# Science saved my life



## whataguy (Nov 22, 2014)

I'm new here and just noticed there's a science section. I'm stoked. After turning away from my religion and becoming atheist, science was the only thing I could turn to for answers. I think it's kept me mostly sane this whole time. I learned a lot from different scientific fields, but the most fascinating to me are Astronomy and Physics. Anyone else turn to science from religion?


----------



## GGTFM (Oct 7, 2014)

I did and im soooo glad i did. The universe really is an amazing to learn about.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

I'm sure we all have our "science saved my life" stories but for my part, I still don't like science people. They're a necessary evil but they're still evil.


----------



## knightofdespair (May 20, 2014)

There is no spoon


----------



## Narnia (Nov 21, 2014)

Is the title in reference to the infamous youtube clip? I watch it at least once a year!


----------



## Gavroche (Jan 12, 2013)

It seems your attitude OP is becoming more common, but I confess that I don't fully understand why people seem to increasingly treat science as a lifestyle or its own religion.

From my point of view, science is a discipline, the word science itself simply means something along the lines of "organized body of knowledge" so there is natural science (organized body of knowledge concerning the natural world) biological science (organized body of knowledge concerning the study of life) political science (organized body of knowledge concerning the state) etc. 

It's a useful practice, but I don't see it in this mythic sense that people increasingly seem to see it, which in my opinion can cloud its practice and actual meaning almost turning it into an appendage of pop-culture in the minds of a lot of people. 

Not that I'm not interested, I'm actually very interested, especially in evolution, archaeogenetics, cosmology, and astronomy. I just don't see these interests in the sense you seem to.


----------



## thevenacava (Dec 29, 2014)

I'm not so much into astronomy/physics as I am into molecular sciences (biochemistry/organic chemistry). These disciplines let you understand how man functions, and it gives you a great appreciation for the complexity of life. Consider looking into these sciences as well!


----------



## macrotus (Aug 31, 2014)

whataguy said:


> I'm new here and just noticed there's a science section. I'm stoked. After turning away from my religion and becoming atheist, science was the only thing I could turn to for answers. I think it's kept me mostly sane this whole time. I learned a lot from different scientific fields, but the most fascinating to me are Astronomy and Physics. Anyone else turn to science from religion?


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

Not defending religion, but science shouldn't really be looked at like that in my opinion lol. It is just knowledge of the natural world applied through reasoning, observation, and study. Which helps develop technology and medical procedures. It isn't there to be worshiped, it's a tool to be used for understanding, and appreciated as part of modern life.


----------



## thevenacava (Dec 29, 2014)

I wonder if viewing science as the only way to understand the world can lead to disillusionment. I don't know if I could stand living with the fact that my life is just a part of the ongoing fluxes of natural selection. Giving the individual a purpose through religion offers more opportunities for fulfillment, I think.


----------



## kageri (Oct 2, 2014)

I have no problem thinking that I am a blip in natural selection. A failed one even cause I'm never having kids. I don't see it as anything like religion. I don't feel the need for that fulfillment or purpose of being. Science is just research, hypothesis, facts... It is not a lifestyle or your savior. It is just an explanation of how things work or probably work.


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

I doubt I know as much as many of you, but one thing I can comment on is the idea that I am part of a causative samsaric wheel. I am awed by the Einstein's mind. Still, there was one thing he said which deeply unsettled me: through the eyes of the scientist, the future is every bit as determined as the past. That idea is anathema to me. I think I might kill myself if I ever became utterly convinced of it.


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

thevenacava said:


> I wonder if viewing science as the only way to understand the world can lead to disillusionment. I don't know if I could stand living with the fact that my life is just a part of the ongoing fluxes of natural selection. Giving the individual a purpose through religion offers more opportunities for fulfillment, I think.


That is one thing I have "struggled" with I suppose it could be called, the "meaninglessness of existence", thus existentialism for the majority of my life. Only later in life, did I learn the word and philosophy centered around it lol.

