Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Cory in the House on 18/04/2021 19:16:53
-
First time posting on the forum.
I view science as a religion. Controversial, but please allow me to go in depth.
In short, I was raised catholic, fell out of the religion, went over 10 years of my life just lingering around as an atheist/agnostic, wasn't really sure about the existence of God, and now just things are happening in my life where I'm slowly starting to rediscover my faith... whatever that means honestly. I'm just somewhere in my life that seems a bit... bizarre to not be some sort of supernatural intervention. But again, I have no idea and this could all just be pure coincidence.
I ask this question because I want to be more scientifically literate. The question of "evidence" doesn't really just sit with me well at pure face value, because while we have "evidence" for evolution(which people deny), we also have "evidence" of Jesus being real(which people deny), so the question for me goes deeper.
I want to "hold" science in my hand. Observe it for myself. How can I do that? What can I observe for myself?
For example, the Earth being 4 billion years old. Instead of just taking someone like Neil Tyson's word for it, how can I see that the Earth is 4 billion years old for myself?
And that's where the religion part comes in. I need to take on pure "faith" that what Neil Tyson tells me about the Earth being 4 billion years old is true. Even though I have never done any personal testing for myself(and not even sure where to begin with that), and even though Neil personally never saw the formation of the Earth, he claims with 100% certainty that the Earth is 4 billion years old.
And that's why I ask what can I do for myself to test that yes, the Earth is 4 billion years old. Science is testable and observable, so what can I do to confirm that the Earth is 4 billion years old for myself?
I equate the Bible telling me that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Neil Tyson telling me the Earth is 4 billion years old the same way - I have to take on faith that what is being told to me is the truth.
-
The question of "evidence" doesn't really just sit with me well at pure face value, because while we have "evidence" for evolution(which people deny), we also have "evidence" of Jesus being real(which people deny), so the question for me goes deeper.
You are correct that there is evidence of evolution, lots and lots. There is no evidence at all that Jesus was supernatural, so this is not an apples to apples comparison. If you were just stating that the person Jesus existed, the evidence for that is not clear cut.
This is a decent overview of how the age of the earth was determined.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth
-
You can always do research. Look up how different dating methods work. Isochron dating is a good one. It isn't too hard to understand.
-
You can always do research. Look up how different dating methods work. Isochron dating is a good one. It isn't too hard to understand.
But is there something that I can do myself, hold for myself, test for myself the Earth being 4 billion years old?
Like can I grab a test tube and do a test like that is what I mean.
-
Unfortunately, determining the earth's age experimentally is very difficult and expensive. And depending on how complete of an experimental re-test you need (ie do you need to reprove what nuclear half-lives are, or that there are atoms, etc?), this could take many lifetimes to conduct—indeed, part of the essence of science is that it has been developed over centuries.
There is some degree of a leap of faith involved in science, but I do not view it as remotely equivalent to the leaps of Faith required for most religious beliefs. It is more like the leap of faith involved in assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's possible it won't, but it's a pretty safe assumption.
I would start small, and personally experimentally verify things like: the earth is round, the moon has geographic features, mass is conserved during chemical reactions, relationships between pendulum mass/length/frequency etc.
I'm sure folks on this forum would love to help you with any of these. :)
-
Science is definitely not a religion.
There are plenty of things we don't understand, but no "essential mysteries", and everything anyone tells you is subject to experimental disproof - no faith is needed or tolerated. That said, there's an awful lot of data that has been collected and refined over many years, so whilst you are welcome in principle (and even encouraged, as a student) to do the experiments and calculations yourself, in practice we tend to consider a lot of data to be authoritative and sufficiently trustworthy to allow us to fly to the moon, build huge bridges, or do heart surgery, by reference to the textbooks.
Unlike priests and politicians, scientists do not claim to "know" how old the earth is. We do however have a pretty good idea, from the study of radioactive decay, how long various bits of rock have been around, so we have some reasonable estimates based on experimental evidence, of how long this planet has existed in its present form or thereabouts. That's very different from Bishop Usher's Revealed Truth, or anyone else's creation myth.
I worry about people who deny evolution. Look in a mirror. Do you look exactly like both of your parents? The fact that you don't, is called evolution. How can anyone seriously claim not to have evolved from their parents? All Darwin said was that if you do this enough times, and separate out those more fitted to eat A rather than B at each stage, you can end up with two distinct species that don't resemble each other, have widely different habitats, and may not be interfertile. The problem is that some humans are too vain and shortsighted to imagine that what might happen in more than one generation could be significant.
-
But is there something that I can do myself, hold for myself, test for myself the Earth being 4 billion years old?
Like can I grab a test tube and do a test like that is what I mean.
