what is the definition of science?

SteveB

Well-known member
Numerous atheists here keep throwing around the word- science--- as though it's a religious idea to be worshiped, and idolized.
It's gotten really old, and is embarrassing.

Science is not a religion. At least, it shouldn't be. If it's your religion, you're embarrassing yourself.


According to the Science Council, science is defined as



Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

  • Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
  • Evidence
  • Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
  • Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
  • Repetition
  • Critical analysis
  • Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

So..... stop.
Just stop treating science as though it's a religious belief. Science is not the end all, be all of knowledge.
It's the pursuit and application of knowledge, and understanding of the natural world.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
A few weeks ago a former atheist, who runs a christian facebook page on science, pointing out all the great discoveries of the scientific world, posted a picture of DEgrasse-Tyson, and Sam Harris.
1603136355544.png


What I find interesting about DeGrasse, and Harris' use of the word science, they make it sound like a religion.

"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

https://sciencecouncil.org/abo.../our-definition-of-science/

I'm not seeing anything worthy of "belief in" in this definition.

Especially since the idea is--- pursuit and application of knowledge, to understand the natural and social world in which we live, so we can develop a systematic methodology to interpret that world, based on our observations of that world.

I.e., it sounds to me like they're saying they believe in their own intellectual capacity to understand, and then where they do not understand, they concoct an ideology to force the understanding.

I think this is why Proverbs 3:3-8 is such a great passage---- Trust in YHVH with all your heart. Lean not on your own understanding. Acknowledge him in all your ways, and he will guide your paths.....

Imagine not having a guide to help you understand the incomprehensible, and seeking to force your own mind's faculties on that.

Then imagine having a VERY experienced guide, one who was actually the maker, and builder, who explained everything to you in a manner which was comprehensible, as well as let you explore, discover, wonder, and be awed, graciously waiting for you to recover from the sheer awesomeness, and start framing questions, even if they were childlike, and unintelligible and incomprehensible to the average mind.

This is why I like Galileo, and Newton. At least they knew to whom to turn for understanding when they were at a loss for understanding. DeGrasse, and Harris are like playground bullies, who push, and bully their way around, saying that if they can't know, nobody who does request the Experienced guide can know.

Imagine the loss of all the great truths because those who do know the Creator and Maker were bullied into not asking for guidance by the Creator.

It seems to me that for as beautiful, awesome, and totally mind-boggling as the entirety of the cosmos, and planet are.... we really would want a guide through it all.
 

Temujin

Active member
Numerous atheists here keep throwing around the word- science--- as though it's a religious idea to be worshiped, and idolized.
It's gotten really old, and is embarrassing.

Science is not a religion. At least, it shouldn't be. If it's your religion, you're embarrassing yourself.


According to the Science Council, science is defined as



Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

  • Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
  • Evidence
  • Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
  • Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
  • Repetition
  • Critical analysis
  • Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

So..... stop.
Just stop treating science as though it's a religious belief. Science is not the end all, be all of knowledge.
It's the pursuit and application of knowledge, and understanding of the natural world.
Can you explain which bits of the world, other than the natural and social, are worth living in or are of interest to real people?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Can you explain which bits of the world, other than the natural and social, are worth living in or are of interest to real people?
And yet atheists think that debating matters they know nothing about, and have no interest in actually knowing, is a good thing.
So, you'll have to explain that one to me.
 

Temujin

Active member
And yet atheists think that debating matters they know nothing about, and have no interest in actually knowing, is a good thing.
So, you'll have to explain that one to me.
I have no idea what you mean. Atheists as a group are as disparate as book readers or footballers. Your generalisation is meaningless propaganda.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I have no idea what you mean. Atheists as a group are as disparate as book readers or footballers.
Yet those who think they know what they're talking about spend their lives arguing with strangers who've actually met God,, that God doesn't exist.
So, telling me that they're as disparate as book readers and footballers tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Your generalisation is meaningless propaganda.
Yeah, I thought the same with the comment on book readers and footballers. Book readers and footballers each have something in common.
Tell book readers to explain book reading to people who can't read. And tell footballers to explain footballing to people who have no idea what footballing is.
 

Temujin

Active member
Yet those who think they know what they're talking about spend their lives arguing with strangers who've actually met God,, that God doesn't exist.
So, telling me that they're as disparate as book readers and footballers tells me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, I thought the same with the comment on book readers and footballers. Book readers and footballers each have something in common.
Tell book readers to explain book reading to people who can't read. And tell footballers to explain footballing to people who have no idea what footballing is.
And tell fantasists and the deluded that God doesn't exist.

