What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.556 Comments
- theberlindoctor, on 07/31/2008, -1/+160Wrong. It claims to have the best method we've yet devised. It makes no claim that science is "the perfect" method. Just like it makes no claim that any theories discovered with the method are absolute truths. Just truths as we know it now based on current evidence and testing. They are subject to change at any time more evidence and testing shows any theories to be incorrect.
- Ummagumma, on 07/31/2008, -31/+154Religion and science can NOT co-exist. Science is the constant search for the truth, refined as new discoveries are found. It is the constant improvement of mankind. Religion is the claimed truth itself, and no serious questioning can be allowed of it. It is the stagnation of mankind.
- Myakka, on 07/31/2008, -40/+157Science differs from most religions in that it doesn't claim to have the Truth;
it claims to have the perfect method to discover the truth. - PSotter, on 07/31/2008, -5/+91Key difference: whereas religion requires faith, science demands evidence.
- bosssmiley, on 07/31/2008, -6/+84Religion: "Don't turn on the light! If you do the dragons will eat us."
*click*
Science: "What dragons?"
Science is the only system of human thought that advances by the destruction of its own dogmas. - polybius, on 07/31/2008, -10/+84I've never seen a scientist rig a car bomb in front of a catholic church, nor a scientist suicide bomber taking out a bus. Just an observation.
- natastna2, on 07/31/2008, -26/+88What a ***** article.
- crazyjake, on 07/31/2008, -4/+52when i was younger this is what i thought the "church of $cientology" was.
how wrong i was... - JQP123, on 07/31/2008, -0/+45"... bitter and bloody"
Bloody? When was the last time one scientist killed another? When was the last time one religious fanatic killed another? I rest my case.
"Science cannot coexist with any other belief system because science can tolerate no dissent from anyone at any time."
You obviously have no clue as to what science is. Dissent is an inherent part of science. But dissent based on fact and reason --- not fantasy or folk tales from an "old book". - SQLserver, on 07/31/2008, -6/+49*****.
There are 2 parts to every religion:
A. Rules on how to live our lives(morals).
B. An explanation of our natural world.
The first is a MUST for religion.
Science is not, and never will be a religion, as it does NOT deal with the first.
Science gives us the best explanations for natural phenomenon. It does NOT tell us how to live our lives.
That is up to us, up to what we deem moral, according to an actual religion, or common sense. - Triplastic, on 07/31/2008, -2/+37Science H. Logic!
- Bone1205, on 07/31/2008, -3/+34there is no such thing as Darwinism just as there is no such thing as being a Darwinist or for that matter a neo-Darwinist. There is only the theory of Evolution first explained by Darwin. Darwin, like every other respectable scientist, knew that a theory is only the best explanation that we currently have. Science is meant to be changed, altered, and modified as new information and discoveries come to light.
- theberlindoctor, on 07/31/2008, -2/+31anyone claiming to have any fundamental knowledge of scientific theory know that theory is not truth. Its constantly subject to change based on new evidence and testing. This is the way we progress our knowledge.
Go read up on the scientific method and then see if your blatant bias still holds up. - noisician, on 07/31/2008, -3/+32oh, of course you are referring to the (non-existent) "neo-Darwinist" straw men invented by certain aggressive creationists.
- nicksauce, on 07/31/2008, -7/+36PZ's post on this. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/karl_gi ...
Makes for a much better read than this ridiculously stupid article. - ShitStainedBall, on 07/31/2008, -6/+33The Flying Spaghetti Monster will destroy you all!
- solidcube, on 07/31/2008, -4/+30This article is absolute *****. Science is a religion like being healthy is a disease.
- noisician, on 07/31/2008, -5/+30Not really true.
Science can only deal with factual questions.
If religion sticks to questions of morality and other non-factual realms there is not an overlap.
For example, there is no scientific answer to the question: "is it morally right to allow abortion?" - MacEnvy, on 07/31/2008, -2/+26Science can't deal with morality, because morality isn't real. It's a system of values based on common societal agreement, and it is extremely variable between cultures.
"Is it morally right to allow abortion?" isn't a scientific question - it's a question based on value judgments that are unique between individuals and the cultures they are brought up in. That's why "social science" is an observational field, not a search for truth. - Reno582, on 07/31/2008, -6/+29Well in my opinion, the difference between science and religion is that science can change, religion cannot.
