Science is best supported by?

@kellyjay said
Spout your dogma and insult. There is not much more to you than that.

Religion is best supported by:

A. Exact science.
B. Social science.
C. Christian science.
D. None of the above religion doesn't need/require any of them.

Politics is best supported by:

A. Communism.
B. Capitalism.
C. Feudalism.
D. Any of the above, politics can be yoked to almost any economic theory.


There you are, an exact analogy of your OP. There is nothing more to it than that.

@bigdogg said
Correlation does not equal causation. Many good scientists happen to be theists, but that doesn't mean their theism helped them succeed in science.

There are also good scientists who are atheists, and they managed to succeed despite their lack of theism.

This leaves me wondering why you singled one out as you did. I think one can be great in any field of science and be a part of any religious beliefs so none would have been excluded as you did. To do science you have to have faith, you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understand it. What would be the point if you do not believe those things are true? If one's religious beliefs give a good foundation for that, you don't think it helps as apposed to one that undercuts it?

@moonbus said
What KellyJay knows about science could do a brodie inside a neutrino. And he wonders why no one engages him in a serious discussion about science.

😆

So you still are maintaining that human life doesn't have information processing going on in us, that there are systems that do very specified work with on-off mechanisms, error checking, and so on? Blood clotting for you is what magic? How about we also add to the discussion our body's ability to produce insulin, one of my daughters is type one, she has two human devices to monitor and administer insulin because her body cannot. I recently had to get one to monitor my blood, I can watch my body produce it after I eat so I can see my numbers go up and down. The device monitors my numbers, it doesn't do anything else. A healthy body does all of that as we eat our body does what is needed to keep us alive, there is more to eating than just getting full. I don't wonder why people don't engage me, they don't want to challenge their own beliefs, so the cowardly way is to insult and stay aloft pretending you are so much better and I'm not worth the effort. You are quite full of yourself.

@kellyjay said
This leaves me wondering why you singled one out as you did. I think one can be great in any field of science and be a part of any religious beliefs so none would have been excluded as you did. To do science you have to have faith, you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understan ...[text shortened]... liefs give a good foundation for that, you don't think it helps as apposed to one that undercuts it?

To do science you have to have faith, you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understand it.

"The universe is intelligently understandable"?

@kellyjay said
This leaves me wondering why you singled one out as you did. I think one can be great in any field of science and be a part of any religious beliefs so none would have been excluded as you did. To do science you have to have faith, you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understan ...[text shortened]... liefs give a good foundation for that, you don't think it helps as apposed to one that undercuts it?

Science is not faith. Science is not another belief system, like religion.

@moonbus said
Science is not faith. Science is not another belief system, like religion.

You are not even reading the post you are responding to, small wonder your answers tend to be very generic and all encompassing excluding details.

@moonbus said
Religion is best supported by:

A. Exact science.
B. Social science.
C. Christian science.
D. None of the above religion doesn't need/require any of them.

Politics is best supported by:

A. Communism.
B. Capitalism.
C. Feudalism.
D. Any of the above, politics can be yoked to almost any economic theory.


There you are, an exact analogy of your OP. There is nothing more to it than that.

My op didn’t ask about supporting religion or politics this is you reading into something not there, and talking about something other than the topic.

@kellyjay said
This leaves me wondering why you singled one out as you did. I think one can be great in any field of science and be a part of any religious beliefs so none would have been excluded as you did. To do science you have to have faith, you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understan ...[text shortened]... liefs give a good foundation for that, you don't think it helps as apposed to one that undercuts it?

To do science you have to have faith, ...

Negative. One does not have to have faith to do science.

you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understand it.

Of course, but that is not faith. Believing that the universe is intelligible has nothing whatever to do with belief in a God or gods. We observe regularities; that is all that is required, and it goes by the name of "knowledge" not "belief." I do not believe that the seasons recur, I know it; observable facts corroborate it and no observable facts dis-confirm it.

If one's religious beliefs give a good foundation for that, you don't think it helps as apposed to one that undercuts it?

If we are talking about your religious beliefs, then, no. Believing that the universe and the Earth are both only about 6,000 years old and that they popped into existence fully formed, in a matter of hours, from nothing, does not give a good foundation for doing either astronomy or geology.

Science is not just another belief system, like religion. They are fundamentally different pursuits, fundamentally different in methods, results, and subject matter.

Science is a body of empirical knowledge about how nature works. Science typically explains how things happen, but never why; which is to say, science deals with material causes, never with reasons. How scientific knowledge is acquired is by implementing a fairly well-defined method. This method typically consists in organizing tests or experiments, whereby, under controlled conditions, a single variable at a time is altered, in order to observe what effect, if any, this one variable has on the results. A putative item of scientific knowledge is not generally acknowledged to constitute genuine knowledge, unless and until the experiment can be repeated, multiple times, with the same results, and the results have been published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. Much scientific experimentation consists in, not attempting to prove an hypothesis, but rather to disprove one. Scientific knowledge is always in principle revisable in light of evidence or experimental data that we have not seen yet. Furthermore, no proposition is considered to be a scientific hypothesis if it cannot be falsified by some test, experiment, or evidence. In short, some observable fact must bear on the matter, either as confirmation or dis-confirmation.

