Please don't take this personally, but the real problem with that notion is that the so called “facts” and "science" often change.
Many on this board are quick to decry the shortcomings of theistic religion (as opposed to atheistic religion—which is, somehow, much more pure): especially Christianity. Many are quick to label Christian (or Muslim) teachings as superstition and readily point to the fact that the Church (in this instance both the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox) once maintained that the earth was at the center of the universe. It was heresy to believe otherwise. I’m sure that notion gives non-believing Humanist a good belly laugh. It’s ridiculous, they say, to believe in such things—“science” has taught us better.
On closer inspection, however, one will realize that the Church did not invent the notion of a geocentric universe: scientists did. The Church’s notions of how the physical universe functioned were adopted from the works of Plato and Aristotle—two of the ancient world’s preeminent philosopher-scientists. Some of their scientific findings were held as scientific gospel for almost two thousand years. But go ahead; blame theistic religion for all of man’s failures and shortcomings. Science is mankind’s only hope and beacon of truth: let Auschwitz and Hiroshima be exhibits “A and B” to this noble experiment. Phrenology and eugenics were also quite popular “sciences” at the turn of the 20th Century; that is up until the end of WWII. What will the world, if it still exists, think of our “science” in two thousand years?
Meanwhile, here are some more “scientific” (hence, purportedly immutable) facts to consider:
According to Aristotle, the heavenly bodies are the most perfect realities, (or "substances"), whose motions are ruled by principles other than those of bodies in the sublunary sphere. The latter are composed of one or all of the four classical elements (earth, water, air, fire) and are perishable; but the matter the heavens are made of is imperishable aether, so they are not subject to generation and corruption. Hence their motions are eternal and perfect, and the perfect motion is the circular one, which, unlike the earthly up-and down-ward locomotions, can last eternally selfsame. As substances, celestial bodies have matter (aether) and a form: it seems that Aristotle did regard them as living beings with a rational soul as their form (see also Metaphysics, bk. XII)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens
The Aristotelian explanation of gravity is that all bodies move toward their natural place. For the element earth, that place is the center of the (geocentric) universe, next comes the natural place of water (in a concentric shell around that of earth). The natural place of air is likewise a concentric shell surrounding the place of water. Sea level is between those two. Finally, the natural place of fire is higher than that of air but below the innermost celestial sphere, (the one carrying the Moon). Even at locations well above sea level, such as a mountain top, an object made mostly of the former two elements tends to fall and objects made mostly of the latter two tend to rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics
In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as "geocentrism", or the Ptolemaic view of the whole universe), is the superseded theory, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it. This geocentric model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, most Ancient Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I agree with you on the point you seem to make. However, the fact that things within science change makes it per se not a dogma. In the ages you pointed out science and religion was very intertwined, so basically religion founded science. We remember the outrage when it was found that the earth was not flat and the heliocentric universe was discovered?
I agree with you that people bash religions for similar unfounded reasons that people bash science. If you read my posts carefully you will not find me doing any of the above.
The only thing i tried to proof was that science is in fact not a dogma nor will it ever be and nor was it. Religion always is and always has been and always will be.
I pointed out in my previous long dissertation
on the topic of science vs religion that i believe that parts of religion are able to be evaluated scientifically as they lay grounds for all foundings of religious thought. Contemplation and exctasy as states of mind (being one with god) are one of them. But story telling and bible cencoring (by the church that is) is another point.
To point out flaws of science as dogma is simply wrong.
It is true that science changes and that ethical or financial interests make research impossible or rather smaller. We all remember the swine flu and that it was discovered much earlier and how the meat industry tried to cover facts. We also remember that Valium was once proclaimed as mother`s little helper and that cocain was legal until the potential addictive stuff was figured out. But it WAS figured out.
To make scientific shortcomings and ethical questions a dogma is simply wrong. Apples and Oranges.
A dogma is unquestionable. Science may be wrong but it is always questionable. I myself am polyamorous for example, my thesis is on polyamory. Ther has been a lack of research in polyamorous fields, because scientific researcher do not found researches in said fields, since active involvement of the "backlash" area after Reagan in the 8oies have prevented such. Its also about politics. But religious core findings or dogmas are in no way comparable with scientific bias . Science is biased, historically proven so , and for sure me was never stating something else on here.
Plus in an argument you have to bring valid points and not state hearsay. That per se is rather dogmatic. Oh someone told me ( a ressource you have no entry to , so i am per se unquestionable...because i have secret info you don`t have) science is actually pretty open and everyone can refind theories. Plus if your or other people`s take on vaccinations is better then find a source or a better vaccination?
its shortsigthted to bash a whole area of thought rather than to point out flaws. Science is biased. Religions are dogmatic.
Is one better than the other? I don`think so because i never mix apples with oranges. I don`t ask a religious instructor or a priest about what to do when i have a flu. And i don`t ask a doctor on how to expand my consciousness with or without mushrooms. :-) Apples and Oranges.
The only intersection in the secal area between religion and science is the transpersonal science. And i think its a good way to make peace between both areas.
Other than that, on which points would i possible be able to compare science and religion except on cognitive areas (read my post about the sacred in the profane....). I am always fór a consensual solution and neither do i support science bashers nor religion bashers (except when people don`t even know what they are talking about so you can even START having a profound discussion...):mf_laughbounce3 : Is that ok and non offensive as i presented my POV?
PS: talking about AUSCHWITZ? I suggest your post has a little shortcomings on the influence of catholicism and new age on gassing the Jews? The holocaust is the most tragic example of the perfect interlude and intertwined activity of the most desastrous examples of religious ignorant fundamentalism with scientific cruelty (non ethicality).
PPS: i completely agree that atheism is a religious belief as well..;-.)
, but posting her thoughts on a message board seems pretty harmless in my opinion, and so are disagreeing with them for that matter.It was the personal stabs that bothered me.