I disagree with science being the only way of seeking "meaning" to life. Thus I don't believe in Scientism. I find that dogmatic approach, dangerous, to put faith into something without critical thinking and proper skepticism. A lot of science fact is based on theory alone, which there are multiple of, yet many cannot be proven. However, I do appreciate science itself and the knowledge it provides. Even with a somewhat utilitarian approach to life, I can see the flaws of pure empiricism within a society, or rather applied to societal values and institutions where science has no right to encroach upon. Such as arts and humanities, which require the depth of reasoning and "inspiration" that science cannot provide with purely fact alone. 



kageri said:


> I have no problem thinking that I am a blip in natural selection. A failed one even cause I'm never having kids. I don't see it as anything like religion. I don't feel the need for that fulfillment or purpose of being. * Science is just research, hypothesis, facts... It is not a lifestyle or your savior. It is just an explanation of how things work or probably work.*


I agree with that, and especially in the sense genetics seem to play within say personalities:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...sonality-lies-in-genes-twins-study-shows.html

I am unsure if we are just a blip in natural selection though. Although, I tend to believe that myself, I still keep an open mind to different cultural outlooks and philosophies (as long as they don't openly oppose something like evolution). Until there is other solid evidence that suggests otherwise, the possibilities are open. Especially within the question of consciousness.

However, independent of that, (even if it is wishful thinking) I would like to believe in "free will" instead of determinism lol. Yet internally, I think I may have a fatalistic outlook on life that I can't seem to shake ~_~



fredbloggs02 said:


> I doubt I know as much as many of you, but one thing I can comment on is the idea that I am part of a causative samsaric wheel. I am awed by the Einstein's mind. Still, there was one thing he said which deeply unsettled me: through the eyes of the scientist, the future is every bit as determined as the past. That idea is anathema to me. I think I might kill myself if I ever became utterly convinced of it.


That's an interesting concept sir, the samsaric wheel that is, and the sense of causality through karma and dharmic principles. It could be just another way of looking at things as well, like the cycle of rebirth, like the seasons themselves and the cycle of nature.

I don't know enough about Einstein's mind, or physics for the most part to really expound on his thoughts. However, in a personal opinion or insight into that, what I would see it as, is that "history tends to repeat itself". What has happened before, will happen again, that very "cycle" of nature lol. At least in terms of human history, the same problems that seem to occur in the past, happen over and over again because the conditions that lead to it. (Rise and fall of empires and such.)

Science in it's essence analyzes, and studies the natural world, and those cycles constantly present themselves in geology, through the fossil record, and cycles of earth, with extinction events. As well as astronomy, when one looks out into the void of space, and how stars are born and die:










http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/stars/lifecycle

Which possibly starts all over again somewhat lol, since stars are born themselves from clouds of gas and dust. This is happening all over the known universe, which is vast. It tends to boggle the mind, how "existence" even works, and consciousness. Since humans are possibly the only species (that we know of) on Earth, that can contemplate it's own existence, it's origins, and capable of understanding it's eventual demise.


----------



## kageri (Oct 2, 2014)

I didn't say we are definitely a blip. I am agnostic. Who knows what exists. I just said I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

kageri said:


> I didn't say we are definitely a blip. I am agnostic. Who knows what exists. I just said I don't have a problem with it.


Ahh forgive my lack of eye skills in reading properly lol. Which does raise a whole different question (at least to me) would it matter if I was a blip or not?!?!? ! ! o_o! Perceptions, perceptions, perceptions, how they can change an outlook, forge a path, and stop one in their tracks. The forest gets ever smaller as the trees grow larger, but the trees never see the leaves, and the branches never see the forest over the trees @[email protected]


----------



## acidicwithpanic (May 14, 2014)

Even when I still identified as a Christian I still didn't understand why a lot of other Christians didn't accept that science and religion could coexist. I'm agnostic now ever since I've seen the religion I grew up with negatively affecting my family life. The only thing that bothers me about discovering that I'm agnostic is that I haven't came out to my parents about it; it terrifies me because my dad is a really strict Catholic and I could possibly experience religious abuse from him if he ever found out. I'm a math major (pure math), so I'm considering a career in some scientific field.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

thevenacava said:


> I wonder if viewing science as the only way to understand the world can lead to disillusionment. I don't know if I could stand living with the fact that my life is just a part of the ongoing fluxes of natural selection. Giving the individual a purpose through religion offers more opportunities for fulfillment, I think.


