.

>> No.3341005

>>3340984

Thanks to that "may" i can change that sentence to "How do you know our sphere isnt 99.999999% of what lies beyond it?"

>> No.3341007

>>3340984
Because there's more than one atom in the universe?

>> No.3341010

we cant live in the abstract world, ignoring our concrete needs for food..cooperation...comunication

>> No.3341013

If I can conclude that my mind exists, then I accept logic as foundational to nature. What I perceive can never change this.

>> No.3341016

>>3341000

How intuitive they are doesnt indicate they are absolutly objective....i agree with >>3340990

>> No.3341022

>>3341005
Until we interact with it, we can't say, so it doesn't matter, and doesn't have a definite state

>> No.3341025

>>3341022
Indeed.

>> No.3341027

>>3341016
If I can conclude that my mind exists, then I accept logic as foundational to nature. What I perceive can never change this. The fact that solipsism is a fallback option suggests you agree with logic as foundational but are contradicting yourselves in argument.

>> No.3341028

all mental movement... mental expansion is good... science and religion therefore are good

>> No.3341036

lol
Silly autistic OP

>> No.3341039

>>3341027

Im no solipsist. You make sense and i agree with you (yet i wasnt defying logic, just the construct of math).

The real fallback options is senseless-ism/absurdism lol.