Science or religion, what's your choice?

[Moetasim]

Dogma...

There is always a dogmatic war between believers of science and releigion. How come then a believer of both bring a balance between his soul and spirit?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Moetaism
There is always a dogmatic war between believers of science and releigion. How come then a believer of both bring a balance between his soul and spirit?

Knowledge (matter) serves wisdom (spirit). If anything science should be used to augment/validate religion. In which case there should be a branch of science (at the very least) dedicated to the study of religion. Perhaps this would help to heal the schizm that exists between the two?

 

[zimbo]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Knowledge (matter) serves wisdom (spirit). If anything science should be used to augment/validate religion. In which case there should be a branch of science (at the very least) dedicated to the study of religion. Perhaps this would help to heal the schizm that exists between the two?

The purpose of science is to get close to the truth, whatever it may be, and not to be used as a tool to validate a particular preconceived viewpoint regardless of truth. I am sure there are branches of religion (if you can call it that) that tries to find bits and pieces of 'science' which supports their personal prejudices, and ignoring the other scientific bits. That is an unfortunate perversion of science.

On the other hand many scientists have tried to approach religion in a logical manner, with varying degrees of success. Descartes is a good example. But all of this took place when people had no idea about brains/neurons, evolution, big bang etc.

 

[wuliheron]

Science evolved out of religion and, in turn, is causing religion to evolve. What both share in common besides their origins then is important to any comparison of the two. Essentially, both are fundamentalist belief systems. Truth is never falsehood, black is never white, good is never evil, science is never religion.

 

[Iacchus32]

What is Life?

What is life, if not that which is held internally? What is essence, if not that which is contained within form? Doesn't this suggest that life is an "interior process," by which the external "material world" exists to serve? And, that perhaps we should spend some time focusing on our "interior selves" as well? Why doesn't science seem to get the idea? With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

It used to be religion regarded the truth about our "inner selves," but now we rely almost exclusively on science to provide "the truth," which is nowhere near providing these kind of answers. Why is that?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is life, if not that which is held internally? What is essence, if not that which is contained within form? Doesn't this suggest that life is an "interior process," by which the external "material world" exists to serve? And, that perhaps we should spend some time focusing on our "interior selves" as well? Why doesn't science seem to get the idea? With its exclusive focus on material existence. Doesn't it know that the "heart of reality" exists within us?

It used to be religion regarded the truth about our "inner selves," but now we rely almost exclusively on science to provide "the truth," which is nowhere near providing these kind of answers. Why is that?

Science is evolving in this direction, but each individual and organization must take its own path.

 

[Mentat]

I think you are being a little vague, Moetaism. You see, some religions contradict science (such as those that rely on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account's reference to "days" (which btw, were not literal 24 hour periods, according to the Hebrew word there used)). However, the Bible (for example) doesn't need to contradict science, provided one knows which parts are symbolic and which are literal (let's not turn this into an argument about the Bible, I'm just using it as an example).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Moetasim
There is always a dogmatic war between believers of science and releigion. How come then a believer of both bring a balance between his soul and spirit?

By realizing that the dogmatic war is not between science and religion, as you stated. But rather, between the views of those that practice them.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
By realizing that the dogmatic war is not between science and religion, as you stated. But rather, between the views of those that practice them.

My point exactly.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Moetasim
There is always a dogmatic war between believers of science and releigion. How come then a believer of both bring a balance between his soul and spirit?

I tend to see all the dogma on the religious side. Science is the exact antithesis of dogma.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Science is not a belief, because it is based
on PROBABLE assumptions of our observations of
the Universe. Science is just us observing
existence without any absolutes.

Religion is nothing and should be totally abondoned.
Religion is improbable assumptions - because it
is not based on the observed, added with unbased
absolute assumptions which are impossible to prove.
Religion is useless and potentially damaging.

I do not understand what "balance" you're referring to.
(Accordingly, I saw no adequate choices for me
to vote for in your list.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[Moetasim]

Well when someone do not believe in religion then no doubt he'll find it hard to find a balance between two(one is not existing in this case).
Science actually works with logic and in religion you've to have some blind beliefs as well and this very thing brings the difference. If you want to bring the balance then even then you 've to keep one superior than other. You can't simply hold to unparallel things together and apart...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Moetasim
Well when someone do not believe in religion then no doubt he'll find it hard to find a balance between two(one is not existing in this case).
Science actually works with logic and in religion you've to have some blind beliefs as well and this very thing brings the difference. If you want to bring the balance then even then you 've to keep one superior than other. You can't simply hold to unparallel things together and apart...

