NationStates Jolt Archive

No typo. Is physics a religion? I certainly have more faith in Feynman's QED (http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/TeachQM/QED.html) than the Bible (http://www.bible.com/), the Koran (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/), or the Upanishads (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/upan/) (this (http://books.google.com/books?id=n5BlBsFbGOQC&dq=gibran+the+prophet&pg=PP1&ots=e1C4K6OD5D&sig=RgGlELXhrYNlzaEEq09sWL_X-j8&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gibran+the+prophet&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail) is the closest thing I've found to a book of spiritual truth).

http://i25.tinypic.com/2lj4ayw.jpg

A bit simplified, but still, physics is not a religion, no.

Well, not really. As an Atheist, I believe in Science. But I don't call it a religion. I have certain prejudices against religion. Not people of the religions, just the religions themselves.

The scientific method seems a little more proactive in enquiry then a faith; that said there is probably a reason why people say they put their faith in science. Taoism is both a philosophy and a religion depending on who uses it. Perhaps this is similar.

A bit simplified, but still, physics is not a religion, no.

Great image! I can think of many arguments where it could be useful. Thanks, Fass!

I wouldn't call it a religion... but science (and with that physics) DO require a fair bit of faith.

There are uncounted lemmas, rules and laws which are faithfully compiled observations and deductions. Observations we can merely assume to be universally true because we never saw it happen otherwise. Deductions which we base on axoims science at some point or another agreed to be 'common sense' or 'practical'.

If used carefully, science is a pretty safe believe, but unfortunately many people do consider science as too accurate and too infailable to ever consider it to err on basic concepts.

In theory! science does abandon theories which are not too well proved.
In practice, theories are considered true merely because they are the easiest ones... or because they went unchallenged for many years and too many other theories are based upon them, so no one wants to bother to check something which would cause far too many discomfort.


On the other hand, there are theists and religious people who constantly doubt their believe, taking it as fixed part of devotion to their religion to find any
contradiction and appropriate evident to figure out how to solve them.
Centuries of religious philosophy show this clearly.


I think there is much less difference between religion and science than more scientific or religious people want to realize.

No it's not.

Physics is not a religion. To some however, you can count evolution as a religion.
I wouldn't call it a religion... but science (and with that physics) DO require a fair bit of faith.

There are uncounted lemmas, rules and laws which are faithfully compiled observations and deductions. Observations we can merely assume to be universally true because we never saw it happen otherwise. Deductions which we base on axoims science at some point or another agreed to be 'common sense' or 'practical'.

If used carefully, science is a pretty safe believe, but unfortunately many people do consider science as too accurate and too infailable to ever consider it to err on basic concepts.

In theory! science does abandon theories which are not too well proved.
In practice, theories are considered true merely because they are the easiest ones... or because they went unchallenged for many years and too many other theories are based upon them, so no one wants to bother to check something which would cause far too many discomfort.


On the other hand, there are theists and religious people who constantly doubt their believe, taking it as fixed part of devotion to their religion to find any
contradiction and appropriate evident to figure out how to solve them.
Centuries of religious philosophy show this clearly.


I think there is much less difference between religion and science than more scientific or religious people want to realize.

Wow. Really food for thought.

No, physics answers the question "how", religion answer the question "why", therefore physics is not a religion.

Besides, computer science would make a much better religion than physics, there is ideological debates and eventually there'll be a Skynet to worship.:p

In some ways you could say that we require faith in order to believe what a scientist is telling us, similar perhaps to believing what a priest is telling us, if we don't possess enough knowledge personally to form our own opinion. However, the different methodologies of the two authorities make one much more believable than the other.

But, to add, would you ever absolutely trust just one scientist's work? No, peer-reviewing and seeing multiple corroborating experiments give people a sense of trust in something. Religion is not verified in this way as everything about it is so vaguely defined.

fuck science. I'd like to see you go up against the powers of MATH

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png

would you ever absolutely trust just one scientist's work? No, peer-reviewing and seeing multiple corroborating experiments give people a sense of trust in something. Religion is not verified in this way as everything about it is so vaguely defined.

so how do you explain I.D? :p

Is physics a religion?