- monkeyboyhero, on 07/31/2008, -0/+22It doesn't take them on faith at all - science postulates these ideas and searches for evidence for them. Right now evidence is hard to find (mainly because we're talking about phenomena the mere conceptualisation of which is enough to fuse my brain), but that doesn't mean that the hunt is over - in fact, the Large Hadron Collider coming online soon should be able to help with a couple of these questions.
If it was faith, scientists would just say "matter popped out of nothing" and leave it at that. But they don't - they constantly search to find more and more evidence and to update what they know.
These kind of articles like to paint scientists as dogmatic blow-hards who constantly trumpet how knowledgeable they are, but in reality scientists define themselves by what they DON'T know - that's what they're striving for, - nicksauce, on 07/31/2008, -0/+22"Matter popped out of nothing: Faith"
Nope: modern physics shows that particle/anti-particle pairs can be created from energy. Cosmological calculations show that the total energy of the universe is exactly 0.
"The big bang exceeded the speed of light: Faith"
Nope: there is nothing in the laws of physics that says that the universe can't expand faster than the speed of light. Since no information is transmitted, causality is not violated.
"There was nothing before the big bang: Faith"
Nope. Science does that have a theory on this right now. There are cosmological models that have "something" before the big bang, and there are cosmological models that don't. There is no real evidence in favor of either one right now. I don't see where faith comes in.
In short, please try to learn physics from a physicist rather than your preacher.
Cheers, Nick - thebellmaster1x, on 07/31/2008, -1/+19If that were true, we wouldn't be trying to actually look for what happened before the Big Bang. But seeing as we ARE, it's pretty obvious that rather than taking this on faith, we're actually looking for answers.
Unlike religion, which makes no attempt at discovery. - notwizt, on 07/31/2008, -2/+20My thoughts exactly. Science is a PROCEDURE to find out the truth. Experimenting, being able to QUESTION others, repeating experiments of others to see for yourself that they are actually true. None of these traits are found in religion, especially not the questioning and critic.
In all types of religion, something simply "is" because someone said so, no questions asked. In science, something "is" because we can prove it, and see it for ourselves. - racemize, on 07/31/2008, -18/+35buried for stupidity. God this guy is an idiot.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/31/2008, -1/+18Don't forget peer review!
- nicksauce, on 07/31/2008, -1/+18Try reading some Carl Sagan or a science book by Richard Dawkins. In my opinion science has discovered the universe is a more beautiful and wondrous place than religion could ever conceive.
- peestandingup, on 07/31/2008, -2/+19Science damn you!
- Ummagumma, on 07/31/2008, -0/+16That's not faith, those are placeholders for when the evidence becomes available, if ever.
That's a lot better than:
There's a creator who created everything.
Who created this infinitely complex creator of everything?
Oh, something even more complex, created by an even more complex creator ad nausuem. - darneveryone, on 07/31/2008, -0/+16Scientology has about as much to do with science as Christian Science does...
- saxmaster, on 07/31/2008, -15/+30I think that any time science intersects with politics you see a glimpse of science-ism. Second hand smoke and global warming are examples of issues that were aggressively moralized by politicians, the media, and the general public. I like the idea of making the wealthy patrons of science invisible to the scientists themselves. That way, studies cannot be engineered to provide weight for political or moral arguments.
- Ummagumma, on 07/31/2008, -3/+18"If religion sticks to questions of morality and other non-factual realms..."
Good luck with that. - Frost9999, on 07/31/2008, -0/+15Science takes none of those things on faith, so your examples fall flat. Try again.
- Frost9999, on 07/31/2008, -8/+23What makes you think religion has any right to assert our morals? If anything religion has the worst track record in this area.
- aristone, on 07/31/2008, -4/+19Being a scientist does not prevent one from being crazy or destructive or both.
- MistrBrownstone, on 07/31/2008, -1/+15I think the point polybius was trying to make is that people don't murder other people in the name of science.
- timoumd, on 07/31/2008, -0/+14Its a dog eat dog world in science but he who holds the truth eventually wins over skeptics. If you dont have the evidence, your theory will eventually evolve out. Scientists may be petty sometimes, but the process is solid. It takes a lot of evidence to overthrow an accepted theory...exactly as it should.
