Great, so you’ve given the most negative possible view of science, but your headline promised a comparison between science and religion. Sadly you have said nothing about the latter.
Care you say what religion is?
Science cannot and will not tell you why things happen. It is interested in describing nature and this description leads to explanations. There is no purpose to electrons colliding, they just do. There are causes for effects but no underlying reasons.
Actually, they don’t, but “purpose” wasn’t the question. It was a question concerning “why by what cause”, not “why for what purpose”.
The word “reason” is used for both “cause” and “purpose”, to be applied rationally.
The use of earlier science.
“Hit” as in bullet entering your forehead.
A “lone quark” isn’t even a particle, which is why it immediately dissipates. But I wasn’t asking about why protons breakup when they collide, but rather why electrons can’t collide with something it is so strongly attracted to. If the electron were to get close enough to the proton, those “quarks” would go bonkers and become very quarky. The proton would most probably break up. So the question is still, “Why can’t the electron get to the proton?”
That was kind of my point. 
No. I don’t think that you did. The electromagnetic field causes them to ATTRACT, not repel. And I am not necessarily talking about the proton breaking up. An electron ORBITS a proton at an extreme distance considering its size (like about 1000 times). Why is it staying away and not getting closer?
Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same.
Not really. In fact Not At All.
The elements of religion that claimed cosmological knowledge might have been called science 4000 years ago. Sadly religion is NOT characterised by continuing investigation of the cosmology as science is, which allows a range of possible theories. Religion turns such knowledge into dogma, whereas science is a process of continual improvement that does not rely on belief.
But the greatest aim of religion is the dogmatic imposition of a system of Morals. Science has no interest is morality.
But once again religion fails the adaptability test, and what it lacks in a science of cosmology it also lacks in the moral world of ethics.
Yes, OBVIOUSLY.
But this is about the distinction between religion and science. That’s why your clumsy language needs more care.
If a science ‘why’ question cannot be re-figured to ask “how” then it is NOT a science question.
The confusion between the two meanings of why is at the cutting edge between the distinction between science and religion.
It is a distinction not understood by the thread.
When Arminius gets the distinction he would have to drop the thesis that S and R have 'No Fundemental Distinction"
“How” and “Why” is EXACTLY the fundamental distinction.
I am afraid that is not true.
The only fundamental question is What.
If you can know what is it, later or sooner you will know how and why too.
with love,
sanjay
Both of science and religion look for how and why.
Both of these are saperate but very much conflated. The difference is only linguistic, neither scientific nor a philosopical one. But, both always start from the obsevation(what). That observation begs the process(how) and cause(why).
Secondly, one how becomes the why of next step.
In other words, why is summnrized how and how is the summary of many enumarable tiny whats.
with love,
sanjay
1 “WHY” can stand for non purposive explanations, it is NOT that definition I am talking about. For the purpose if the discussion I am interested in drawing a distinction between the non purposive and the purposive questions. HOW (non purposive), and WHY(purposive) are shorthand for avoiding the imprecise definition of “WHY”.
2 All science questions including “WHY” that cannot be re-worded with “HOW”, are not science questions. (Give it a try!)
3 Science decribes Nature, it does not attempt to explain it is purposive terms.
4. Religion Does include purposive questions. It seeks to explain in terms of God’s intentions.
5. Science is distinct from religion in this matter.
If you want to converse with me rather than run away as you did before you might consider trying to unpack the argument, rather than simply contradict.
Why am I here?
This can be a scientific question OR a religious one. They are NOT the same question and do NOT have the same answer.
Give it a try!
Science is only really interested in How did I get here. The answers might include, reproduction, evolution, considerations of material physics.
None of these are of the religious type such as GOd want’s me for a sunbeam, or God wants me to impose Sharia; or god wanted to punish me, reward me.
The only distinction between what Science was supposed to be (certainly not what it is today) and religion is expressed in their motto, Nullius in Verbe.
But today, science has become entirely faith based and doing every single thing that any religion has ever done (to an even greater degree) in order to obtain and maintain control over people and the world. Science today is merely myth and mysticism using technology as their “display of miracles” (required by all religions).
