Do you "believe in Quantum Mechanics"?

[autogyro]

Which is why atheism cannot exist and science can only be defined as a religion.

The whole point about religiion is to keep people in the dark and keep them scared. That way they will hide behind their 'god' and give up their lives to the 'chosen ones'. In summary, religion is about control.

Science allows us to walk in the light. It is still scary because we don't know all of the answers (and we never will) but we don't need to hide from the truth. What truth? The Universe is a big and scary place that cares not one jot about our existence. People hate being told they don't matter. The simple truth is that they don't matter. At all.

Maybe you dont matter, because the only reason you exist is because you were created. If your existance is limited to the matter that constitutes your body than you are indeed worthless. Not all religion is about control, but even still every Human being is in need of bounderies and guidelines(control as you call it), so while the rules of man are biased and arbitrary, the rules of the Creator are clearly defined. And some of these rules have come to be called physics and science by some. It is clear that the world/universe around us was Created in a beautiful balance, not something that randomly came together. To deny that is to deny your own existance.

Before a human being can accept or deny a belief of any sort, that person has to learn exactly what 'they' are. I have met no one who has achieved this in my experience.

[gridwalker]

Anyone thinking that science tells "the truth" is mislead and is not doing science or not doing it properly.
Scientists do not pretend to be telling the truth (well, in math maybe they do), but it gets a git tiresome to add a disclaimer to every sentence. Ask them nicely and they'll be happy to explain the assumptions going into the models and where the most obvious weak points lie.
The only reason science keeps on progressing like it does, slowly, in a zig-zag pattern, but seriously forward over the medium and long terms is because 99% of scientists are well aware that many conclusions are wrong, and hence happy to question them, challenge them and reformulate them.
QM is the best model we have right now for the microscopic world, and a hell of a useful one. Newton didn't become "wrong" after Einstein, we simply found out the conditions where his model becomes a bit worse.

Precisely; science is the art of explaining observations using replicable experimentation and correlative data.

The quality of science depends upon the quality of the tools available and the scale that the observation can be made across.

Newton's greatest work came through observations on a very "human" level, primarily because the tools available to him were very rudimentary. He wasn't able to observe the curve of space, nor the complex behaviour of subatomic particles, so he built a basic model that accounted for the variables that were apparent at the time. On a day to day level, a large number of his observations are still accurate enough to explain the phenomena that the majority of us experience.

When we had the tools to observe ever deeper into space, it became possible to observe gravitational effects on an ever greater scale; this is where relativity came into play.

Relativity is a tool for explaining physics on a cosmic scale; a scale so great that Newton could not have been able to predict or measure the effects.

As the technology became available to break down matter into ever smaller component parts, we started discovering the wonders of quantum mechanics. It is doubtful that anyone could have predicted the incredible behaviour that manifests at these scales; even the basic principle of wave/particle duality seemed to run against all "common" knowledge from the time.

Do these discoveries make Newton wrong? That depends upon your point of view; his work was accurate enough for later physicists to expand upon it as better tools became available, therefore he must have gotten enough right for future giants to stand upon his shoulders. If you set up Newton's experiments all over again, you will see the same results and will be able to replicate them again and again.

Even when experiments are proven to have weaknesses under different conditions, it doesn't change the FACTS that they generate, it mearly adds conditions and qualifiers to that data set to clarify the conditions under which they accurately explain the observable phenomena. To deny this is to deny the evidence from generations of discovery; if it wasn't for pioneers putting their work into the public domain and challenging the scientific community to prove them wrong, it is doubtful that we would even have the technology for me to be typing this response.

Science isn't the worship of the unknown; it is a process that can be applied to discover what is happening around you (as opposed to learning by wrote the teachings of a big beard in the sky). The driving force of science is the fact that models are built up only to be broken down again; this is what keeps us pushing forwards, rather than repeating the dogma from 2000 years ago, when lightening storms were seen as messages from a divine power ... now, courtesy of our understanding of the subatomic world, not only can we explain the observable effect on a human scale (lightening strikes) but can investigated related phenomena such as upper atmospheric "sprites".

Therefore, science is a philosophy, not a theology. Ergo, atheism is not only possible, but laudable from many perspectives.

[xpensive]

What's wrong with you philosophers anyway?

Fist thing I learned at univerity was that science was about studiyng and understanding certain phenomenons in the universe,
then trying to formulate a plausible theory to in order to xplain said phenomenon.