No not everything which requires faith is a religion. Science doesn't say anything about morals, how to live, the supernatural, etc. themes quite essential in religion. It also doesn't offer a way of worshiping. It's not a religion, but I agree that it does require some faith (like most things).


In theory! science does abandon theories which are not too well proved.
In practice, theories are considered true merely because they are the easiest ones... or because they went unchallenged for many years and too many other theories are based upon them, so no one wants to bother to check something which would cause far too many discomfort.


Really? have any good examples or sources of this?

mmmm...what a clever question :rolleyes:

Its similar to asking:

Is [insert nation name here] searches for a Superstar....a sports show?

Science thread are full of debate and people pinging facts into thier posts.

Religious threads tend to decay into flamefests.

fuck science. I'd like to see you go up against the powers of MATH

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png



so how do you explain I.D? :p

Math is only a theory, and a shaky one at best.

Really? have any good examples or sources of this?
The mindless application of Occam's razor in many reasonings is a prime example of this.
Ideas and theories are commonly disregarded as Impossible for no other reason than that they are 'more complex' than an equally uncased theory, and thus more unlikely according to Occam's razor.

Naturally I can't name examples of theories which are wrong while remain unchallanged, because doing so would require myself to actually having challenged them myself to find them inaccurate.
But there are examples in the past, like The Relativity theorem being one which suddenly doesn't seem too likely anymore after a few scientists went through lot of hardship and ridicule daring to point out its weaknesses.

I can't 'name' the revelation, but only some decades ago, there was a near apocalyptic revelation in mathematics, when clever men found out that one of the very axioms we base our whole concept of mathematics upon since the time of ancient Greece... were wrong.
It luckily turned out that correcting the axiom only coincidentally had no effect on the conclusions drawn from that axioms.
I can't name it cause it was part of some computer science readings a few years back, and my memory is not quite so good with names.

I hope you do see my point.

Math is only a theory, and a shaky one at best.

*takes two of your apples and divides the remaining by zero* :p

Physics (and science in general) is not a religion because it does not require faith of any kind. If you do not believe that two objects of the same mass fall at the same rate of speed, just climb to the top of the Tower of Pisa and drop two spheres of different mass. If you don't believe in the light spectrum, take a prism and shine a light through it, or try the millions of other experiments that have been performed over the centuries.

You see, science does not require anyone to accept anything based on blind faith, but rather on empirical evidence and reproducible experiments.

I can't 'name' the revelation, but only some decades ago, there was a near apocalyptic revelation in mathematics, when clever men found out that one of the very axioms we base our whole concept of mathematics upon since the time of ancient Greece... were wrong.
It luckily turned out that correcting the axiom only coincidentally had no effect on the conclusions drawn from that axioms.
I can't name it cause it was part of some computer science readings a few years back, and my memory is not quite so good with names.

You're probably think of non-Euclidian geometry, with Euclid's parallel postulate being found to be inadequate to describe geometry in some planes (whose existence is logically necessary given the existence of Euclidian planes).

Euclid still works for most applications, just like Newton's Laws: refinements in science are a testament to its value and reliability, not a flaw.

Math is only a theory, and a shaky one at best.Tautologies are theories now? :p

I wouldn't say physics is a religion in the conventional sense, no. But I might say that some believe religiously that, e.g., determinism is true, which may follow from losing sight of what physics actually is.

Physics (and science in general) is not a religion because it does not require faith of any kind. If you do not believe that two objects of the same mass fall at the same rate of speed, just climb to the top of the Tower of Pisa and drop two spheres of different mass.

You don't even need to do that: just consider whether two 5kg weights would fall twice as fast if they were tied together with a piece of string. :)

Math is only a theory, and a shaky one at best.No. Only your understanding of math is shaky.

Math is only a theory, and a shaky one at best.

So it's only a shaky theory that if you have two apples, and take one away, you'll only have one apple? Are you saying that we haven't considered other possibilities, such as the possibility that it actually results in an infinite amount of apples?

