As religion is a set of beliefs, plis, calculate the volume of things a scientist must memorize in their university formation.
Memorizing and beliefs are hand with hand. All the knowledges transmitted only by theoreticaly lectures are more religion than science. The geometrical and fuctional structure of the mass, in a church, and of a lecture is just the same. Authoritarianism is intensively administered in 21th century hierarchical classrooms, where maybe some guy is talking against authoritarianism...
Authoritarism is the power , for example, of curricula. As Author concept must change in brutal terms, because under the vision from sensosphere, you, wich say yourself an author, are not the author, but a piece, a chip, of a authority all made by pieces by you and by me, that can be called sensosphere, ecosystem, ecobrain, world, god (pantheistic), common sense. In fact all that resistance from scientists to accept Gaia Theory, whats it is saying to us is precisely that actual 21th century scientists following so close, so blocked, epistemologicaly, to evidences that tried to pass their consensual control, as theories, but that Gaia Theory is not a theory at all, just your senses say you are sensing directly what theory say. When that theory tried to pass the rubicon of the authority of the fathers of the church of science, they stupidely say:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080831071921AAEOPyF
Is science a religion?
for many years i was of the opinion that science was a religion. Science provides an attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe, proposes its own creation story and non-provable ideas, (a theory, by definition, cannot be proven, only disproven.)
i was hardened in my assurance for years until someone pointed out to me that in its purest form, as des Cartes intended, it did not preach a code of ethical conduct, only examined the evidence. in contrast to religion, it recommended a healthy dose of doubt instead of blind faith.
modern science doesn't seem to follow these guidelines. it preaches blind denial and dismissal of opposing viewpoints without investigation, and most scientific groups require a specified code of ethical conduct.
By definition, doesn't this mean that modern science has become a religion?
i was hardened in my assurance for years until someone pointed out to me that in its purest form, as des Cartes intended, it did not preach a code of ethical conduct, only examined the evidence. in contrast to religion, it recommended a healthy dose of doubt instead of blind faith.
modern science doesn't seem to follow these guidelines. it preaches blind denial and dismissal of opposing viewpoints without investigation, and most scientific groups require a specified code of ethical conduct.
By definition, doesn't this mean that modern science has become a religion?
Additional Details
an example of science preaching blind denial: try to discuss the subject of magic with any scientist. i have, and the vast majority dismiss it without even considering subjecting specified claims to scientific scrutiny. what is the reason for this dismissal? "Because its magic"
note here that much of what comprises modern physics, chemistry and several other sciences were considered 'magic' in past generations, but when finally given serious scientific scrutiny were accepted.
note here that much of what comprises modern physics, chemistry and several other sciences were considered 'magic' in past generations, but when finally given serious scientific scrutiny were accepted.
2 years ago
SEE ANSWERS:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080831071921AAEOPyF