When Newtonian methods don't apply any more, you turn to quantum physics, while that's the end of the road for me.

[Miguel]

Religions are constructed to manipulate and control, which is why science can be described as a religion. It is the most powerful source of human manipulation ever seen.

Short answer: science is not a religion because you are actually encouraged to come up with your ideas and challenge the established hypotheses.

Actually, the purpose of science is to understand and, hopefully, predict stuff other people hadn't ever imagined. Eventually, and because the verbs you use are transitive, you are partly right: one of the things you can do with science is manipulate and control "nature", because you have a shallow understanding of it.

However, there is one crucial difference: science doesn't tell you what to think. No, really, it doesn't. Have you met any catholic priest that didn't believe in the bible as gospel? A rabbi that questioned the Tanakh? An imam that had a similar position with respecto to Qur'an?

It turns out that some people (very few, though) don't accept that the spin of the electron has a quantum nature. And they spend their efforts trying to build a successful classical analogue. They might be successful, who knows. Of course, this is very off-track, so this is difficult to accomplish unless you have a fixed position at a University already.

Other people, in the past, thought that this quantum non-determination was caused by our ignorance, and proposed a system of "hidden variables". It turns out that these very guys found that, in some kind of experiments, normal QM and hidden-variables QM would behave differently. What do we do now? We do the experiments! Down with beliefs! Up with experiments! In this case, the normal QM won.

Finally, for the galaxy dynamics we observe to be explained by General Relativity, we need to add lots of "dark matter". Heck, maybe even some dark energy as well. This makes some people feel uneasy (that includes me, by the way). So a few scientists are trying to come up with an alternative theory... even based in Newtonian physics and not relativity! The acronym for this is "MOND" (modified newtonian dynamics).

The procedure for an alternative "religion" goes as following: you don't like the current state of affairs, so propose your pet theory. You compare your pet theory to available experimental data, and maybe it matches. Then, you go on and try to come up with an experiment where mainstream and alternate theories would differ. Someone will hopefully feel compelled to check who's right. In the case both theories predict the same thing, and if they are not mathematically equivalent (e.g. Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics are the same stuff with a different coating), you choose the one that's mathematically nicer or simpler.

However just like all other religions, science also tries to tell the truth and gives its followers a path to follow in their natural human demand for answers.

Most of the time it fails miserably like all religions.
Simply put they are all crutches for human fears and vulnerability.

There is something fundamental for religion not required in science: FAITH. You must have faith that someone resurrected, or that god will send a prophet (or maybe he already sent it), or that you will take the shape of another creature after death. You must have faith in unprovable events.

[gridwalker]

Incidentally, one of the reasons why Newton didn't progress further with his science was that he was also a fundamentalist Christian; he dedicated more time trying to decode hidden messages in the bible to unlock the "seven seals" which would open the hidden book of ultimate knowledge (Revelation 5:1) than he ever spent on physics.

This is a classic example of the dichotomy that exists between theism and experimental science that holds back the process of human discovery.

[autogyro]

Gridwalker said

Therefore, science is a philosophy, not a theology. Ergo, atheism is not only possible, but laudable from many perspectives.

Absolutely correct atheism is not only possible but laudable from many pespectives but only from within scientific method, which is both a theology and a philosophy.
The problem is, there is no explanation for existance from any religion including science outside of these boundaries, therefore aetheism does not exist in the 'real' world. An 'atheist' is simply challenging their own existance.
Sorry Gridwalker it is a squared circle.

[autogyro]

Incidentally, one of the reasons why Newton didn't progress further with his science was that he was also a fundamentalist Christian; he dedicated more time trying to decode hidden messages in the bible to unlock the "seven seals" which would open the hidden book of ultimate knowledge (Revelation 5:1) than he ever spent on physics.

This is a classic example of the dichotomy that exists between theism and experimental science that holds back the process of human discovery.

Completely different issue Gridwalker.
Struggling with a personal belief structure is a main aspect of the human condition. A conflict of belief in this case between Christianity (Gnostic) and Science.

[Miguel]

Autogyro, you are continually stating that science is a religion, but haven't stated why so far. As a counter-point, I've given you examples in which the most popular religions and the scientific method differ. Care to show me where I'm wrong? Note that "obviously" is not an answer.