For the record, I don't care what you believe, or who you think you have a real relationship with. I do care when your fantasies lead you to tell others how to live their lives, or undermine education by perpetuating lies, or demonise the different. Religious belief can be, and often is a powerfully positive thing in the community, but in the minds of some it becomes so poisonous they might as well be thugee.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
And tell fantasists and the deluded that God doesn't exist.

For the record, I don't care what you believe, or who you think you have a real relationship with. I do care when your fantasies lead you to tell others how to live their lives, or undermine education by perpetuating lies, or demonise the different. Religious belief can be, and often is a powerfully positive thing in the community, but in the minds of some it becomes so poisonous they might as well be thugee.
never heard of a thugee before.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Every day is a school day. I bet you thought it was a typo. Maybe you still do!
no. I simply never heard of a thugee. As atheists often like to hide behind fantasy, and fantasaical characters, I figured the thugee was yours.
 

Temujin

Active member
no. I simply never heard of a thugee. As atheists often like to hide behind fantasy, and fantasaical characters, I figured the thugee was yours.
No, I don't hide behind fantasy and fantastical (sic) characters, but I very much appreciate the irony of you saying so.
 
A few weeks ago a former atheist, who runs a christian facebook page on science, pointing out all the great discoveries of the scientific world, posted a picture of DEgrasse-Tyson, and Sam Harris.
View attachment 3


What I find interesting about DeGrasse, and Harris' use of the word science, they make it sound like a religion.

"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

https://sciencecouncil.org/abo.../our-definition-of-science/

I'm not seeing anything worthy of "belief in" in this definition.

Especially since the idea is--- pursuit and application of knowledge, to understand the natural and social world in which we live, so we can develop a systematic methodology to interpret that world, based on our observations of that world.

I.e., it sounds to me like they're saying they believe in their own intellectual capacity to understand, and then where they do not understand, they concoct an ideology to force the understanding.

I think this is why Proverbs 3:3-8 is such a great passage---- Trust in YHVH with all your heart. Lean not on your own understanding. Acknowledge him in all your ways, and he will guide your paths.....

Imagine not having a guide to help you understand the incomprehensible, and seeking to force your own mind's faculties on that.

Then imagine having a VERY experienced guide, one who was actually the maker, and builder, who explained everything to you in a manner which was comprehensible, as well as let you explore, discover, wonder, and be awed, graciously waiting for you to recover from the sheer awesomeness, and start framing questions, even if they were childlike, and unintelligible and incomprehensible to the average mind.

This is why I like Galileo, and Newton. At least they knew to whom to turn for understanding when they were at a loss for understanding. DeGrasse, and Harris are like playground bullies, who push, and bully their way around, saying that if they can't know, nobody who does request the Experienced guide can know.

Imagine the loss of all the great truths because those who do know the Creator and Maker were bullied into not asking for guidance by the Creator.

It seems to me that for as beautiful, awesome, and totally mind-boggling as the entirety of the cosmos, and planet are.... we really would want a guide through it all.
Depends on how you use the word belief, if for example you're using the word belief synonymous for faith then I would agree with you. However a belief can also be used as a 'justified position you hold because of the supporting evidence'. Personally I find it a bit confusing if the latter definition is used, and much prefer, for example, "We trust the science over a belief in God". IMO its spitting hairs to make an argument reliant on a definition that can be used in more than one way, why not just ask the person you're debating what he actually means.

P.S. A Thuggee was an Indian band of thieves from the 1800's which is where the word Thug originated from. There's an old movie about it, (they used to infiltrate a caravan and strangle the people in their sleep if memory serves).
 

Nouveau

Active member
Numerous atheists here keep throwing around the word- science--- as though it's a religious idea to be worshiped, and idolized. It's gotten really old, and is embarrassing.
Can you quote an example so we know what you're talking about?

According to the Science Council, science is defined as:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Yes, I agree with the atheist quoted in your link. That is a good definition.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
Yes, and religion has none of those, except perhaps repetition.

So..... stop. Just stop treating science as though it's a religious belief. Science is not the end all, be all of knowledge. It's the pursuit and application of knowledge, and understanding of the natural world.
If you ever manage to find anyone doing that I'll join you in telling them to stop.
 

Nouveau

Active member
A few weeks ago a former atheist, who runs a christian facebook page on science, pointing out all the great discoveries of the scientific world, posted a picture of DEgrasse-Tyson, and Sam Harris.
So a Christian posted an anti-atheism meme. Okay.

What I find interesting about DeGrasse, and Harris' use of the word science, they make it sound like a religion.
Where do they do that? Can you quote them, or are you just referring to the meme written by a Christian?

"Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

I'm not seeing anything worthy of "belief in" in this definition.
There are many things one could believe regarding that definition. One could believe it to be a good definition. One could believe science thus defined to be preferable to religion or pseudo-science in producing reliable and true knowledge.

I.e., it sounds to me like they're saying they believe in their own intellectual capacity to understand, and then where they do not understand, they concoct an ideology to force the understanding.
Where exactly did Tyson or Harris say anything that sounds like that?

I think this is why Proverbs 3:3-8 is such a great passage---- Trust in YHVH with all your heart. Lean not on your own understanding. Acknowledge him in all your ways, and he will guide your paths.....

Imagine not having a guide to help you understand the incomprehensible, and seeking to force your own mind's faculties on that.

Then imagine having a VERY experienced guide, one who was actually the maker, and builder, who explained everything to you in a manner which was comprehensible, as well as let you explore, discover, wonder, and be awed, graciously waiting for you to recover from the sheer awesomeness, and start framing questions, even if they were childlike, and unintelligible and incomprehensible to the average mind.
Sure, imagination is great. But it's not science or knowledge.

This is why I like Galileo, and Newton. At least they knew to whom to turn for understanding when they were at a loss for understanding. DeGrasse, and Harris are like playground bullies, who push, and bully their way around, saying that if they can't know, nobody who does request the Experienced guide can know. Imagine the loss of all the great truths because those who do know the Creator and Maker were bullied into not asking for guidance by the Creator.
So you like scientists who were also theists, and dislike scientists who are atheists. I don't see how that reveals anything more than your own bias, but okay. So where is the evidence of this bullying you speak of? I assume you have examples and didn't just make this up.

It seems to me that for as beautiful, awesome, and totally mind-boggling as the entirety of the cosmos, and planet are.... we really would want a guide through it all.
You can want one all you like. That doesn't mean there is one. If you want to discover new things about the cosmos then you have to get out there and do some science. There's no supernatural guide that's going to walk you through it, as Galileo and Newton well understood.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Depends on how you use the word belief, if for example you're using the word belief synonymous for faith then I would agree with you. However a belief can also be used as a 'justified position you hold because of the supporting evidence'.
Here's an example of the difference between what biblical belief is, and what the idea that most people think belief is.
You're a cop. You're handed a bullet proof vest on the first day of your job, and told that it's dept policy you have to wear it.
You're reticent, because it's heavy, bulky, awkward, will make you sweat profusely (it's a hot summer).......
You grudgingly wear it, but spend the entire day wearing it, resenting having to do so, and after one or two complaints to your partner, realize they have no pity for you....

the next day you consider not wearing it, but since it's policy, you grudgingly put it on. two hours into your shift, you get called to a robbery, and there are armed shooters who've taken hostages, with threats to shoot them. You attempt to talk them down, but they refuse, and start shooting at you.
You get hit square in the chest with a 45 hollow-point, and get laid out in your backside. After having the breath knocked out of you, and realizing you've been hit, you're freaking out, and your partner looks at you, and realizing you're ok, says in an almost sarcastic tone--- I'm guessing you're happy now that you have that vest on aren't you!

You immediately become a believer in the value of that vest to save your life in the right circumstances.
You may not wear it off duty, but you know darn good and well that from now on, you'll never again complain, or question the value, and purpose of that bullet-proof vest.

You were a skeptic before. but now that you've been shot, and hit by a bullet that would've killed you, and have survived, you are a dyed-in-the-wool believer. You now place your confidence in that vest's capabilities.
Before you simply acknowledged the company policy. I.e., you intellectually assented to an idea.
Afterwards, you knew, because of experience, that the bulletproof vest was a valid tool to save life. Namely your life. So, you believe in the vest's ability to save you. You made a choice, based on the demonstration presented you.


We who've met God took a chance. We didn't know. but we'd heard what the gospel of Jesus said, and took a chance because we actually wanted to know the truth.
So, we believed what the gospel says, and came to God, to verify his claim. Once he verified it for us, we chose to believe him.




Personally I find it a bit confusing if the latter definition is used, and much prefer, for example, "We trust the science over a belief in God". IMO its spitting hairs to make an argument reliant on a definition that can be used in more than one way, why not just ask the person you're debating what he actually means.
That's only because you don't grasp the nature of the idea.
I only believe God, because I've done the proverbial science.
science is not a religion. It's what the definition provided by the science council states----

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.


Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge, so we can understand the natural and social world, following a systematic methodology based on the evidence.