It sounds like you could end up on a slippery slope with this way of thinking. If you need to personally repeat every experiment ever done in order to accept its results, then science would get stuck. We'd be too busy trying to verify for ourselves things that have already been verified by others. This is partly why the results of experiments are published for peer review. The evidence is already there, you just need to look for it. Otherwise, one could end up with conspiracy theory-type thinking where they believe scientists are lying to the public in order to promote an agenda.
Scientists don't say that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old because they voted on it. It wasn't something that was arbitrarily declared by some kind of "king" of science. They say that it's that old because they have measured it. The methods used to measure it are readily available to read about. The reasoning behind it is open to the public. The results are in the literature.
-
Like can I grab a test tube and do a test like that is what I mean.
I just wondered, did you consider using the test tube "the other way" and testing the scripture?
You can grab a test tube and put a mustard seed in it, then add a poppy seed.
You can then look at them and recognise that the poppy seed is smaller than the mustard seed.
This enables you to disprove Matthew 13:31 and Matthew 13:32
-
Like can I grab a test tube and do a test like that is what I mean.
I just wondered, did you consider using the test tube "the other way" and testing the scripture?
You can grab a test tube and put a mustard seed in it, then add a poppy seed.
You can then look at them and recognise that the poppy seed is smaller than the mustard seed.
This enables you to disprove Matthew 13:31 and Matthew 13:32
Oh all the time. I question religious scripture all the time. I'm very back and forth, because there are things about science that make sense to me, and there are things about scripture that make sense to me. Equally, there are things that don't make sense to me. I hold both to the same level of scrutiny.
-
The "auditor's test" is two words: "show me".
Science tries, religion makes excuses.
If there's anything in science that doesn't make sense, ask a scientist (here, if you like!). Our job is to make sense, not to pretend that some things are beyond comprehension.
-
I hold both to the same level of scrutiny.
The difference is that science also scrutinises science (all the time), but religion never scrutinises religion.
When did science last change because it realised it had been mistaken, and when did religion last change because it realised it was mistaken?
That's the big difference so I hope you no longer
view science as a religion
-
All religions scrutinise all the others, and declare them invalid. Whom to believe?
-
@Cory in the House : How much mathematics do you remember from school? In your quest to become more scientifically literate, you might consider (if you haven't already) focusing on one or more of: logic (the underpinnings of all sciences) and statistics/probability (essential for scientific literacy).
You could also learn calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, or group theory, before embarking on a math-oriented exploration of science, if that sounds nice, but logic and stats are the two best ways of defining, testing, and establishing "truth."
-
Or you could study chemistry or biology, where you can make a lot of progress and gain understanding without too much maths.
-
Or you could study chemistry or biology, where you can make a lot of progress and gain understanding without too much maths.
Indeed. Many find mathematics off-putting. Chemistry and biology are excellent fields of study for a budding experimentalist, but given the goal stated by the OP, I worry that so much of chemistry and biology is "so and so discovered x, and it is true," and without an advanced suite of spectroscopic tools, it can be hard to interpret one's own experimental results beyond, "so and so said that if I did x that y would happen, and it did." So I just wanted to put logic and stats out there as tools for any truth seekers out there.
-
I'd probably look at a ravine and ask how long it took the river to cut that channel. Easy enough to measure the volume of silt in a gallon of water, measure the flow rate (Pooh sticks and a stopwatch!) and do a little multiplication. You would pretty soon come to the conclusion that, say, the Grand Canyon is a lot more than 6000 years old.
Now assume that the river started at the top and eroded its way downwards, because however old it is, gravity is probably older. So the striations in the rock indicate the age of each layer. Now you have the basis for investigating evolution from the fossil record, and you can look for your own fossils in a cliff face and wonder whether Genesis (or any other religious myth) is the whole truth.
-
I suspect that the OP has no intention of accepting scientific arguments. And just wants, in a subtle way, to attack Science.
-
I suspect that the OP has no intention of accepting scientific arguments. And just wants, in a subtle way, to attack Science.
It could be, but let's withhold judgement and give the benefit of the doubt. If it becomes an issue, we can deal with it then. As a mod, I don't see any problems in any of the posts in this thread until yours (please try focusing less on making assumptions about those making the posts, and discuss the subject matter of the posts themselves.)
-
@Cory in the House
Welcome!
IMHO... Science does Not prove or Disprove the Existence of GOD.
Quite Frankly, Science does Not care.
(Personal Views)
✌️
P.S. - I exist on Newton's Planet, located in Maxwell's Galaxy, enclosed in Einstein's Universe.
🖖
Edit - Seems like Cory is outta the House & perhaps back to the Church.
Why is Science seen as a rival in religious terms?
Did any God/s say Science is the Work of the D/evil?
& Seriously, Why do half religious confused folks look towards Science to clear out their doubts/confusions?
🤔
I Simply Fail to Understand the similarity/relation/relevance between Science & Religion.
🤷