Could science itself be a religon? The basic principles being gravity, energy, and electricity. The prophets we have faith in being any scientist. I mean, why trust all the scientists to tell us how the world is? Aside from science created medicine and technology, why do we beleive them? Could grass just be grass and not forms of carbon and water? Or can sky be sky and not a large formation of varied gases?

Most of the comparisons between science and religion miss the point I think. Both involve people, so there is inherently a ton of stuff in common. But you could make lots of comparisons between religion and politics and sports and education and chess clubs. For the same reason: they all have people, and people are fairly consistent in their features, wants, and needs.

The relevant comparison is between the defining differences.

I don't think the description of science as "the modern religion" is apt either. There have always been two ways of trying to understand the world (which is only one thing that religion does). Some of the ancient greeks theorized about atoms and how there had to be a smallest unit of matter. Very logical, philosophical, scientific. Others went for more religious explanations of the world.

Some of the ancient greeks theorized about atoms and how there had to be a smallest unit of matter. Very logical, philosophical, scientific.

Forgive me for nitpicking.
Ancient greeks thought the atom would be the smallest unit, naming the unit atomos "undivideable"

Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.

Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.

So in philosophy the world can still be flat, because it once was philosophized so?

Why would you think that?

So in philosophy the world can still be flat, because it once was philosophized so?

Because of Jebediah's anology?

Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.

i still don't get it. Can you explain?

No, sorry ..I think my imaginary friend wants a meeting with me in Australia ..or something, cya!

Well, we still think there is a smallest unit, that's indivisible. We just called the atom the atom because when we found it we thought it was the smallest. I don't think it faults their reasoning though. <--not up on my history of science and philosophy, so fwiw.

actually 'atom' is derived from 'uncuttable'. The history of the idea is very interesting in its own right. In Ancient Greece Democritus was the original exponent of the idea, which was immortalized in a classic piece of verse philosophy, De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius, which is studied at university level to this day. There were atomist schools in early India as well. However there were always critics who opposed atomism on logical grounds. The main argument was along the lines of: if an atom is a point, then how can it come into contact with another, as it has no sides? Of course, we now know the importance of electro-magnetic fields, which were entirely unknown to the ancients, and which does provide an answer to this question (namely, that they do not have make physical contact in order to be related.) But it is interesting to contemplate these early arguments about the nature of matter.

actually 'atom' is derived from 'uncuttable'. The history of the idea is very interesting in its own right. In Ancient Greece Democritus was the original exponent of the idea, which was immortalized in a classic piece of verse philosophy, De Rerum Natura, by Lucretius, which is studied at university level to this day. There were atomist schools in early India as well. However there were always critics who opposed atomism on logical grounds. The main argument was along the lines of: if an atom is a point, then how can it come into contact with another, as it has no sides? Of course, we now know the importance of electro-magnetic fields, which were entirely unknown to the ancients, and which does provide an answer to this question (namely, that they do not have make physical contact in order to be related.) But it is interesting to contemplate these early arguments about the nature of matter.

No, it's more like the earth once being philosophized as round, with the ancient word for round being "flat". And now we find that the world is indeed round, and not flat.

:whistling:

:shifty:Can some-one tell me the degrees 4 boiling water...

100%Celsius

Fahrenheit en Kelvin, Mercury >
Onno van Kamerlingh
Leyden, now Zuid-Holland

I think science (modern) is difficult to under-stand

Yours, Pepijn Sweep s.t.
zelfstandig""