How are these used as indisputable truths? In say physics math is used to model various things. Most physicists that I know understand that the various models have varying accuracies? So math is used as a tool in modeling things seen in the world. I don’t see anything about indisputable truths in this.
And then what do you mean by worshiping their imperfections? Where is the worship?
That’s because you are looking at methodism, catholicism, and lutheranism and failing to see the all powerful being that unites them.
What are you talking about? What does using math to model things we see happening in the world have to doe the methodism, catholicism, and lutheranism? I am starting to think you are just babling.
gazpacho, I’m not sure how else to say it.
Musicat, alas, I was not present until after we lost him. But I’ll take that with a 
anyway!
Science could be viewed as an opiate for the masses similar to religion. Religion told people that everyone would get what they deserved. If the proper rewards/punishments for certain actions did not happen in life, people could comfort themselves that they would happen after death. Science is increasingly explaining human actions, even predicting them, to such an extent that we now have such things as a temporary insanity defense, based on science that says people can be overwhelmed by their biological responses. In other words, if your action is caused by an overwhelming biological response, you are not responsible for your action. But, in the future, isn’t it likely that science will come up with even more detailed and accurate predictions and explanations for human behavior, such that nearly all actions can be ultimately attributed to inevitable responses? In this case, instead of being lulled by the prospect of everyone getting what they deserve, people will be lulled by the idea that nobody is really responsible for anything. I believe this idea is already gaining acceptance today.
Hey gazpacho . . . sure, mathematices are used to model, but they are besed in axia that are taken as read, on faith if you will. Don’t believe me?
Please prove to me that A=A.
I’ll wait. 
Ummm, no, not really.
Not all axia are created equal. Ironically, the axiom of identity is self-evident. =P
andros:
What do you mean? I was talking about such cases as:
The Twinkie Defense - “Dr. Blinder explained that the excess carbohydrates triggered a chemical imbalance in White’s system which caused him to lose control of himself and go berserk and commit acts he never would have done if his mental processes had been normal.”
Automatism Syndrome - "Psychiatrists for Mrs. Joudrie testified that she was in a “robotic, trance-like” state when she shot her husband. This state had been brought on by years of denial about the failing state of her marriage. The doctors informed the jury that her condition, known as automatism, produces this trance-like state in which the sufferer is unaware of his or her actions. Apparently, this all made sense to the jury, because they found Mrs. Joudrie not guilty by reason of “mental disorder.”
Sleep Apnea - " You see, he was suffering from sleep apnea, a disorder which cuts off oxygen to the brain and causes you to do strange things like shoot your wife with a gun you just happen to have under your pillow."
Post-Partum Psychosis - “24 year old Sheryl Massip of Anaheim threw her six week old son into the path of an oncoming car, but the car swerved and did not strike the child. Massip then drove the child five miles from home, ran over him with her car and threw his dead body into a garbage can. Her defense was post-partum psychosis, which caused her to experience distortions of reality and severe depression.”
I could go on… but my point was certainly not to say that science is bad. I study science myself. My point was that science can provide a similar opiate effect to religion, in that while religion promises proper consequences for our actions, science can be used to suggest that one is not responsible for their actions at all. I don’t agree with this either, but that does not mean it does not provide any lulling effect to anyone, just as not agreeing with religion does not mean it has no effect on anyone. If a person can rationalize to themself, based on science, that they are not responsible for their actions, then my point is proved, and such cases obviously exist. I am not saying that they are right to do so.
Uh… no. Scientists don’t have an “indisputable truth”, they have their system of measuring that they base on observations. Math is a good example… so far, every single observation of 1+1 has yielded a 2. That’s a pretty good track record, and considered the most reliable method of measuring numbers and equations and such and such.
As soon as a better system comes around and is proven as reliable as the current system, scientists will jump ship to THAT.
Again, eris, you have fallen into the trap of not being able to distinguish between science at its heart (which is methodology) and science as a basis for philosophical belief (which may or may not be characterized as a religion: secular materialism or natural atheism or some such label). You’ve claimed in previous threads that in order for science to function one must take as religiously axiomatic certain “truths” about the world and work from there. However, this blanket statement about a methodology is hardly fair… especially because you haven’t proven that the funamental basis for said methodology is religiously axiomatic in the same way that, say, accepting truth about the atman is religiously axiomatic for certain interpretations of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, you wish to dismiss internal consistency as axiomatically (in)valid as a priori faith in the existence of a deity, and I cannot for the life of me figure out how you make the comparison other than on the level that both are approachable intellectually. Well, gee, eris, every single thing in the world is approachable intellectually, why single out science for the comparison?