Those ideas of fulfillment are a direct result of your desire for there to be divine purpose.

Secular ideologies and areas in interest can offer just as much fulfillment and purpose to people. It's a shame you don't have the humility to realise that your life has no objective purpose and importance to anyone other than the people who care about you/rely on you.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

kageri said:


> I have no problem thinking that I am a blip in natural selection. A failed one even cause I'm never having kids.


Not all parts in a working system need to reproduce to have value and purpose.

We could call it a success of natural selection that allows you to chose not have kids, and be perfectly justified in that decision.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

fredbloggs02 said:


> I doubt I know as much as many of you, but one thing I can comment on is the idea that I am part of a causative samsaric wheel. I am awed by the Einstein's mind. Still, there was one thing he said which deeply unsettled me: through the eyes of the scientist, the future is every bit as determined as the past. That idea is anathema to me. I think I might kill myself if I ever became utterly convinced of it.


Not many scientists believe in such determinism. The quantum nature of the universe negates it, unless you start getting in to many worlds and block time hypotheses and the like.

Even if there is zero free will, we require at least the illusion of it in order to function effectively as individuals and as societies.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> The quantum nature of the universe negates it, unless you start getting in to many words and block time hypotheses and the like.


Actually that's a common misconception. There are many theories that aim to explain quantum mechanics and a number of them are very much deterministic, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. In fact the bit that is most closely associated with the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics - the Schrödinger's thought experiment - led to the equation that is in itself deterministic.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> Actually that's a common misconception. There are many theories that aim to explain quantum mechanics and a number of them are very much deterministic, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. In fact the bit that is most closely associated with the indeterminacy in quantum mechanics - the Schrödinger's thought experiment - led to the equation that is in itself deterministic.


I alluded to them.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> I alluded to them.


What you alluded to were not QM theories. My point was that QM nature of the universe as a whole does not negate determinism, as many of its interpretations clearly demonstrate.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> What you alluded to were not QM theories. My point was that QM nature of the universe as a whole does not negate determinism, as many of its interpretations clearly demonstrate.


Many-worlds is a QM interpretation!

I don't debate there are QM interpretations that are consistent with determinism. I just went for a current popular option without getting into the technicalities. :b


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Many-worlds is a QM interpretation!
> 
> I don't debate there are QM interpretations that are consistent with determinism. I just went for a current popular option without getting into the technicalities. :b


My apologies, I am so used to people using many worlds as a cosmological argument here I did not consider the role wave function interpretation may play in it.

With regard to the popular opinion, do you have a source for it? It would be interesting to see if there has actually been a poll because the physicists I come across largely support deterministic universe.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> With regard to the popular opinion, do you have a source for it? It would be interesting to see if there has actually been a poll because the physicists I come across largely support deterministic universe.


20 years of reading about QM in popular science publications makes me say that.

I'm well aware of what a contentious subject it is though, and appreciate I maybe shouldn't have been so flippant in claiming majority opinion.

There was a poll on what you ask recently: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-survey-physicists-fundamental-quantum-mechanics.html


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> 20 years of reading about QM in popular science publications makes me say that.
> 
> I'm well aware of what a contentious subject it is though, and appreciate I maybe shouldn't have been so flippant in claiming majority opinion.
> 
> There was a poll on what you ask recently: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-survey-physicists-fundamental-quantum-mechanics.html


BTW, without reading the page, the result of the poll indicates that majority of people do not adhere to the stochastic model but are in fact not sure  My guess here for why there is no consensus would be the existence of workable deterministic and stochastic interpretations, which are hard to ignore in the absence of any understanding of quantum world, which is pretty much what I was trying to point out when I said that QM negating determinism was a misconception - some _interpretations _do, whilst others demand it.

BTW, one more thing I wanted to mention is that determinism doesn't preclude free will, just like it's not dependant on the stochastic nature of the universe. So whichever way the pendulum will swing on this one, QM will not be providing any answers to the question of free will.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Azazello said:


> BTW, without reading the page, the result of the poll indicates that majority of people do not adhere to the stochastic model but are in fact not sure  My guess here for why there is no consensus would be the existence of workable deterministic and stochastic interpretations, which are hard to ignore in the absence of any understanding of quantum world, which is pretty much what I was trying to point out when I said that QM negating determinism was a misconception - some _interpretations _do, whilst others demand it.


