How did science get so focused on the material, and why is materialism on shaky ground? Here is Bruce H. Lipton (Curriculum Vitae - http://www.brucelipton.com/curriculum-vitae/) , talking on the felonious suppression of religion, by science.
"Science originated to challenge the faith-based dogma of the church, by describing and measuring phenomena in the physical world, and then making conclusions based on those observations. In a “détente” between two ideological superpowers, science was given domain over the physical and visible world, religion got custody of the metaphysical and invisible.
When Newton was able to predict the movement of clockwork universe without God or spirit, it was assumed that eventually science would be able to explain the entirety of existence merely by observing the physical world in finer and finer detail.
However, a funny thing happened on the way to absolute faith in matter. Quantum physics ultimately revealed that the material world itself is a matrix of entangled energy that science calls “the field,” that is oddly similar to the “invisible moving force” that religion refers to as spirit.
By ignoring nonmaterial reality, science has omitted at least half of reality – and the portion that Einstein believed was the most important."
http://www.brucelipton.com/spontaneous- … l-answers/
When morons are replacing scientists, what more one should expect?
Exemplify your argument by naming a living scientist, that you consider 'sane' or 'intelligent'.
It would be difficult to get even a dead scientist!
Science started as a rational explanation of nature instead of the magical, illogical and even idiotic and contradictory explanation religion offered.
Physics stopped being physics when a mathematician who had no hypothesis, who merely offered a mathematical description for gravity, was hailed as one of the greatest scientist.
"was hailed as one of the greatest scientist." -It should be, "one of the greatest scientists."
Anyway, I found no example in your post.
Try typing from a touch screen mobile!!
This has nothing to do with the OP nor the point I made.
I requested an example of a scientist that you consider 'sane' or 'intelligent'. You couldn't provide one. If you consider Lipton to be a 'moron', then one can expect you to make it clear as what you consider to be the opposite of that.
It is not 'who!, it is "what is considered rational". One who says nonsense as a scientist is a moron.
Why not Darwin?
What makes you think that what Lipton says is irrational, and what Darwin says is rational? On what basis did you make that differentiation?
You can start with an "introduction to logic" by Copi.
So, are you saying that you had to consult "introduction to logic" by Copi, to conclude that Lipton is irrational while Darwin is rational? Was that the process?
As the person who couldn't differentiate between an irrational from rational argument, it's you who should consult the book.
Validity is relative?? Do not showcase ignorance!
Quote arguments from Lipton's message, that you consider to be irrational.
"Validity is relative?" -Put that into the exact context where it originated. You might even start to understand its meaning.
Instead, point out the rational arguments, if any, from the excerpt you provided. I certainly will never try to teach somebody who is smug In his superiority, who do not want to study.
Validity in logic is not relative, either the argument is valid or it is not.
You have already made it relative, with your sentiments.
Seems like it's relative in the end. None of you could adequately prove whether it's rational or irrational. Funny.
*"Science originated to challenge the faith-based dogma of the church" ? Sorry, that is simply incorrect.*
Incorrect is entirely different from irrational. The Zombie is dancing in air.
If it's not proof which decides which is rational or otherwise, then it becomes relative. It becomes like 'beauty' or 'morality' or 'goodness' and stuff. These are all relative issues.
Being incorrect is entirely different from being irrational. Now, who decides what is correct and what is incorrect? There are many ways to figure that out.
Proof is just like beauty or morality- an opinion.
It is Not proofs that determine rationality.
I agree, but correct, true are all opinions.
Then again, the sentence you quoted was his opinion, the contention is about the premises and his theory.
Because, Lipton is merely rehashing old news and everyone knows that, except you.
That can be classified as a rational, and relevant answer.
That is one of most ridiculous and misinformed conclusions I've ever read from a doctor.
Are you actually suggesting the science should not study anything they cannot see. Like gravity for example. Should science leave gravity for the religious to figure out? Science has no interest in religion. Religion is not part of the equation. I wish Religion had no interest in science, but there they go teaching ID in science class.
Dogma in science can suppress much just as dogma in religion can.
He is one extraordinary genetic scientist!
I like his discovery about cells and the genes. Where scientists once thought the nucleus was the brain of the cell, experiments have shown that it is not true. I was watching him the other day and a lot of what he says makes huge sense to my non scientific mind.
Dumbed down and mysticised so it makes sense to some one who doesn't understand science.
That about sums it up.
So it makes no sense to you then? Only scientist that agree with the dogma that you subscribe to do?
No - it makes no sense.
What you said makes a lot of sense. You like it because you don't understand science. This is what this charlatan is banking on.
Perhaps you are right in that I like it for that reason. We might never know what it is he is banking on? Only time will tell whether or not his experiments and theories are proven or disproved. Scientist in the same field have the ability to speak up and prove otherwise.
That has already been done. Sorry.
Reprehensible suppression of religion?