None of this applies to religious belief systems. Religion is not a body of knowledge revisable at any time based on observable facts or repeatable experiments. There is no such thing as organizing an experiment to see whether, if we subtract the resurrection from Christianity, salvation is still granted in eternity, because salvation in an afterlife is not an observable fact. Nothing would either corroborate or dis-confirm it. There is no duplicate KellyJay who does not believe in God on whom we can test the effectiveness of your belief in salvation.

There is no such thing as observing thousands of universes to see which ones were created ex nihilo by a god and which ones existed without a beginning and which ones came about through mindless natural processes. There is no such thing as investigating thousands of universes to see whether life evolves in all of them wherein the material conditions are favorable, or only in the ones created by a god who intervenes at a molecular level to make it happen.

@kellyjay said
My op didn’t ask about supporting religion or politics this is you reading into something not there, and talking about something other than the topic.

Lateral thinking is not your strong suit, is it?

@kellyjay said
This leaves me wondering why you singled one out as you did. I think one can be great in any field of science and be a part of any religious beliefs so none would have been excluded as you did. To do science you have to have faith, you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understan ...[text shortened]... liefs give a good foundation for that, you don't think it helps as apposed to one that undercuts it?

I didn't single any belief out, nor exclude anyone. I said previously:

"It is entirely possible to be a, b or c and still be a good scientist."

I don't want to address the rest of your post until you can show you understand my actual position.

@moonbus said
To do science you have to have faith, ...

Negative. One does not have to have faith to do science.

you must believe that the universe is intelligently understandable and therefore predictable and that we with our minds can grasp and understand it.

Of course, but that is not faith. Believing that the universe is intelligible has nothing whatever ...[text shortened]... vorable, or only in the ones created by a god who intervenes at a molecular level to make it happen.

If you did not believe that the universe was understandable what would be the point of trying to explain or understand it?

@moonbus said
Lateral thinking is not your strong suit, is it?

Pay attention to the details

@kellyjay said
My op didn’t ask about supporting religion or politics this is you reading into something not there, and talking about something other than the topic.

I think you are meaning to ask, indirectly, if another and more powerful Atlas is supporting the world on their shoulders. Science finally came up with Gravity. We seem to agree on that, using our minuscule understanding of science. What we don't agree on, is the origin and cause which "invented" gravity.

Earlier, a very knowledgeable encyclopedia door-to-door salesman pointed out to you, that a scientific theist, Sir Isaac Newton, is historically credited as coming up with the concept of gravity. Describing it as a force that pulls objects towards themself. The bigger and more massive objects always win the tug of war with an inferior object, in mass. Looks are deceiving, since a large object, in appearance only, can lose the tug of war to a smaller object in appearance, because it's more massive due to higher internal density with less open space. Sometimes the larger objects are just inflated with air, to look bigger, but substance wise (mass), are much smaller than they are want to appear.

Newton, when he was not working on finding Plato's Atlantis, and on calculating the near exact date for Jesus Christ's return, spent some time on his hobby, science. And through his hobby we know the basic laws of gravity (just for the macro physical universe, and corrected (ripened with time) by Einstein. He wrote his monumental work, divinely inspired by the divine Plato, the "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica", published in 1687, where he related all the fun one can get from a hobby, like "discovering" gravity.

It's rumored that the cause which prompted him to discover gravity came about accidentally, through the accidental fall of an apple from the tree of knowledge that landed directly on his head, as he was quietly napping in the cool shade of that massive tree, which is bigger than life. it seems that the apple did a lot good, but only at the cost of the initial evil pain he suffered, since it was a very dense apple, one not fully ripe. The good, after the bad bump on his head subsided, came in the form of equations he came up with, representing the law of falling apples, as well as other falling objects with any mass sufficient to cause a bump on the head, and the reactions from such actions. Some know them as Newton's three laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation, which states that every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

And therefore, all of us here, being attracted by gravity, science, and the Lord, have to come up with a support of our own, to best support what the Lord created naturally....Nature.

@bigdogg said
I didn't single any belief out, nor exclude anyone. I said previously:

"It is entirely possible to be a, b or c and still be a good scientist."

I don't want to address the rest of your post until you can show you understand my actual position.

You only singled out one from the others, so you either intended to do that, or you didn’t mean to, but you did!

@moonbus said
Lateral thinking is not your strong suit, is it?

Do you have a quota on how many insults you have to direct at someone who doesn’t have your worldview? Do you behave as an ass to people that you know in your real life too, or you only treat people you don’t know personally this way?