QM negating determinism isn't a misconception on the main point in question. It's appropriate for the answer to _one side_ of the fundamental question. As I say, it's contentious, but remember the context of my original post. It wasn't the place to get bogged down in competing theories, but which I did allude to.



> BTW, one more thing I wanted to mention is that determinism doesn't preclude free will, just like it's not dependant on the stochastic nature of the universe. So whichever way the pendulum will swing on this one, QM will not be providing any answers to the question of free will.


Well that's a 10 page thread so no comment! :b


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> QM negating determinism isn't a misconception on the main point in question. It's appropriate for the answer to _one side_ of the fundamental question. As I say, it's contentious, but remember the context of my original post. It wasn't the place to get bogged down in competing theories, but which I did allude to.
> 
> Well that's a 10 page thread so no comment! :b


If you say so  anyhoo, that's my quota of the forum posts for today. Off to sort myself out for the week.


----------



## Wirt (Jan 16, 2009)

Took the words out of my mouth OP.

When I was in grade school and raised catholic, I took everything as a given and didn't ask "why". I didn't need to know..god did everything

Then I got older and my gut told me something was wrong with that explanation, and through college got more involved with the scientific process, questioning everything, wondering why things are the way they are. And I found the real answers so much more interesting and rewarding than "god made it that way" could ever be

I'm very happy without religion in my life. Death scares me, but that scared me when I was religious too


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

thevenacava said:


> I wonder if viewing science as the only way to understand the world can lead to disillusionment. I don't know if I could stand living with the fact that my life is just a part of the ongoing fluxes of natural selection. *Giving the individual a purpose through religion offers more opportunities for fulfillment*, I think.


If that's all religion was, I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. It's when religion infiltrates education and politics that it becomes a problem. You can't even get elected to be the President if you are openly atheist.


----------



## ilsr (Aug 29, 2010)

I was at a phase from sunday school, then in my 20's and studying basic science in college becoming I guess agnostic. But later on coming back to at least believing if not publicly active in religion.


----------



## Brawk Shady (Jan 19, 2015)

Gavroche said:


> It seems your attitude OP is becoming more common, but I confess that I don't fully understand why people seem to increasingly treat science as a lifestyle or its own religion.
> 
> From my point of view, science is a discipline, the word science itself simply means something along the lines of "organized body of knowledge" so there is natural science (organized body of knowledge concerning the natural world) biological science (organized body of knowledge concerning the study of life) political science (organized body of knowledge concerning the state) etc.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. It really gets on my nerves when people think that you either only believe in religion or science. It's also ironic how a lot of athiests quickly look at religions and immediately dismiss them because what it says doesn't usually happen, and they don't analyze the psychology of the matter.


----------



## Brawk Shady (Jan 19, 2015)

VipFuj said:


> Took the words out of my mouth OP.
> 
> When I was in grade school and raised catholic, I took everything as a given and didn't ask "why". I didn't need to know..god did everything
> 
> ...


I understand your doubt. A lot of people teaching religion are unfortunately scientifically ignorant. However, because there is a deeper meaning to how things work doesn't contradict that God exists. I'm not trying to be rude; just giving you something to think about.


----------



## Wirt (Jan 16, 2009)

Brawk Shady said:


> I understand your doubt. A lot of people teaching religion are unfortunately scientifically ignorant. However, because there is a deeper meaning to how things work doesn't contradict that God exists. I'm not trying to be rude; just giving you something to think about.


I understand. There's a lot of reasons i'm not religious anymore (I'm not sure i ever was. i just believed in it because everyone told me it was 100% true) and i've contemplated it over the course of my life, but what you say does make sense. My mom is interested in science and sees the explanations of how the universe works as explanations to things that god made. Her stance, also, is that religions are man made and made up, but that there is still a god behind everything.

That's why i dont get in religious debates, but i do appreciate the "think about this" discussion


----------