Ironically--- until the people who worked through their particular fields of study did the work--- they had no systematic methodology. They simply worked through it, figuring it out as they went, documenting their processes. As time progressed, and more and more people tested their hypotheses, a systematic methodology was developed.

So, applying this to biblical belief.....
I heard an idea. At first I ignored the idea, but over the years, I had conversations with others who claimed to have their own ideas, so I began to be more curious. I eventually heard it put in a way that made it clear I needed to do something about it.
So..... I made direct inquiry.
I didn't ask Joe, because Joe would just tell me that Sam told him so, and I'd then have to go ask Sam, who'd say that Jack explained it to him, and I'd then have to go talk to Jack, who'd point to Jim, who'd in turn point to Jane, who'd then point to her brother Rob, who'd tell me about his dad's cousin, etc.... and this would simply go back through history. Which I do not have interest or motivation, nor the ability to pursue all the way back to the beginning.
So, since part of the claim is that God started this, I decided to go to God directly.
Once he responded, I began learning, through reading.
In my learning, I found that I had to apply what I read in order to get the results stated in the texts I was reading.
As I'd already had a pretty good idea of the natural and social world around me, I began noticing a difference in the way I was seeing it.

So, through the pursuit and application of the knowledge I was gaining, I gained a more accurate view of the natural and social world following a well-documented system which provided a methodology that I could use to obtain evidence.

Which is exactly what I've continued to do for the past 43 years, and 4 months of my life.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.





P.S. A Thuggee was an Indian band of thieves from the 1800's which is where the word Thug originated from. There's an old movie about it, (they used to infiltrate a caravan and strangle the people in their sleep if memory serves).
Thank you.
Once you stated this, I now vaguely recall hearing that a long, long time ago, so I did look it up.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Can you quote an example so we know what you're talking about?
Why, are you having a problem understanding, or reading?
Yes, I agree with the atheist quoted in your link. That is a good definition.
Ironic that you need the writer to be an atheist. How do you know it's not a bible believer?


Yes, and religion has none of those, except perhaps repetition.
So, you think that caring for orphans, and widows in their need doesn't show the pursuit and application of knowledge, and an understanding of the natural and social world in which we live?
You're going to have to explain that to me.


If you ever manage to find anyone doing that I'll join you in telling them to stop.
Start with yourself.
 

Nouveau

Active member
Why, are you having a problem understanding, or reading?
Your OP gives no quoted examples of atheists treating science like a religion. Without any examples it looks like you're just making it up.

Ironic that you need the writer to be an atheist. How do you know it's not a bible believer?
Because I know who A C Grayling is.

So, you think that caring for orphans, and widows in their need doesn't show the pursuit and application of knowledge, and an understanding of the natural and social world in which we live? You're going to have to explain that to me.
That's not what I said. What I said was that religion lacks objective observation, evidence, experiment, induction, critical analysis, and verification.

Start with yourself.
If you can show where I've treated science as a religion I'll gladly accept correction.
 
Here's an example of the difference between what biblical belief is, and what the idea that most people think belief is.
You're a cop. You're handed a bullet proof vest on the first day of your job, <snip>

That's only because you don't grasp the nature of the idea.
I only believe God, because I've done the proverbial science.
science is not a religion. It's what the definition provided by the science council states----
No problem with that. But the problem is people can and do miss-use words, or words can have more than one meaning. So rather than trying to argue a point on one definition, its better ask you're debater, what they actually mean than try to win with a gotcha. Kind of defeats the point of debating.


Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge, so we can understand the natural and social world, following a systematic methodology based on the evidence.

Ironically--- until the people who worked through their particular fields of study did the work--- they had no systematic methodology. They simply worked through it, figuring it out as they went, documenting their processes. As time progressed, and more and more people tested their hypotheses, a systematic methodology was developed.

So, applying this to biblical belief.....
I heard an idea. At first I ignored the idea, but over the years, I had conversations with others who claimed to have their own ideas, so I began to be more curious. I eventually heard it put in a way that made it clear I needed to do something about it.
So..... I made direct inquiry.
I didn't ask Joe, because Joe would just tell me that Sam told him so, and I'd then have to go ask Sam, who'd say that Jack explained it to him, and I'd then have to go talk to Jack, who'd point to Jim, who'd in turn point to Jane, who'd then point to her brother Rob, who'd tell me about his dad's cousin, etc.... and this would simply go back through history. Which I do not have interest or motivation, nor the ability to pursue all the way back to the beginning.
So, since part of the claim is that God started this, I decided to go to God directly.
Once he responded, I began learning, through reading.
In my learning, I found that I had to apply what I read in order to get the results stated in the texts I was reading.
As I'd already had a pretty good idea of the natural and social world around me, I began noticing a difference in the way I was seeing it.