PS: A square and a circle become the same thing if you make them large enough... or small enough

[xpensive]

Incidentally, one of the reasons why Newton didn't progress further with his science was that he was also a fundamentalist Christian; he dedicated more time trying to decode hidden messages in the bible to unlock the "seven seals" which would open the hidden book of ultimate knowledge (Revelation 5:1) than he ever spent on physics.

This is a classic example of the dichotomy that exists between theism and experimental science that holds back the process of human discovery.

In that sense, there are some more handfast xampls on how religion has interfered with science thru the ages, beginning with the idea of earth circulating the sun perhaps?

This was of course Darwin's fate in his lifetime as well, when he observed those phenomenons of nature and formulated a theory to xplain it, only to be laughed out of the church.

[gridwalker]

@Autogyro - The scientific method produced the technology you are using to view these very words; to deny that this methodology works is to deny the benefits of the modern world.

If you insist that science and religion are lumped in together then they must all be held to the same standard, so please show me any replicable evidence that any other "theology" is correct in explaining why the sun rises or how a computer functions.

Additionally, please give me an example of where opposing scientific viewpoints have caused a war : there have been wars caused by all manner of issues (even a brief war caused by a football match) but religion has caused more than most ... surely you must be able to give an example, if science is so comparable to other theologies?

Until the day that you can do this, I am afraid that it is you who is squaring the circle.


@Xpensive - The reason why I used that example is because Newton was a theological christian and a philosophical scientist. Theologies are notoriously intolerant, as two theologies normally cannot co-exist within the same existential framework.

Newton balanced these two worldviews and thus prioritised his research accordingly. In most other cases, the inhibition on scientific progress came from external sources, but Newton made his own decisions about what to research.

I find it fascinating that someone of such obvious genious would move away from the empirical method in order to study something where there can be no indicators of progress, nor any means of verification.

[Mysticf1]

Science does rely on faith in some circumstances. I will add that i am in no way religious...i have friends that feel superior to religious people and state science and intelligence as the all ruling reason behind that superiority...yet they have faith in science to be right...yet they do not know it for a fact..the established truth is ever changing...that in my eyes is no different to believing in a supreme being. Richard Dawkins is a perfect example....sure i agree with him on many points but the way he pushes his beliefs on people doesnt sit well.

[xpensive]

Very true Grid, why Darwin, as well as my fellow countryman Linne, are such shining xamples of going against the theological grain at times when there was Mosley-esque laws against such thinking.

Thinking outside the box is to my mind the heart and soul of engineering and science, how many times one of my engineers has come to my office with something to prove he was smarter than me?

More times than I can recall, hated every second of it, but I'm engineer enough to go along with a straight face.

[Miguel]

Science does rely on faith in some circumstances. I will add that i am in no way religious...i have friends that feel superior to religious people and state science and intelligence as the all ruling reason behind that superiority...yet they have faith in science to be right...yet they do not know it for a fact..the established truth is ever changing...that in my eyes is no different to believing in a supreme being. Richard Dawkins is a perfect example....sure i agree with him on many points but the way he pushes his beliefs on people doesnt sit well.

I'll have to agree with this. The "I'm so intelligent to understand this, but you'll have to believe me" attitude isn't really helpful, is it?

EDIT: Going a bit on topic, two people voted that they are still undecided. This is a completely honest question: may I ask why? It sure is counterintuitive, or perhaps you are uneasy that normal QM treats space and time in a different footing. Or is it the Bell paradox?

[autogyro]

I do not deny that scientific method works, only that it does not tell the truth.

Neither do I deny the benefits science has made to mankind, or the terrible damage and danger it has continued to expose humanity to.
This is exactly the same throughout history for all religions.

Newton considered important things that usualy only occur to modern people when they are close to death.
The reason modern people do not consider these things during their busy lives, is a direct result of the religion of science and the arrogance of the 'American Dream'. That is exploiting the world by any means for personal gain and worshiping science through consumerism. This establishes a condition of invulnerability and comfort sufficient for those in control to manipulate to advantage.
It catches us all out eventualy however with the invitability of death.

[xpensive]

Science and theories/models stemming from it, are not a beuty-contest, something where you can pick and choose to your liking.

But we live in a free society, why we have the Lyndon LaRouches, White Arian militias and whatever self-appointed geniouses who claim to have proof that man lived together with T-Rex once upon a time.