After observing the direction Physics is taking, I am becoming
more and more convinced that Physics is the coming religion in the
west.

If one examines various religions, especially Christianity it is
amazing how similar they are. In fact I would go as far as to suggest
that, given the present trends, in another 2000 years from now, Physics
will be on the same level in the west as Christianity is today. In the
year 4000 Christianity will have just about died out in the face of
more and more scientific advances, all of which continue to erode the
idea of a God system of belief. Replacing it with a religion based on
science, with Physics at its heart. It will offer solace to the average
man by explaining WHY he is here and MOST of the mysteries of life in
general. I say MOST as not only will science still have a lot to
discover, even then, but a little mystery adds spice to any religion. I
have listed some examples of their similarity below no doubt you could
add others:-


Both have a something from nothing type of instant universe creation,
the big bang on the one hand and 6 days on the other.


Both claim that the universe was created from forces beyond our
understanding, yet, forces that we will eventually understand.


Both enshrine their ideas of the forces involved in creation, in books
that are in the most part ambiguous to the average reader, requiring
interpretation from scientists/priests.


Both have experts in their field scientists on the one hand, priests on
the other, both preaching from privileged positions, their
interpretation of the word to the inferior masses below them.


Both have special buildings dedicated to their field of worship,
churches and labs.


Both have prophets who came before the master to preach the word and
prepare the way, Aryabhata, Dignaga, Dharmakirti, Alhazen, Sir Isaac
Newton, etc. for Physics and Yehoshua, Shmu'el, Isaiah, Moses etc for
the Christians.


Both had a messiah, a saviour or liberator to show them a new way Jesus
for the Christians and Einstein for the Physicists.


Both have an old and new verification of their greatness, in physics
old Mechanics, & new Relativistic mechanics & Quantum mechanics.
Christianity has the old testament and new testament. Plus many other
similar old and new writings in both fields all reinforcing each other.


Both have their commandments, in the case of Christianity the 12 off we
all know, I hope, and in Physics some of the most significant are
Conservation : Boyle's :Special Relativity : General Relativity :
Inertia : Heat Conduction : Gravitation: Coulomb's : Ohm's :
Kirchhoff's : Gauss's : Faraday's and Ampere's. Many others include
those in Quantum Mechanics etc but I will settle with these 12 for now
just to maintain a balance.


Both claim to predict the future using selected writings and the
reasoning
of their respective prophets to justify their claims.


Enough is enough, judge for yourself.

Views: 877

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I love science, and I believe its as right as we can get it. I wish more effort were put into many things in science, like the space elevator since the discovery of nano tubes, or quantum computers, moon colonies, what came first the chicken or the egg, etc. I just refuse to have "faith" in everything I am told, and I certainly don't believe that if a man knows more than me on a certain subject, which most do, it entitles his word to blind acceptance.
In no way does science ask anybody to have "faith" in anything whatsoever. The entire point of science is quite the reverse--to demand credible evidence and rigorous reason to support any assertions. It is certainly true that not everybody can be an expert in every field, but that is a far cry from accusing science of being a faith-based endeavor.
You don't love science. You love technology. You don't understand science.
How do you know what I don't love in such a short acquaintance, if I were a fundy I would love you. And does one need to understand "science" to be allowed a place in the human race? By the way are scientists cloned? as the general perception on this site seems to see them as all the same. No stupid or incompetent ones seem to exist, strange, they must be a species separate from the human race.
Bob, to quote your post above: "I love science, and I believe its as right as we can get it. I wish more effort were put into many things in science, like the space elevator since the discovery of nano tubes, or quantum computers, moon colonies, what came first the chicken or the egg, etc."

With the possible exception of the chicken/egg question, which is philosophical, rather than scientific, all the examples you give are technologies. Technologies are based on science, but they are not science per se. Everything else you've posted amply demonstrates that you don't understand science, so I don't see how you could love it.

Once again, you put words in my mouth to assert that I implied one needs "to understand science to be allowed a place in the human race". Of course this is nonsense. But one does need to understand science if they want to be taken seriously when debating various aspects of it and what its future course may be.