Actually, belief in a religion that is based directly on the Bible is not supposed to require any "blind belief". Oh well, I guess that's a religious discussion.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Religioin contradicts findings on a daily basis. Myths about how rain comes about, the Sun moving in the sky, the age of the Earth, free will, etc., etc.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I tend to see all the dogma on the religious side. Science is the exact antithesis of dogma.

Is this a scientific dogma, or a religious one? :0)

 

[Locutus]

A brief history (and prediction) of science and religion:

Thousands of years ago, man gave up living in caves and began to domesticate animals, to build his own shelter, to stop becoming nomadic and settle in towns and villages. At first, it was chaos; anarchy ensued. Man developed religion to provide a moral code in order to maintain order in their new found societies (Catal Huyuk being the first). Man decided that in order for such a moral code to be followed, they would have to create something even more powerful than man, something that would be powerful enough to make every man believe that he must follow this moral code in order to earn the approval of this God. This God would punish those who disobeyed, and reward those who lived decently. This was a success, societies were established and early civilizations prospered.

Then, a little later, man learned to write (Sumerians). To them, the ability to write opened up entirely new ways of thinking: numbers, judicial systems, social hierarchy soon became under man's grasp. As society expanded in this way, so did people's minds. They were not satisfied with merely living; they wanted to know where they came from and why they were living. To answer these questions, they turned to the only people who were more powerful and more knowledgeable than the humans - the Gods who oversaw them. Because the Gods were more powerful, humans realized that they must be the key to existence as they knew it. They accepted this fact, and lived on satisfied.

But the Gods never told humans everything. Humans eventually learned things on their own; they developed geometry, astronomy, and literature. They examined parts of their world, made charts, diagrams, and writings. They tracked the stars, they measured the oceans, and they mapped the continents. Man felt satisfaction in doing this. They realized that they could indeed learn things without the help of a God.

Man continued this cycle and pressed on to find information for themselves, even if it questioned what agreed with God. Man had already learned so much about his world that he felt inclined to continue even at the risk of uncovering truths contradictory to what God imposed. Man soon discovered that the Earth orbits the sun, not vice versa. God was angry that the humans would contradict him, so he sent the pitiful human who made this discovery to death.

Even more shockingly, one man came forward declaring humans had gathered enough information to suggest that they have been evolving over time, once existing as more primitive life forms. Once again, God thought this idea was ludicrous, continuing to insist that He had created humans.

God felt threatened, people began to reexamine what they had taken for granted for centuries. God could no longer get away with burning at the stake those that disagreed with him. There were even some people who stopped going to church, and stopped baptizing their children. Humans were able to discover things that God had never envisioned, such as curved spacetime, the speed of light, and quantum mechanics. Some humans started thinking that God was never giving them the whole truth about their existence. They thought "when did God ever talk about fission reactions, dark matter, or black holes."

Then the humans realized the hierarchy they were part of. They were mere children (a 20,000-year-old species on a 4.6bill year old earth) under the eyes of a protective and watchful father. But as any child does, humans began to question the reality of the tooth fairy, of santa claus, of Adam and Eve. Eventually, these children grew up. They no longer needed their father to always supervise them and give them answers. These children started their own life, governed their own life, and described their own life. Their father was still alive, but only as an old man in a Florida nursing home.

The father lived a long, healthy life, dying at an unprecidented 8,000 years old. Sure, his presence was still felt after his death, but it was only just that--a presence. Humanity prospered, just as young children that grow into adults eventually do. In retrospect, humans looked back and were glad of the protection and care their God gave them, as any adult would of his father, but were glad that they were able to grow up and lead successful lives of their own.

Many have interpreted the human relationship with God as spiritual, mental, moral, or even philosophocial. But in truth there exists a more descriptive phrase: "family."

 

[FZ+]

I don't suppose God wrote a will?

 

[Locutus]

Originally posted by FZ+
I don't suppose God wrote a will?

No he did not. After 80,000 yrs he had developed such severe cases of Parkinson's and arthritis that he existed solely in a vegetative state. The idea of actually gripping a pen and coordinating the writing of words onto a page was simply beyond his physical limitations...

I'm kidding, of course, but my last post was all for real.

 

[wuliheron]

Ahhhh, so it religious And scientific dogma!

 

[drag]

Greetings !

I do not agree with that brief explanation/history,
Locutus. That, amongst other things, implies
that there were sufficiently intelegent and
yet primitive people who conspired together.
Douglas Adams, for example, had a much more
convincing explanation: He said that as mankind
evolved and made tools and stuff they looked
at the world around them and thought - what
is the origin of it all ? Someone must've created
it too - it can't JUST exist.