If this were true don’t expect any new and more mind bending technologies to come along. The difference between a “technological” miracle and a “religious” one is that the former has a scientific explanation for it’s so-called miracles while the latter, as you say, is based on pure mysticism where any attempted definition relies on pure dogma which is our explanation for things we can’t explain bottom up or top down.
According to your view of science the LHC is only good for some great video games at the end of the tunnel.
Also, how does science “obtain and maintain control over people and the world” with a fraction of 1% of GDP as in the U.S. for instance as compared to the duplicity, corruption and power lust of governments throughout the world? Who controls the public purse? Why do CEO’s still receive massive amounts in bonuses and bailouts after having nearly collapsed the system by rampant greed, ineptitude, thoroughly conscious of overt misrepresentations in their reports, etc. Who are the one’s trying to do the controlling here?
Science is a human activity and human nature in whatever endeavor distorts everything. Science is no exception with all it’s opposing egos trying to float to the top but that doesn’t preclude it’s accomplishments in the past or future. It’s a human interest story and while it’s told has no where else to go except forward in spite all the human foibles which hold it back.
Your Jihad against science is not unlike that of the Christians fighting the infidels during the Crusades only in this case the infidels are the institutions of science. Crusades always incorporate extremes beyond comprehension and should never be trusted regarding any subject, time or place.
This is absolutely false!
The main tool of science is experimentation.
Nowhere in science will you find the terms atonement and punishment.
The only tool of religion is fear. Where in the holy books do you find the rule " use your imagination and come up with new theories that we can test " the religious dogma forbids thinking for oneself.
I think that is just the tip of the iceberg of fundamental differences.
with love,
sanjay
You are a product of the religion of science “bending the mind” of its cult. Artificial life (those video games) is all you have to look forward to. You are in what they called “The Matrix” wherein your perception and opinions are artificially created to yield the impression that the religions are different, old, and without truth, whereas science is new and the only truth.
Quantum physics for example, is 100% mathematical magic and mysticism, “illusion of reality by tricking the mind”. It is no more than merely a higher level of the same old magic of the Persians. Relativity is a little more credible, but is still merely a “bending of the mind”, having little to do with reality. Both are merely engineering tools, being proposed as absolute truths and the make of the universe itself. Both propose that “mind is the only physical reality” - a “cult”.
There is nothing cultish or matrix like when I read Lisa Randall or Paul Davies, etc. The former especially is prone to admit incongruities, uncertainties or what at this time amounts to speculation. The people I’ve read attempt to be quite honest and logical about the state of the art of science and its host of theories. They too have their criticisms which is both natural and necessary since no two in ANY field think alike especially in one as complex as science
On the other hand statements such as science being a religion and even worse attempting to take over the world offers nothing. How would they do that having to go cap in hand to every government or some institutional funding agency? But scientists are usually bright people. Maybe they can make the world religious their way on a fraction of 1% GDP budget.
Another statement which sounds more “unreal” than your description of it is:
This statements implies, says and proves nothing. All it denotes is your fixed view. It’s a first class example of anyone being able to state anything on any subject as they wish.
Modern technologies depend on QM and can’t exist without it. That’s a given and it’s been that way for some decades. What “tricks” the mind most of all are the wrong turns within it consequently acknowledged as fact instead of censored as possibly wrong. The raison d’etre of science as it now stands, enforces the edict that no theory is nested in absolute certainty just degrees of probability. This makes sense in the light of our incomplete understanding of nature and likely to remain so subject to more “refined” probabilities. On the other hand your own “certainty” precludes most of the accomplishments of 20th century science up to the present especially those in the Quantum field. Most of these are just mythology and alchemy in your view. Your “certainty” which is absolute assures you of that. Who’s really living in the Matrix here?
The question is to whom is one supposed to give at least some measure of credibility? The likes of those I mentioned above or you who regards science in the same way a Muslim fundamentalist would the Unbeliever?