And of course there are scientists of all stripes. You seem to insist on missing the point that while scientists make mistakes, science is self-correcting over time. Again, you are parroting the same tired arguments that fundies use to try to discredit science. If you are not a fundy, why are you doing their dirty work for them?
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time gets us not earlier than the Planck epoch. I'm glad you have broken through that barrier to a singularity. Foul shot

Created "to cause to come into being, as something unique" nothing wrong with that, something caused the Universe to come into being. Foul shot

Creation is an English word as defined above, are you really willing to surrender it to the theists for their use alone? Foul shot

Get of the pitch

So, as you can't understand anyone who does not fall into the party line, then I must be a fundy, brilliant logic sunshine. For your info for as far back as I can remember I have "known" God does not exist, so I hardly need a trainee Atheist telling me what I am.

Delete away, and why not go out and burn some books while you are at it, hey good idea why not start with the Bible and the Koran, that would seem to be your level of argument
.
"formed" is a much better word than "created" - because "create" also means "to produce through artistic or imaginative effort"

Created is sloppy word choice because it cannot be shown that our universe:

a) is unique.
b) came into existence with the Big Bang.
c) had a single cause, and was not part of a long chain of events.

But it was your original "Something from nothing" claim that really showed what a straw man tossing philosophical deadbeat you are.

"Something from nothing" is the ultimate fundy phrase.
Formed also means "to mold or develop by discipline or instructions" I never claimed the term "something from nothing" I suggested that "BOTH have a something from nothing type of instant universe creation"

As for your statements prefixed with "it cannot be shown" are you not aware that the list is infinite. Stop trying to bulk your arguments with what can't be proven that's totally pointless, try sticking to what can be proven. But then so far I have seen little to show that any of your statements are based in fact.

In fact your arguments are typical of a closet agnostic, so what are you doing on an atheist site, looking for answers?
Amazing. A contradiction in one breath: "I never claimed the term 'something from nothing' I suggested that 'BOTH have a something from nothing type of instant universe creation'". How is this different?

Again, you are falling for the common misunderstanding that the Big Bang is a "something from nothing" explanation. It is not. It is an "expansion from a singularity" explanation.

And your admonition to David to stick to what can be proven is pretty rich, considering you yourself don't think anything can be proven.
First of all, I am tired of this "science and religion are basically the same thing" argument. Religion (christianity) is based on faith. Any conversation with a christian that goes on long enough will eventually involve the phrase "that's why you have to have faith". In other words, the only way to believe it is to just believe it.

Science on the other hand uses reason and empiricism to determine what is true, not faith. Any conversation on the nature of truth with a scientist will eventually involve his saying something to the effect of "see for yourself". Religion attempts to explain reality, but it offers no mechanism through which to do so.

Empirical data gathered about the material world offers us very little to base the Big Questions of life on, so I really don't see how Physics can take on any kind of a religious basis. A scientific view of the universe can be hard to accept (no objective purpose, no cosmic bogey man to punish the wicked, no "plan" to the universe) but it is the only worldview that conforms to empirical facts, evidence, reason and nothing else.

If being revered by society is your only qualification for being considered a religion then there are dozens of "new" religions competing for peoples attention. Am I assuming too much in calling you a Subjectivist? Trusting your brain might not be immediately emotionally satisfying, but it's the best way we have to determine what the truth is.

Regardless, I would like to end this post with a quote from Pulp Fiction that I feel is appropriate in a conversation about how we determine what truth is.

if my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.
I appear to have mislead many here, I am also tired of the "science and religion are basically the same thing" arguments, I only posed it as a question and not an answer/statement a fact that most seem to have missed. Still its an interesting response, its almost as if the responders feel threatened in some way.

I think you will find at that at some point in a conversation with a scientist that goes on long enough will eventually involve the phrase, "I don't know" which is pretty much the same thing as you will just have to believe.

That's the problem. as empirical data on the "big questions" is so unsatisfactory it leave a weakness for the theists to exploit, and as science will never have all the answers, then there will always be some form of theists.

I would not be insulted by being called a Subjectivist. However I prefer not to label as labels only cover generalities and man is more complex than that.

Do you consider the question I asked scary?? "Physics, the new religion?" as I don't.
I guess you're not liking the answers you're getting, then?

Also, I don't get the impression that any one of your responders feels threatened... we just simply disagree with you.

RESPONDERS: Do you guys feel threatened by his article?

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service