So, through the pursuit and application of the knowledge I was gaining, I gained a more accurate view of the natural and social world following a well-documented system which provided a methodology that I could use to obtain evidence.

Which is exactly what I've continued to do for the past 43 years, and 4 months of my life.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.


I think we both have a bead on how to pursue knowledge, and how to judge what we learn is reliable, in all areas bar one, and that would be supernatural claims. When it come to the supernatural yourself, other religions, Bigfoot, flying saucers, fairies at the bottom of the garden, snake oil, etc, etc, etc all have one thing in common - they fail miserably when it comes to compelling evidence. Conclusion - is it unreasonable to lump them all in the same bucket?





Thank you.
Once you stated this, I now vaguely recall hearing that a long, long time ago, so I did look it up.
I think we are showing our age, :)
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Your OP gives no quoted examples of atheists treating science like a religion. Without any examples it looks like you're just making it up.

Actually it did.
So, it must be that you lack the wherewithal to read and understand that which challenges your thinking.
Because I know who A C Grayling is.
Good for you.
This is supposed to make you super special..... why?
I know who a lot of people are. That doesn't require that I think you deserve to be taken more seriously than you already are.

That's not what I said. What I said was that religion lacks objective observation, evidence, experiment, induction, critical analysis, and verification.
Perhaps. But it's how I saw it.

Furthermore, just because you know WHO ACG is, does not mean that your views on religious beliefs are accurate.
After all--- you are on a christian website, dedicated to providing you with the resources to meet God yourself, arguing against knowing God, for yourself, with complete and total strangers.

Considering that the biblical definition is:

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

By the looks of it, religion is the epitome of objective observation, evidence, experiment, induction, critical analysis, and verification.

I.e., to visit orphans and widows in their trouble requires observation, evidence of need, taking the time to learn what their needs, and troubles are, so they can be met, which requires critical analysis of the trouble, inducing the solution to such troubles, and verifying that the troubles are actually real, and that the solutions developed do in fact meet the needs.

For someone who claims to know ACG, you clearly lack the mental stamina to understand something so simple.




If you can show where I've treated science as a religion I'll gladly accept correction.
You just did.
You name dropped, you expected me to bow to your purported superior awareness, as though knowing who someone is, somehow gives you a superior advantage, without saying why, and then said that I have no idea what religion actually is, in spite of having provided the actual definition.

Sounds like the catholic church's idea of religion to me. So, you are treating science the way the pope expects to be treated.

I'm not catholic, nor have I ever been, so you're going to have to do better than that.
 

Nouveau

Active member
Actually it did.
No, it didn't. You gave no quoted examples, which is why I'm asking for them.

So, it must be that you lack the wherewithal to read and understand that which challenges your thinking.
Or you just don't have any examples to post.

Good for you.
This is supposed to make you super special..... why?
I know who a lot of people are. That doesn't require that I think you deserve to be taken more seriously than you already are.
Huh? I'm not claiming to be super special. I was just telling you that I agreed with the atheist in your link about the science definition being a good one. You wrongly thought I was making a big assumption there, and that I had some need for him to be an atheist.

Perhaps. But it's how I saw it.
And as usual, what you 'saw' bore no relation to what I actually said.

Furthermore, just because you know WHO ACG is, does not mean that your views on religious beliefs are accurate.
Obviously. Just as your ignorance doesn't make your views correct.

Considering that the biblical definition is:

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
That's not a good definition. And the Bible is not a dictionary. Plenty of religious people do not visit orphans or widows.

By the looks of it, religion is the epitome of objective observation, evidence, experiment, induction, critical analysis, and verification.
Not even remotely.

I.e., to visit orphans and widows in their trouble requires observation, evidence of need, taking the time to learn what their needs, and troubles are, so they can be met, which requires critical analysis of the trouble, inducing the solution to such troubles, and verifying that the troubles are actually real, and that the solutions developed do in fact meet the needs.
You're describing a scientific approach to patient care. Not religion. Religion completely lacks evidence, critical analysis, and verification of its supernatural claims.

For someone who claims to know ACG, you clearly lack the mental stamina to understand something so simple.
Ah, insults. Right on cue.

You just did.
You name dropped, you expected me to bow to your purported superior awareness, as though knowing who someone is, somehow gives you a superior advantage, without saying why, and then said that I have no idea what religion actually is, in spite of having provided the actual definition.
I did not name drop, and I did not treat science as religion. Get a grip, Steve.
 
Top