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

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
of their respective prophets to justify their claims.

Enough is enough, judge for yourself.

Views: 846

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I said "If the quote is good who cares who said it. Its the message that counts not the messenger." You said "who cares, I do" With example that clearly shows you put more store in the source of the message than the message itself.

And I don't care if Einstein or his grandmother said it, in fact much as I admire what the man achieved and the power of his mind, he was just a man, not a God, he was right and wrong, went to the toilet, brushed his teeth, just like the rest of us. I suspect he would be amused at the height of the pedestal we have put him on today. We even try and enter his mind and put importantance on what he MAY have thought, just as you do here, and like the theists do with their Jesus.
With example that clearly shows you put more store in the source of the message than the message itself.

Pure bushist, black-and-white only logic. "If you're not with us, you're against us".

and put importantance on what he MAY have thought, just as you do here

That importance is in your mind only. There's a French saying: "Quand on montre la Lune du doigt, l'idiot regarde le doigt". I won't even lose time to translate. I give up.
Bleh. I could use better analogies to 'prove' that Capitalism, Veganism or Pastafarianism are the new religions.
Could you?
Easily. All your analogies are either false (non-existent 'claims' abound), or use terms like 'worship', 'prophet' in such a vague way they become meaningless.

As you wrote,

Enough is enough, judge for yourself.

I will look forward to your "easy" analogies. By the way did you know its a Christian thing to make broad statements like your words are meaningless or what you say is false, without backing it up with logical reasoning?

Lets see, perhaps I could try that. "Your replies are so vague as to be meaningless"
I gave you some pointers, but if you want a more elaborate reply, here goes -

Preamble - [Physics] will offer solace to the average man by explaining WHY he is here and MOST of the mysteries of life in general.

That's pure speculation at best. While most physicists of the XIXth century held such an optimistic view of science, it had completely vanished at the time of WWI, and hasn't resurfaced since. I don't know any modern physicist who made such a claim.

Now about your analogies -

1 - False. The Big Bang is not a something from nothing type of instant. Saying "we don't know" is not equivalent to "there was nothing before".

2 - False. Only religion claims the former, while physics' goal is to try to understand these 'original forces'. Neither religion nor physics claim we will eventually understand them.

3 - Preposterous. Only highly speculative works of physics (usually technical articles, not books) that present themselves as open to interpretation, can be seen as 'ambiguous' (dismissing poorly written books and crap science here, of course). For books which don't fall into these categories, either you have the required baggage to understand them or not. Contrary to sacred texts, they're not intended for everyone to read or understand. That's why we have popular science books, with varying levels of complexity.

4 - Preposterous. Preaching from privileged position... to the inferior masses. Are you that dismissive of the very concept of education? How do you expect knowledge to be transmitted from one generation to another, whether it be physics, economics, languages, or horticulture?

5 - Preposterous. I think everyone would assume that 'worship' in dedicated places involves frequent gathering of people, both priests and common followers. That's not what happens in labs. Although it sort of happens in many public offices, banks, museums and airports.

6 - Logical fallacy. That's only a post-hoc explanation of scientific progress. It's true that scientists build on the works of their predecessors, and expect or hope their successors will do the same, but none of them assume they're paving the way for a 'master' to come. AFAIK, there's no prophecy about the achievements of a particular future individual in science.

7 - Preposterous. Einstein was a major milestone in physics, as was Newton, so what? Modern physics has become so complex that any achievement requires the collaborative work of several physicists. It's a team business today, so it's unlikely we'll see a new Einstein emerge, but his theories are put to test just as any other's. He's not special in that sense. His greatness is only a matter of magnitude, not a special quality only Einstein had.

8 - Logical fallacy. You're quick to draw a single line between 'old' and 'new' in Physics (pre- and post-Einstein) to make your point, and then to conflate Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to. That's circular logic.

9 - but I will settle with these 12 for now just to maintain a balance.
Precious. Don't you realize you blew your own argument away?
I said "Physics" not Physicists. Physics to the non initiated is a type of magic which may offer future salvation. We all know that Physicists, who understand their subject woould make no such claim.

1. Vague. I am glad you know there as something there before, please tell me what it was as it has escaped me( and everyone else) so far.

2. Wrong. Religion claims that all questions will be "eventually" answered by God, and Physics claims to be looking for the answers, with the expectation of "eventually" finding them. But I do agree they are both wrong in thinking we will ever understand the forces involved

3. Confused. First I would have thought that most "holy" books were open to or had several possible meanings or interpretations. As were most of the writings on Physics to "the average reader" naturally to some high priest of physics they would see no ambiguity

4. Mislead. Ever tried discussing Physics with a Physicist, they "mostly" speak with an arrogance born from a privileged position of knowledge of a difficult subject. This has nothing to do with education, that's something completly different. By the way are you a scientist?

5. Shortsighted. The scientists frequently gather, as do the lab assistants and other observers including the "uneducated" who are there to be being "educated" by their mentors.

6. Misinterpretation. I never said they were aware they were paving the way for the master, no more than the precedents of Christianity did. They just naturally do their thing and others build on it.

7. Misunderstanding. I am not talking about today, I suggested that it was back in the day when Einstein pointed in a new direction. I am not saying there were not others like Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier many years before pointing vaguely in the same direction, but he gave a clear lead. Just like Christ for the Christians, who was also preceded by many others John the B springs to mind.

8. ?? Not certain what you are getting at but lets just say new and old then it works equally as well.

9. And don't you realise that I don't have an argument.

I can't understand why people can't understand simple English. At no time did I present an argument, I simply presented a question for you to answer:- "Physics, the new religion?" that's a question Precious not a statement. I personally don't belive that Physics is the coming religion, I simply observe and some factors lead me to believe it "could" be a possibility, but then so could a lot of other things but at no time did I state "I believe that is the case" In fact I have stated somewhere that the only thing I know for certain is that whatever I know will happen, won't.
1. Me: "we don't know"
1. You: I am glad you know there as something there before

I can't understand why people can't understand simple English.

Neither do I.
Sorry stupidity kicking in again
"As you could not work I will do it for you. "I am glad you know there WAS something there before"
I don't mind the typo. It's the meaning of your statement that's important. I thought it should be obvious to anyone, you included. Turns out I was wrong.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service