Felonious suppression of religion?
What experiments are these that show the invisible "spirit" realm?
Clue - invisible.
Perhaps you are on a different tangent?
Because...What experiments to show the invisible spirit realms are you talking about?
If you read my post, it was referring to the stem cell experiments that he did proving the nucleus was not the brain of the cell. For years this was thought to be true by fellow scientist. He proved that the cell is influenced and changed by its environment and not the blueprint of the genes.
What? He proved no such thing - sorry. He expressed a religious opinion - no proving involved. He is a religious Quack.
Probably that is why what he says makes sense to you? Because it fits your Majikal Dogma?
http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress … ffoon-phd/
http://bayblab.blogspot.fr/2007/12/quac … nline.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/ … h-help-fr/
But, to scientists, Lipton is a quack of the first order. He supports crank theories that have been shown to kill people.
Do you mean like Einstein was rejected by other scientists too? For several years his theory on relativity was controversial. His quanta theory was rejected for 14 years before it was finally accepted.
What crank theories might that be that have killed people? Theories do not kill last time I heard.
Einsteins theories were not refuted, Liptons were. A little more info for you non-scientific mind.
Liptons support for holistic therapies, of course.
Google Einstein and you might find his theories were not accepted initially. At least not the one's I mentioned.
I didn't know he supports holistic therapies? I see nothing wrong with holistic healing. What is wrong with that in your mind? How many have been killed by holistic therapies as opposed to misdiagnosis by conventional medicine? Google that too if you like? You might be surprised to find the study that says 40000 ICU deaths were due to misdiagnosis.
Medical Schools are apparently offering holistic courses to their students, so conventional medicine obviously do not dismiss it's usefulness. Nurses here do aromatherapy courses in the initial stages. Go figure.
I have always thought they should work together and now it seems they very well could be.
Is that the opinion of a non-scientific mind?
So, according to your logic, one form of dying is okay, you see nothing wrong with it. Again, is that the opinion of a non-scientific mind?
Certainly not the ones that are well know bunkum, which is what Lipton supports.
It seems technology is your religion. And science too. Be well dear.
That's hilarious as satire. Because that's the only way I can read it.
"Science originated to challenge the faith-based dogma of the church" ? Sorry, that is simply incorrect.
Science originated as an effort to understand the world around us. To find the truth in questions about nature rather than make wild guesses and claims based solely on what a "researcher" wanted to be truth.
Although it obviously did (and does) challenge many of the tenets of religion, that is not the purpose of science. Just understanding and knowledge.
@wild exactly.....science never originate to challenge faith based dogma...science and faith based dogma originated parallely....when people in jungle believed some supernatural ate up sun , some group also developed stone tools for practical utility....science is approach to understand things rationally , faith is approach to label things which we dont understand rationally....
Hypotheses non fingo.
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses.
Well, scientists do make mistakes. You must check the validity of their arguments. The problem is to find the ultimate arbiter who can decide the validity.
Have you ever heard of the 'peer review' process?
The ultimate arbiter is called 'reason' and 'logic', try it.
They depend on certain conditions. One one them is awareness. Another one, which is very interesting, is access to the latest available knowledge. There is no ultimate reason or ultimate logic.
Logic is a system of inference which
works by way of explicit ASSUMPTION and implicit
It has nothing to do with absolutes, but only validity.
...and the latest available knowledge is that God, through His son Jesus Christ, is Creator of the universe, and He works in ways so mysterious that man cannot know .
No idea if it was an opinion of a non scientific mind, you will have to ask Wikipedia if it came from a non scientific mind or not?
I said I see nothing wrong with holistic therapies. There is a huge difference between seeing nothing wrong with a method of healing and what you are implying. Where did I say there is nothing wrong with one form of dying? I also see nothing wrong with conventional medicine.
People have died in both methods. More according to the statistics n the conventional healing methods. So what might you be getting at that I am not understanding? Do you mean people die needlessly when they choose the holistic therapies? And do you mean that if they use conventional methods they are less likely to die? If that's what you mean the statistics prove that more people die through conventional methods.
At the end of the day though we are all going to die. Sometimes holistic or conventional methods cannot, or rather do not have the skill to intervene in the dying process. That is just the way it is.
What are the well known bunkum you are referring to?
Obviously, there are more people who do use conventional medical services than holistic. The point is that conventional medical services work and holistic don't. Those who tried holistic died because they actually needed conventional, not the other way round.
In some cases that is true, in some cases it is not.
A friend of mines Mum was diagnosed with terminal cancer. The cancer specialist said she was riddled with it and there was nothing that they could do except try to ease the pain via doses of morphine. According to the specialist she only had three months to live.
His Mum requested that they take her to a healer. My friend and his sisters were against it but their Mum was adamant. They eventually honoured her request even though they felt it was pointless. She died on the healers table.