I’m not sure the bit about one plus one always being observed to equal two is really a good example. Things in mathematics tend to be considered true not because of repeated observation, but because they are considered axiomatically true or true by definition.
However, math isn’t science, although the two are certainly related. Scientists will use a particular kind of mathematical language if it seems to describe observed phenomena; if the math ceases to describe the observations, they’ll find another kind of math that does a better job (e.g., substituing non-Euclidean for Euclidean geometry).
Sorry, Nightime, I didn’t really quote the relevant bit. I only dispute the notion that science has generated the temporary insanity defense.
True, but I wanted to avoid the Semantics Wars that such an argument would bring up. If I were to say “Math is true because of how it’s defined”, you then get people playing word games with that statement (such as Andros saying “prove to me that A=A.”)
Such arguments are amusing, but really don’t prove anything, in my opinion. I liken them to logic puzzles that are supposed to be paradoxically impossible, like the old “This sentence is false” quandary.
Agreed. Like I said, it’s a system of measurement. I just dispute the notions that scientists consider their various systems of measurement to be “absolute truths”… instead, I would argue that scientists hold to their particular systems due to a lack of anything better, AND because their systems have been rather successful.
How anyone can do a search on Illuminati and fail to find anything is absolutely beyond me. Of course, they could have removed all those web sites…
Hey, Rossarian, just relax and stare into the little light for a sec…
Since I know where this is going, I’ll take exception to this statement. I think that today’s scientists do not consider that science is an idiot-proof solution to anything, let alone “all your worries.”
So you are tying the nature of science to the programming content of television and the sort of things that anyone with $600 can post on the net? And I’ve got to admit that the “perhaps just a tool for hungry spiders” is just a tad over my admittedly low brow.
And here you charge science with not doing something that it doesn’t claim to do. That is, teach people the best ways to live their lives. If you expected that and are disappointed that is your individual problem because I don’t think that is a valid expectation.
See above.
And for those of us who haven’t become “more wise,” Logical Phallacy is here to light the way.
486dx processors, whatever they are, and pentium 5s are not brought directly to us by science. The are the products of technology in the employ of economics and the market system, as are CNN, videogames and fast cars. And, I suppose that you realise that using technology and “lving life to its fullest” are not mutually exclusive.
What on earth are you talking about? I talk to people every day. I play golf two or three times a week with other people. I visit my children now and then and I read. People who had the wish to do so, became hermits long before there was anything like science. Are you are judging how others live by your “modus operandi?”
Even assuming this is true, you haven’t proved that science is the cause.
So?
Would you be so kind as to point out a place where you have previously tried to “show” us examples this circular logic?
From here on your posts look an awful lot like generalized rants against the educational system and particular things that you don’t like. I have yet to see any proof that science is like religion. All I see are assertions.
I still think most of you are misunderstanding the comparison. Neither religion or science, on its own, necessarily opiates the masses. It is the actual people who use either one for the purpose of opiating themselves. It is possible to believe in god, and yet not be comforted, if you believe god is disinterested in humanity. It is also possible to be comforted by science, in that due to advances in predictions and explanations of human behavior, you believe there will one day be complete prediction and explanation, and all your choices will be proven to not be your responsibility. In other words, science does not take your responsibility, you give it up, but this is exactly the reason the comparison works. Science can be an opiate, and I believe it will one day replace religion as the opiate of choice.
{sigh}
Is searching a lost art? Google has 219,000 references to “illuminati”. Try one.
This isn’t persuasive to me. Religion and science have difference purposes. The main point of the religion I know best is to comfort people while science is our method of studying the regularities of nature and fitting them and their consequences into a coherent picture of the natural world.
For example, in the Christian religion the preacher says that if you believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as your savior everything will come out OK for you.
Some people might try to get comfort out of science, I suppose. Maybe those, for example, who are overly fearful of dying might pin their hopes on cryonics in hope that a cure for their disease will be found and they can then be revived and go on living. However, it is also possible that further study will show that some diseases can’t be cured because a cure would violate one of the regularities of nature like one of the thermodynamic laws. Or that revival of humans isn’t possible for a similar reason. In that case to cling to the hope for comfort is getting comfort from fantasy and not science.
Comfort from science very likely to come and go because science evolves. It is unlikely to happen in religion because it is static.
The two different purposes will always separate religion from science for me.