I also wanted to clarify my views about religion.
I have no problem with belief - it is unavoidable
and is a part of life. I do have a problem with
any assumption of absolute facts (almost), and that
is what religion does. Not only that but religion
assumes absolute facts that are not supported
even by observation, I mean if somebody blindly
believes science then that person simply doesn't
understand what it is, but at least his perspective
has some more limmited merit, religion has none.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Iacchus32]

Recorded History

So why doesn't recorded history go back any further than 5,000 BC? Doesn't it seem strange that so much could happen to the world in such a short period of time? Kind of suggests to me that modern man must have been a transplant ... from heaven above or, who knows?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649&perpage=15&pagenumber=3" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by BoulderHead
If you asked me if I thought science ought to start from a position of believing the universe was created I would say no. I'd rather see it start from a position of minimal assumptions and simply study the things in nature. If you mean that in fairness 'they' should try to present two pictures, one with and one with god, then I'd comment that as far as I know there already are scientists who have a belief in a creator and try to take God into account. This thing people call God seems pretty untestable to me and so barring some stumbling onto a piece of his toenail I don't know of what use science could be in this matter.

There's a great deal I don't know about science either, and there's a great deal I don't care to know about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (or shouldn't). Science is sort of like the prodigal son of religion anyway isn't it? In the sense that it was rebellious and wanted to go out and establish its own name? Maybe it's time for some sort of reconciliation to occur?

 

[Royce]

This is my opinion, one held I believe by others as well.
Science tries to find the truth of how physical thing work and why.
It discovers scientific and physical laws and principles and make models of how the universe came about and how it exists as it is and physically why it is the way it is.
It is my belief that there is a Creator and it is the Creator that made these rules, laws and principles that we are discovering and have discovered. To paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember right now; "To know the Laws of science is to know the mind of God."
I believe that learning to know God is one of our reasons for living here in the first place and that we are driven to do so is one of the main reasons that we humans are so curious and driven to explore the world, the universe and science.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
This is my opinion, one held I believe by others as well.
Science tries to find the truth of how physical thing work and why.
It discovers scientific and physical laws and principles and make models of how the universe came about and how it exists as it is and physically why it is the way it is.
It is my belief that there is a Creator and it is the Creator that made these rules, laws and principles that we are discovering and have discovered. To paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember right now; "To know the Laws of science is to know the mind of God."
I believe that learning to know God is one of our reasons for living here in the first place and that we are driven to do so is one of the main reasons that we humans are so curious and driven to explore the world, the universe and science.

I agree with you! ...

 

[Moetasim]

Well our science knows nothing before big bang whereas religion still gives answer about it. So there was religion when their was no science, before big bang!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Moetasim
Well our science knows nothing before big bang whereas religion still gives answer about it. So there was religion when their was no science, before big bang!

There's not supposed to be such a thing as "before the Big Bang".

 

[Moetasim]

Originally posted by Mentat
There's not supposed to be such a thing as "before the Big Bang".

This ware actually began when man tried to explore the world and to find out the physical reasonings for the nature. With the evolution and revolution in science, man found the logics of many naturally occurring processes. Man will keep on exploring universe and will keep on finding logics. This war seems to reach its end as someimes later man will be having logical reasoning for the blind beliefs of religion. But what will be the end...No one knows!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Moetasim
This ware actually began when man tried to explore the world and to find out the physical reasonings for the nature. With the evolution and revolution in science, man found the logics of many naturally occurring processes. Man will keep on exploring universe and will keep on finding logics. This war seems to reach its end as someimes later man will be having logical reasoning for the blind beliefs of religion. But what will be the end...No one knows!

You seem to be confusing the word "logic" with the word "belief". Logic is just the use of reasoning system(s) to arrive at conclusions. (At least, that's a basic definition).

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Royce
This is my opinion, one held I believe by
others as well. Science tries to find the truth...

That is EXACTLY the kind of misunderstanding
that creates the problem for views like what
I call the "old" materialism and the view
of science as a belief or a religion and
results in threads like this one.

Science is the (or at least it aspires to be) the
perfect objective recording and translation of the
observed reality. It has (or at least shouldn't
have if it's REAL science) no prior assumptions
(except existence itself maybe). Science is NOT
the attempt to find out the truth or deduce
any absolutes.

Originally posted by Royce
It is my belief that there is a Creator and
it is the Creator that made these rules,
laws and principles that we are discovering
and have discovered. To paraphrase someone
whose name I can't remember right now; "To
know the Laws of science is to know the mind
of God." I believe that learning to know God
is one of our reasons for living here in the
first place and that we are driven to do so
is one of the main reasons that we humans are
so curious and driven to explore the world,
the universe and science.

And who created the Creator ?
Also, (and this is NOT intended to be offensive -
just a question that to me has a reasonable answer)
why DON'T you believe in pink ellephants that fly ?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So why doesn't recorded history go back
any further than 5,000 BC?