*takes two of your apples and divides the remaining by zero* :p


You fool! You've doomed us all!

No.
Physic (or science in general) is the observation of experiments, collecting data that is used to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
Religion is stating that something happened due to a non-observable and non-examinable force.

There is a clear difference between the two in my opinion, however someone may argue that some aspects of physics are not observable, but are only theoretical.
This brings up the fact that when new contradicting evidence is produced in physics, it is evaluated and added to the current theory or dismissed if it is proved wrong. In Religion however (as put nicely in the image by Fassitude) new evidence is very often (but not never) ignored, which is certainly not the same as physics.

I'm sure somebody could make it into a religion if they really wanted to (seems like just about anything can be; look at scientology) but that would be a shame, seeing as how one of the basic tenets of religion is that you never question your beliefs. To make physics into a religion would be to undermine it.

You fool! You've doomed us all!

"I'm afraid we'll be deviating a bit from standard mathematical procedures today, Gordon."

"Yes, but with good reason. This is a rare opportunity for us. This is the most ideal equation we've seen yet."

"And, potentially, the most unstable."

"Now, now, if you follow standard division procedure, everything will be fine."

"I don't know how you can say that. Although I will admit that the possibility of a resonance cascade scenario is extremely unlikely."

"Gordon doesn't need to hear all this, he's a highly trained professional. We've assured the administrator that nothing will go wrong."

"Ah...yes, you're right. Gordon, we have complete confidence in you."

"Well, go ahead. Let's let him in now."

And we all know how that turned out.

physicists are theologians with mathematical hats.

So it's only a shaky theory that if you have two apples, and take one away, you'll only have one apple? Are you saying that we haven't considered other possibilities, such as the possibility that it actually results in an infinite amount of apples?

Well, you know, there was this Yeshua dude with five breads and two fish....

Well, you know, there was this Yeshua dude with five breads and two fish....

Don't even start with this...

Is Psychics a Religion? Absolutely not. Anything advertised by Sylvester Stalone´s mother must be a bunch of hocus-pocus. And that´s what psychics are. I don´t doubt communication with the ´other world´ is possible. I just don´t think it´s subject to just a group of people who claim they can see spirits.

I think you wanted the other thread. This is the physics one.

I would say Physics isn't a religion. A religion is about faith in something which there may or may not be signs implying towards depending on your interpretation, but essentially believing in something which cannot be proved. And although in Physics we do have to believe in theories without them necessarily being proven, but Physics is a science and basically about knowledge, concrete, and evidence.

Nobody ever got nailed to a plank because of physics. :p

Nope, I meant to post in this thread. But thanks for pointing the other one out.

Really? It just seems a little weird, since your post was about psychics and this topic is about physics, whereas the other topic is also about psychics.

Really? It just seems a little weird, since your post was about psychics and this topic is about physics, whereas the other topic is also about psychics.

Gah...
Sorry. I just read the title correctly.:p

So it's only a shaky theory that if you have two apples, and take one away, you'll only have one apple? Are you saying that we haven't considered other possibilities, such as the possibility that it actually results in an infinite amount of apples?

Take pi, for example. Math sez it's 3,14... while the bible tells us that it's 3.

Take pi, for example. Math sez it's 3,14... while the bible tells us that it's 3.

actually its 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

Take pi, for example. Math sez it's 3,14... while the bible tells us that it's 3.

I've heard this one before, and where does it come from? Does the bible actually say that "pi" is 3 and no more? I've never heard of the bible talking about math.

Nobody ever got nailed to a plank because of physics. :p

I wonder if Planck was ever nailed because of physics.

At least one girl must have been impressed enough.

I've heard this one before, and where does it come from? Does the bible actually say that "pi" is 3 and no more? I've never heard of the bible talking about math.

2 * pi * r = circumference

apparently the bible says something like something with a radius of 5 has a circumference of 30 which would mean pi would have to be 3. if I recalled correctly, the unit used was a cubit and when you do the math, the value for pi actually comes pretty close to 3.14 or something. dunno for certain, but I think the whole bible says pi is 3 is a myth. one of the few things the bible is correct about heh.