Here is the most amazing thing. When they did the autopsy there was no cancer to be found in any part of the body. They could not find a cause for her death.
So..Either the specialist in conventional medicine was wrong in his diagnosis and the healer played no special role
or...The specialist in conventional medicine was right and the healer played a special role in healing the cancer.
The mystery is..She died even though there was no cancer. No one knows why. This reinforces what I said when intervention by conventional or alternative methods may do little in the dying process.
Strange they would do an autopsy on someone who was diagnosed with a terminal cancer?
I don't know? It might be standard practice here? My Mum had an autopsy done and she had cancer too. My sister's baby had an autopsy done. How do they find the cause of death without an autopsy?
If she was in the late stage of cancer they know the cause of death.
Hmmm both his Mum and my Mum were in late stages of cancer? (At different times) My Mum died of heart failure not cancer, she still had the cancer though? Maybe that is why they do autopsies, because it seems they do not always die of the disease they are supposed to die of. I don't know?
My mom didn't have an autopsy.
"In fact, most people do not get an autopsy when they die. In cases of suspicious deaths, the medical examiner or coroner can order an autopsy to be performed, even without the consent of the next of kin. In all other cases (not of a medicolegal nature) the next-of-kin must give consent before an autopsy can be performed."
taken from http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ … ekey=77553
Maybe autopsy isn't the correct term to use?
I just googled the coroners role in New Zealand and apparently they are the ones that determine whether or not an autopsy is done. Their role is to determine cause of death and can direct whether or not an autopsy needs to be done. So I have no idea how they do this and how they find the causes of death when they don't do an autopsy? Maybe they have other ways of determining causes of death?
In the case of my friends Mum and my Mum, the coroner must have deemed it necessary to do an autopsy or it wasn't an autopsy at all and was only determined the inquisitional process (apparently that is what the coroner does? What that means, I don't know?) and came to the conclusions that they did.
See how that works? Big miracle, until someone questions.
We should always question in my view. So what was your point about 'big miracle', I think I am missing something?
She suddenly had no cancer in her body? Why do an autopsy on a person how has a few months to live? Yes I'm questioning the story.
Oh I get it now. I do not consider successful natural healing as a miracle so I didn't get what you were saying.
No idea why an autopsy might have been done? Assuming one was done?
All I know is this. When anyone dies they go to the mortuary for hours, what they do there is not clear to me even when googling. However, on my Mums death certificate it listed all the diseases she had, even some we were not aware of. Then it listed the cause of death as heart failure. On my friends Mums death certificate it did not list any diseases including cancer and the cause of death was undetermined and presumed by natural causes.
So either someone got it wrong or didn't do their job properly or the healer healed.
I guess there was no autopsy, so we can't assume she was cancer free when she died.
Where do you find assumptions were made? We can assume there was no autopsy done but that is pointless. The certificates tell it like it is. Or do you think they just make up reasons based on guesses. If that were the case one would assume the cause of death in my friends Mums case should have been cancer and not presumed natural causes.
No no no no. You said she was free of cancer when she died, as if it was a miracle or something. She may have died of something else, but she was not free of cancer. The death certificate only states what she died of and not wether she still had cancer.
Oh sorry, gees bit slow today. I get you now and what you say makes sense. It could just mean that the coroner did not do his/her job properly and did not list the diseases present as was done with my Mum.
So she may have died because she just died and the healer played no role at all.
Yes, such an amazing coincidence, isn't it?
Or, more accurately, she had a maximum of approximately three months to live based on the diagnosis, which is based on evidence of past cancer patients.
Then obviously, the healer killed the woman right then and there.
If the cancer was cured by the healer, the woman should have rose from the table and walked out the door.
Your ridiculous story is just that, ridiculous. Autopsies don't reveal cancer, they reveal cause of death.
I am just telling you how it was. If it is ridiculous to you I can do little about what you think about it.
People die for all sorts of reasons. It is obvious she did not die of cancer. Why she did not get up and walk away is anyone's guess.
If you are buying into the fact that healers can kill, you are buying into the fact that healers have some sort of special magic ability.
I suspect you're probably making it all up, like you've done so much in the past and have been caught red handed in the process.
by aka-dj4 years ago
I found this via a post on facebook. Thought it worthy of reposting here, since so many revere science as being the be-all and end-all for any philosophic/religious argument.I guess the "scientists" are not...
by Jason Menayan7 years ago
This is about religions (obviously not all of them, but most of the evangelical sorts, apparently) that insist that faith supersedes science, and "worship" of science is somehow something the faithful should...
by jacobkuttyta6 years ago
I appreciate Atheists for their work in bringing out the emptiness of religion and the lies behind the rituals and miracles. They proved that many forces and miracles in animals and holy places are...
by seatle675 years ago
Why are this two always incompatible on each other? And why they dont correlated on each other? For what reason.
by lizzieBoo5 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is...
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.