Scientific community has its own problems with dogmatism.

[GtehMVP]

Depends on the science. Dogma exists everywhere -- including in the hard sciences, but it can only get so bizarre before it ceases to be functional in those fields.

I think the social sciences have become *more* dogmatic than religion. I was around social sciences faculty for years and they are terrified of thinking logically as opposed to towing the line. They literally live in fear.

Social sciences home of the Marxists; You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious

 

[ndwolfwood]

I think it was right to be banned.

This guy made up 10 arbitrary points of what he thinks science says and then argues against his own straw men.

 

[AviatorShades]

Social sciences home of the Marxists; You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious

I'm on the front lines, an infiltrator

 

[nostradumbass]

Definitely some truth in this. I'd argue that science is also sometimes flawed because people with similar (though differently expressed) biases conduct and report on their scientific inquiry. People are rarely truly objective.

Yeah, and there is also a lot of shit that passes as science. They set out to prove something and will somehow find what it is they set out to find evidence for, kind of like lawyers making a case. How many times have you seen "scientific studies have found that..." and then like a few years later another scientific study finds the exact opposite? Scientific studies on diet, for example, have been all over the road and the exact same thing will both cure you and kill you depending on which study you read.

Also, the simple fact that someone is a scientist doesn't automatically make them a master of the universe and everything he says goes on every topic. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is great in his field, but the guy's gotten a little up his own ass being a celebrity and goes on political talk shows and tweets about shit completely unrelated to his field of expertise. Richard Dawkins is basically an old twitter crank at this point.

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

Science is based on the scientific method, not "what sounds good"

Any "primordial soup" experiment has failed to create life, the best it's done is amino acids. Therefore it's not supported by "science"

The process in which amino acids form peptide bonds is an understood process, yeah, they may have never created life from scratch in a lab but its not like we exist on a timescale that would allow us to do so at this point.

I responded with this to another poster but I think it applies with you as well. I agree with you as well. I'm not saying that we should start picking up the good books of old. Rather they are more question marks in our universe that both religion and even science has failed to answer. Or yet, science is not yet equipped or advanced enough to answer while traditional scientific thinkers continue to insist that it is.

I cant dispute that fact but I think its pretty safe to say that science has managed to disprove enough of the claims mentioned in religions to reasonably conclude that they are nothing more than mythology. For example

We know that there wasn't a world wide flood

We know that the earth isn't flat or exists on the shell of a turtle

We know that gods and goddesses don't live in mt Olympus

We know that snakes can't talk

This, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not a higher power exists, only that the lore of organized religions is obviously fictional.

 

[Pwent]

The process in which amino acids form peptide bonds is an understood process, yeah, they may have never created life from scratch in a lab but its not like we exist on a timescale that would allow us to do so at this point.

So something isn't provable, experiments attempting to prove it have failed but you believe it because it sounds good


Yep, way more scientific

 

[unimackpass]

Science is having to move into philosophy/faith to come up with explanations of the nature of the universe.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Many multiverses
The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will be a bio-friendly universe like ours, however improbable that is.

Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain, for instance.

 

[Thunderflash500]

Has it become dogmatic? That's perfectly arguable. As dogmatic as religion? No, thats a false equivalency. Science is based on evidence, even if it may, hypothetically, be flawed; religion is based on faith, something with no value in the real world.

Religion is very important to the world. Religion is built on experience. The gods are a reflection of humanity. Simply calling them made up fantasy is bone headed. There is endless wisdom in the stories.

 

[Lockard The GOAT]

Science at least uses evidence, reason, and logic to form an hypothesis and theory about something; Religion does not. It's just a bunch of fantasy bullshit that is about as realistic as something you'd read in a Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings novel. It's not something that should even be seriously debated in this day and age.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

i've never personally heard someone say Science proves Atheism
disprove fantastical supernatural myths, absolutely
renders moot intelligent design, i think so (or else why do birth defects exist? good job designer)

but as my dude Aquinas pointed out centuries ago, it's hard to get around the argument of motion/first mover (or from nothing, comes nothing)

that being said things like a dude living inside a whale, people living for 876 years and begetting dudes that live 768, immaculate conceptions, snakes that communicate w/ humans, etc... are patently absurd and clearly disproved by the laws of nature

 

[bladee]

the biggest problem in the scientific community is the fraud neil degreasse tyson

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

Religion is very important to the world. Religion is built on experience. The gods are a reflection of humanity. Simply calling them made up fantasy is bone headed. There is endless wisdom in the stories.

You can find wisdom and valuable lessons in fictional works, it doesn't make them less fictional.

 

[Thunderflash500]

You can find wisdom and valuable lessons in fictional works, it doesn't make them less fictional.

You can find wisdom in fictional works. The difference is that religious stories stretch back thousands of years. They are a direct reflection of human psychology and are a refined knowledge of humanity continuously passed down. It's not the same thing as Harry Potter. Although Harry Potter does make good use of ancient archetypes.

My point is this, most the "I fucking love science" crowd are fucking morons who latch onto to something because it's easy and they are simple minded. You are unwittingly handing your minds over to dangerous ideas you don't understand. Like pride, arrogance ect. These same simple concepts that are warned about in stories like the Tower of Babel fly right over your head as you mock them. These are stories created out of human error, they are meta truths. Born out of reality, but aren't actually real in a scientific sense.

 

[Bagatur]

lol at people in this thread arguing about genesis. there is no accepted theory on how life originated on Earth. but just because we dont know that, doesnt mean that some bearded guy, who watches you jerk off and tells you it is not OK, did it.

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

You can find wisdom in fictional works. The difference is that religious stories stretch back thousands of years. They are a direct reflection of human psychology and are a refined knowledge of humanity continuously passed down. It's not the same thing as Harry Potter. Although Harry Potter does make good use of ancient archetypes.

My point is this, most the "I fucking love science" crowd are fucking morons who latch onto to something because it's easy and they are simple minded. You are unwittingly handing your minds over to dangerous ideas you don't understand. Like pride, arrogance ect. These same simple concepts that are warned about in stories like the Tower of Babel fly right over your head as you mock them. These are stories created out of human error, they are meta truths. Born out of reality, but aren't actually real in a scientific sense.

But there's literary works that, at one point, were reflective of the religious society's of the time-think of the tales of Hercules. We accept those stories as mythology despite the fact that they too were born of the same human instincts that you described. The difference is that we don't have pagans actively playing a detrimental role in the modern world.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Don't ever tell me you're an atheist because "science" has disproved the afterlife. I love science, and I believe we need more scientifically minded in today's world, BUT it's unquestionable that the scientific community is just as rigid in their set of beliefs that they can't prove as Noah's Ark is to a devout Bible thumping Christian.

Copernicus was shunned by the scientific community of his day for his hypothesis that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun. It wasn't until Einstein's theory of relativity came out that Copernicus was ultimately proven to be correct. One of the fundamental natures of the human condition is arrogance, so don't ever assume we have the universe at large figured out. Because we definitely DO NOT!

This was a TED talk by Rupert Sheldrake that was ultimately pulled down by many powerful names in the mainstream of the scientific community. It is a must watch!

I have not heard a single person make that claim, ever.

No, scientists are not as rigid and uncompromising as the faithful. First off, scientists claim no divine warrant for their beliefs, and have no need for faith within their science. Science is a developing process in which scientists routinely admit their ignorance to enable further research, whereas the Bible is truth from revelation, and is the direct, word of God.

 

[lifelessheap]

 

[splendica]

Every once in awhile someone like this squeaks through the cracks. And then when finally what he said sinks in, the establishment freaks out.