- rompom7, on 07/31/2008, -0/+14You haven't madstringer? That is odd because science touches people in so many ways. We can communicate with a global audience literally at our fingertips. We have seen people who suffer from cancer, walk away and live healthy lives. We don't need to worry about smallpox, and a host of other diseases. We can travel to anywhere on this planet. We have visited the heavens and the moon.
The human condition you speak of is one of discovery and journey. We cannot let ourselves sit in the dark. - Namaha, on 07/31/2008, -13/+26So, do we call ourselves the Allied Atheist Alliance? Or the Unified Atheist League? Or perhaps the Unified Atheist Alliance?
- ElvisMMI, on 07/31/2008, -3/+16"It seems that science is often so determined to proselytize or even evict all of the current occupants when it should coexist as peacefully as possible with religious traditions."
Yes, we all know how scientists clash and start wars, making the world a dangerous place.
Those who deny science should be sentenced to live without its benefits. - Vallenwood, on 07/31/2008, -6/+19Buried as inaccurate. As I put in a comment on the article: I thought the point of having editor-run online magazines such as Salon was to provide an alternative to this kind of foolish blog-style meandering. What is the purpose of having editors if they do not filter out such pseudoscientific emotional appeals as this one by Giberson, who repeatedly misrepresents both the context and intentions of the scientists he quotes, all of whom would be appalled at the "religious" ambition he attributes to them? I found this article disturbing because it was granted the imprimatur of editorial approval by being printed in Salon, which until now I considered a valid journalistic resource. I don't mind that the author holds his particular opinion, but I hope you might see my point that it belongs on a personal blog or partisan opinion site. The principal reason for this? It misrepresents the opposing view. Whether or not you agree with Myers or Weinberg or Dawkins, at the very least they take pains to accurately describe the views they argue against. I don't mind people being upset by an accurate depiction that makes them uncomfortable to behold. I do mind intellectual dishonesty. This article is drenched in it.
- rompom7, on 07/31/2008, -2/+15So, you are saying, that because religion causes people to strap bombs to themselves, its science's fault for making the bombs?
...
Wow. You religious nuts never cease to amaze me. It must really be hard to -- time and time again -- come up with such ridiculous logical fallacies. - MacEnvy, on 07/31/2008, -0/+12Just because you don't understand a concept doesn't mean there isn't evidence for it being true.
- Sumtin2Say, on 07/31/2008, -0/+12Don't feel bad, when I was younger I didn't know the difference between lettuce and salad.
- GSnake, on 07/31/2008, -4/+16This is one of the worst articles I've read on digg.
'Faith' in science/technology is an embrace of human achievement and potential. Science merely uncovers the mysteries of our universe, and then takes the findings and turns them into tangible solutions for people like you and I.
'Faith' in religion is based on a traditional teachings of fictional stories that are meant to be a guide of how to live a life. Depending on the religion and the accompanying absurdity of that religion, the 'strictness' of how one is to live is dependent on the literature of that religion and the teachings.
People who turn scientific advancements into some kind of cult or religion will be disowned by the rest of the scientific community, the majority of scientists are sane and rational human beings, so the likelihood of a science becoming a fundamental religion are almost nil in the way the author portrays it in this article.
But if we're keeping count, I'm a very religious science enthusiast when it comes to medicine, I don't praise the stuff, but I do have faith that modern medicine can provide me with more benefits than a pastor can, call it religion if it makes you feel better about your religion, but any rational human being realizes that science is not a religion, and if it can be considered a religion, it's not comparable to any existing religion in the slightest. - eggsovereasy, on 07/31/2008, -0/+12That's what he just said.
- duckyinc, on 07/31/2008, -3/+15O rly? Science doesn't make you believe in a guy in the sky who has powers and sends you to hell because he loves you
- orenshk, on 07/31/2008, -1/+12Even more than that, science only claims to have the best way, not the perfect one. If a better one should present itself or more probably, we find ways to augment the scientific method, scientists will embrace it.
- JQP123, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11"Science has given us the "gift" of constantly being on the verge of complete annihilation, even religion with all its woes can't claim to that level of destruction."
Science has given us knowledge; nothing more, nothing less. Knowledge can be used for good or evil, the choice is yours. Given the knowledge of how to make steel, we can produce either a scalpel to save lives or a knife to take them.
If the human race is ever annihilated, science may have provided the knowledge but it will most likely be some religious fanatic who pulled the trigger. -
Show 51 - 100 of 560 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is