I'm not religious and I am a scientist, but I would never say I believe in science. I kindof just accept it as the best current explanation.

You could easily focus on the similarities between physics and religion. They are similar because they both abstract and tell you things about the world. It's the methods that vary. In physics you need solid numbers to do anything. In religious observations, you just need any evidence you can get. Evidence becoming very broad in that case.

Maths and physics both suffer from the same flaw. Just because something happens repeatedly, doesn't mean it's going to happen again. Logic overrides both. Then logic overrides itself if you use it right and all hell breaks lose. Or you could walk the path that says: "just because something in your head feels right, doesn't mean it is right", and then you f*ck physics, maths, logic, religion and all their friends over much faster! In the way of abstraction you're probably only left with emotion and feelings. They're easy to f*ck over too.

Nobody ever got nailed to a plank because of physics. :p

In a way it's because of physics that you can be nailed to a plank in the first place.

No, physics answers the question "how", religion answer the question "why", therefore physics is not a religion.

Why= For what reason. (towards the furture)
How= In what way. (towards the past)

Why has more emotional ties I guess, but other than that they are both dealt with by religion and science. Think "how did the world come to be?" and "why do things fall to the earth?"

actually its 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

Actually it's more like 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105

Actually it's more like3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/6/8/6681cd21f3ca9bf13248a87d4202e06a.png

Or even http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/0/3/003bfb6c11950e06de318fc7c0671e93.png

:)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/6/8/6681cd21f3ca9bf13248a87d4202e06a.png

Or even http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/0/3/003bfb6c11950e06de318fc7c0671e93.png

:)

Yours might have more girth, but mine's longer!

Hm... pancake pie..

Inspiring.

I think I'll play around with that in the kitchen someday.

Nobody ever got nailed to a plank because of physics. :p

Except that time when that thesis defense went really, really wrong...

Pi is irrational, you can't post it in a numerically complete way.

Nobody ever got nailed to a plank because of physics. :p

But what about a Planck?

I wonder if Planck was ever nailed because of physics.

At least one girl must have been impressed enough.
Hmmm... bio says two wives (not at the same time) and 5 children. But did they marry him because there were impressed by his physics? Maybe. I don't think it was his looks.

But what about a Planck?

*signs in for the first time in months*

*groans*

*leaves*

*signs in for the first time in months*

*groans*

*leaves*

Garth Algar: Fine then, go!
Wayne Campbell: I'm gone!
Garth Algar: Go then!
Wayne Campbell: But I am!
Garth Algar: Go!
Wayne Campbell: I'm Gone!
Garth Algar: Go then!
Wayne Campbell: But I am!

actually its 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510You need a 'few' more decimals if you want to be exact.
Actually, it's the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter in the euclidean plane (offer void for non-euclidean geometry). Also, it's 10 in base pi.

The mindless application of Occam's razor in many reasonings is a prime example of this.
Ideas and theories are commonly disregarded as Impossible for no other reason than that they are 'more complex' than an equally uncased theory, and thus more unlikely according to Occam's razor.Occam's razor says nothing about how likely a theory is, it's an aesthetic criterion for deciding between two theories with equivalent explanatory power.

Naturally I can't name examples of theories which are wrong while remain unchallanged, because doing so would require myself to actually having challenged them myself to find them inaccurate.Meh, name any theory and there's a good chance it's not, on the whole, absolutely true. However, that doesn't mean it's not the best we have or that it isn't worth all the effort put it.

But there are examples in the past, like The Relativity theorem being one which suddenly doesn't seem too likely anymore after a few scientists went through lot of hardship and ridicule daring to point out its weaknesses.?!?
If you're speaking of the relativity theory, it is not at all under contention.

I can't 'name' the revelation, but only some decades ago, there was a near apocalyptic revelation in mathematics, when clever men found out that one of the very axioms we base our whole concept of mathematics upon since the time of ancient Greece... were wrong.Axioms can't be wrong; at worst they make the system they're part of inconsistent. If you're talking about Euclid's parallel postulate (as mentioned by someone before); while it was surprising it wasn't necessary, there was absolutely nothing apocalyptic about it. It just meant a different kind of geometry was possible. Poincaré demonstrated that there is no way to distinguish what the geometry of our universe actually is; so as far as modeling our universe goes it holds up.

