Science is like the WTBTS...(always coming out with New Light)

by journey-on 67 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  WTWizard

  I do not expect science to be absolutely correct. Even when done correctly, people running the experiments are subject to human errors and variables that are unforseen. So, there are going to be some wrong answers. Then, when someone does the same experiment more carefully or with better technology, they get better results. Even without any fraud, science would have this sort of improvements due to advancing technology.

  But, when regulators or the Church holds back science, it creates all sorts of problems. Scientists that are paid by drug companies or the Establishment to fabricate the conclusions and then alter the data to fit the erroneous conclusions are not true scientists. They are scammers working for the Establishment, and do nothing to advance true knowledge. Then the honest scientist that gets better results will be hounded out of the field, his reputation sabotaged by the Establishment that doesn't want change, and anyone else that wishes to conduct and publish honest experiments will be warned that it will result in the Establishment ruining their careers, too. This is not science--it is a form of religion, where the Establishment is the God.

  Religion, like the fake science run by the Establishment, also depends on an external authority dictating beforehand the answers. This time, no experiments are actually run. Instead, they just give you the conclusion, and anyone that doesn't accept it faces sanctions. This is the surest way to be wrong more often than not, and to stay wrong. The Watchtower Society is guilty of this, as anyone that has read the Asleep! magazine will tell you.

  I would rather have honest science that is controlled by experiments and results than Establishment "science" or, worse yet, religion. Honest science is likely to have mistakes. However, the mistakes get corrected in time. New light that is the result of actual scientific improvement, like better technology, actually improves the field. This is true with Pluto not being a planet now that other Kuiper Belt objects have been found that are similar to Pluto. It is true with computers. It is true in medicine. It is true with energy sources. The first to go into these fields had crude technology and did not know what they were doing; yet they still managed to get some results. Refinements have led to better products and results--to me, that is true advancing truth.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  I was reading that science and scientitst nowadays do take a more symmetrical approach to their discipline - that truth and error travel the same road and that progress isn't necessarily progess as such but that cultural issues etc determine the path science takes.

  Scientists are more open nowadays than say 10-20 years ago when all error was relegated to religion and superstition for instance. So journey-on there is hope yet.
• 

  Pistoff

  Is the issue here the methodology of science vs the methodology of religion?
  
  Or is it how the 2 vastly different entities are viewed by lay people?
  
  There is no comparison in their methodologies; science deals in the falsifiable. Religion is...I can't think of anything that is not negative here, hang on.
  
  Religion is different things to different people, but as I see it a set of beliefs about the invisible spirit world that cannot be falsified.
  
  I know that it is more than that, that a sense of community and shared purpose is involved. But the methodologies are polar opposites.
  
  I get what is being said about how some view science as a religion, but that is NOT the intent of honest science. More to the nature of people to worship what they don't understand maybe.
  
  Here is how I see science vs religion: In science, an incorrect idea will be revealed sooner or later.
  
  In religion, a bad idea will last centuries and may become a major religion.
• 

  Anti-Christ

  I agree with pistoff. I personally don't trust everything 100%, in a world were money and knowledge are power, it is difficult for me to trust what the "establishment" might say. I question a lot of things but I still believe certain things to be true when there is a lot of proof to support it.

  The main difference between science and religion is that religion tells you how you should live your life or else. Science is trying to understand the world that surround us. Science can influence the way you live your life but (like pistoff said) that is not it's objective.
• 

  Seeker4

  Journey on wrote: "My original hypothesis was fairly simple: What was once accepted as scientific fact is thrown out the window at a later date when a new science emerges to wipe out the old. New light replaces old light. "
  
  I'm not trying to be difficult, but your analogy is still off base. Let me use your example. to explain what I mean.
  
  Science determined the make up of the chicken egg. Because of that make up, the came up with the hypothesis that eggs could be detrimental to heart health because of the cholesterol, which seemed reasonable. Over time, scientists conducted more studies and they found humans didn't react to eggs in the way they expected, so they adjusted the hypothesis. It wasn't a case of "throwing out" the "old" science and replacing it with the "new" science. The original science about what an egg is composed of remains the same. Our understanding of how humans react to that composition is being adjusted and will even more in the future, I'm sure.
  
  Science, in order to be science, HAS to always be changing. I agree with whoever wrote that you're comparing oranges to eggs! You're trying to compare two quite different things - how scientific knowledge grows and how religion tries to cover its ass when it becomes obvious that earlier teachings and prophecy were wrong. Those are quite different things and seem to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is and how it works.
  
  S4
• 

  journey-on

  WTWizard....good comments.

  I do not expect science to be absolutely correct. Even when done correctly, people running the experiments are subject to human errors and variables that are unforseen. So, there are going to be some wrong answers. Then, when someone does the same experiment more carefully or with better technology, they get better results. Even without any fraud, science would have this sort of improvements due to advancing technology.

  However, religious "light" might also state a current "truth", but with new archealogical finds and better methods of evaluation developed, have legitimate reason to change the old light to "NEW LIGHT". Agree?

  Note: I'm not an apologetic for the WTBTS old light/new light habit, but I'm just saying there might be legitimate reasons occasionally to change the way something is viewed, especially chronological evaluations based on my statement above.
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  I thought it would important to mention that religions like the wts. are and have been constructed and developed on emotions of those ones involved which there are many such hope, fear,

  personal desires and probably a few more and it wholly supports itself on those emotions.

  On the other hand science develops and evolves its self on perceived discoveries and draws conclusions on gathered evidence.

  It can also be considered that science is like a door of knowledge that continues to open itself wider and wider as new discoveries are being made and perhaps

  at times to be replaced by new discoveries

  It might be said that science is rooted in our minds and intellect but religion is rooted in are hearts, therefore the two are quite different from one another.
• 

  Awakened07

  However, religious "light" might also state a current "truth", but with new archealogical finds and better methods of evaluation developed, have legitimate reason to change the old light to "NEW LIGHT". Agree?

  Archaeological finds are science though, not theology [edited to add: OK, I'll admit that 'theology', depending on the definition used, may encompass church history etc., where archeology can play a role, but in this context...]. In this thread's context, I would say that 'new light' pertains to religious 'revelation'; something supernatural. Proving historic accuracy of a religious text using new archaeological finds does not prove a supernatural origin of the text, nor prove the supernatural occurrences the text describes. The only exception I can think of, would be if archeology revealed a prophetic text that could be dated accurately to quite some time before the events described, and corresponding, accurately dated evidence from the time the prophecy was supposed to have been fulfilled. Religious 'new light' to me brings the meaning of examining religious scriptures, and solely based on those, come to a different conclusion than has previously been made - usually to do with something supernatural or 'religious' in nature, not historic. Remember also that the topic says "Science is like the WTBTS", so it's their brand of 'new light' we're discussing.