There is proof of physics. Physical forces are measurable, even usable. At least in most cases. So no, it's not a religion. That's like asking if mathematics or biology are religions.

I wonder if Planck was ever nailed because of physics.

At least one girl must have been impressed enough.

I like the way your mind works. :)

No typo. Is physics a religion? I certainly have more faith in Feynman's QED (http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/TeachQM/QED.html) than the Bible (http://www.bible.com/)...

Feynman would disagree with you. The fideistic attitude isn't fit for science. In science, you have to question and challenge the current state of ideas with experiments and new theories. In religion, you have to accept God's/Gods' Word.

In religion, you have to accept God's/Gods' Word.Well, I think Abraham at least once got away with questioning one of God's decisions (of course, he didn't dissuade God from destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, but Lot was saved); and I don't think he was the only one.

Besides which it depends on the religion. Although it's typically a good idea to go about it respectfully (most gods have some sort of superpower to ruin your life with; even when they're no more than glorified immortal humans).

No.

Physics is based on empiricism and deduction (rational apriorism).

Religion is based on unreasonable faith.

Well, I think Abraham at least once got away with questioning one of God's decisions (of course, he didn't dissuade God from destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, but Lot was saved); and I don't think he was the only one.

Besides which it depends on the religion. Although it's typically a good idea to go about it respectfully (most gods have some sort of superpower to ruin your life with; even when they're no more than glorified immortal humans).

What evidence do you have that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by divine interference?

What evidence do you have that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by divine interference?*le sigh* Not the point; but if you must know, about the same evidence I have for the divine in the first place.
We're talking religion here, not fact. Where's the world getting to if you can't even judge the tenets of a religion on its own scripture.

What evidence do you have that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by divine interference?

I found a t-shirt at an arcaeological dig that was rumored to have belonged to Lot himself. It said, "My wife watched Sodom and Gomorrah burn and all she got me was this crappy t-shirt and a nice pillar of salt. :)

I found a t-shirt at an arcaeological dig that was rumored to have belonged to Lot himself. It said, "My wife watched Sodom and Gomorrah burn and all she got me was this crappy t-shirt and a nice pillar of salt. :)

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Great.gif

Science is based on the assumption that our senses can help us understand how the world works, and that consensus is the closest we can come to truth. There is definitely a philosophy of science, which is about 500 years old, and so it is silly to claim that it is somehow "righter" than religion.

But it's still not religion. Religion searches for different things with a different methodology. (There is something else, scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism), which could be considered a religion. But I'd even call that more a philosophy in its own right.)

Science is based on the assumption that our senses can help us understand how the world works, and that consensus is the closest we can come to truth. There is definitely a philosophy of science, which is about 500 years old, and so it is silly to claim that it is somehow "righter" than religion. I don't quite see how that conclusion follows, why would a philosophy of science (which basically just means that people have thought about what science is and how to go about it) imply that it cannot be more right than religion?
And science isn't about reaching consensus, it's about converging on a concept as close to what the universe is like as possible. If it were about consensus, it would suffice to hold a conference and find something to agree on; or take the pre-modern approach of religion and kill anyone that disagrees.

I regularly sacrifice goats to Gravity.

I regularly sacrifice goats to Gravity.I usually stick to dishes and the occasional food.

I regularly sacrifice goats to Gravity.

I sacrifice rooks to advance my pawns to the eighth rank. *nod*

What evidence do you have that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by divine interference?

Personally, I have none. Christians have the Bible.:D

I sacrifice rooks to advance my pawns to the eighth rank. *nod*

I sacrifice fine food and fine beverages to myself.

Physics is not a religion. To some however, you can count evolution as a religion.

Wow. Really food for thought.

Yes, to "some."

I.e. that percentage of the population who are both gullible and mentally deficient.

In a nutshell:

No.

What evidence do you have that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by divine interference?

They're not there any more. That's evidence.