Actually, I think the most recent evidence
of "recorded" history dates back to king
Scorpion who supposedly united upper Egypt
at about 3,200 BC.

Peace and long life.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So why doesn't recorded history go back any further than 5,000 BC? Doesn't it seem strange that so much could happen to the world in such a short period of time? Kind of suggests to me that modern man must have been a transplant ... from heaven above or, who knows?

It really is far simpler than that. To have "records" of history, there has to be something with which to "record" it, ie. a highly developed language. We have certainly found writings such as cave drawings far older, but without a real language, you can't consider that "recorded" history.

You can't record a tape before tapes are invented.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It really is far simpler than that. To have "records" of history, there has to be something with which to "record" it, ie. a highly developed language. We have certainly found writings such as cave drawings far older, but without a real language, you can't consider that "recorded" history.

You can't record a tape before tapes are invented.

It is also the case that modern humans emerged unchallanged from the last ice age around ten thousand years ago, at the beginning of the agracultural revolution. Before that, there existed several distinct homonid species in addition to our immediate ancestors, homoerectus. In other words, it does not seem odd at all when you consider that modern humanity represents a dramatic and recent evolutionary leap in many other respects as well.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So why doesn't recorded history go back any further than 5,000 BC? Doesn't it seem strange that so much could happen to the world in such a short period of time? Kind of suggests to me that modern man must have been a transplant ... from heaven above or, who knows?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html

Actually, no. We have history on cave paintings from hundreds of thousands of years ago. If by history, you mean "Today we killed a mammoth. It tasted good. Today we killed an antelope. It tasted good. Today it rained..." Then again, if you compare that with what we accepted as history, we still get "Today we killed a man. We took his land. Today a man killed some of us. We were unhappy... Today it rained. It was a big flood." Perhaps there wasn't that much of a difference? Population numbers were smaller, but then again it didn't rise much until VERY recently.

And in that time, we made far greater discoveries than what we made for most of the time of recorded history. I would say that the invention of fire would be at least as significant as Einstein's physics as a milestone for man? What about the creation of flint tools? Not often we create a completely new way of doing things. Or the invention of horse riding? Far more important than the motor car. The beginnings of mathematics? The building of free standing dwellings? You see, if we look at the developments in the context they were in, they appear much more significant than from our current perspective.

 

[Moetasim]

Let me ask few more confusions ragging in my mind : What gave man the sense that he became ciivilized with the passage of time. Was it Science or Religion? Were discoveries like wheel, fire etc made man civlized or the spiritual guidance that religion provides? What satisfies human's inner: Is it comforts provided by inventions in science or code of life that religion provides?

 

[heusdens]

Science and religion oppose each other like materialism opposes idealism. The relation between these two philosophical notions about reality, are that they form dialectical opposites, and that struggle necessarily happens between these opposing ideas. This struggle is a motor for the development of our thinking itself.
It can not be assumed that this struggle would stop, and that the opposing thought systems ever would meet an agreement, but what happens is that both thought systems influence each other (dialectical interprenation of the opposites), and therefore cause progress in our thinking, causing the opposing ideas to oppose each other on a higher plane.

 

[Iacchus32]

Transplants ...

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=307&perpage=15&highlight=evolution&pagenumber=1" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32:
Now who's to say that nature (Mother Earth, Mother Nature), through evolution, doesn't aspire towards the Divine?

And that, the Divine (Father Sky, Father Time), also portrayed by the sun, the one constant, flows into the Natural World (much as plants are drawn to, and sustained by, the sun).

And who's to say that the crowning achievement of such a process, what we call Creation, is not Man himself? Where Mother Nature has risen, to meet God on his terms, and God has reciprocated by breathing a life (soul) into it. Which, would coincide with the Advent of Modern Man (dawn of early agriculture) about 10,000 years ago.

Ever wonder why recorded history only goes back about five thousand years? Whoa, that's no time at all in evolutionary terms. It all sounds kind of fishy to me? What's that you say Noah? ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet if God were the "primal cause," that would be the most fundamental thing there is to know. The idea of which is nothing new, and goes all the way back to the origin of consciousness (several thousand years ago).

So what is it about science, which is so intent on focusing on our "material existence," that is unable to grasp it? ... And therein lies the answer.

Science also needs to understand that scientists are people too, and mustn't forsake the fact that this (being human) is the basis for everything we know.

It would also be tantamount to the wife asking the husband, "Why do you have to spend so much time at work? Why can't you come home and spend some time with me and the kids for a change?"

Orignally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's exactly what has been created - humans, the way we are now.
What that means, is that we are evolving beings. And if God wanted to create an evolving being, then he would have to create a being that had come-about via evolution.

Or at least the system which would allow us to evolve and grow. Whereas the book of Genesis says we are created in God's image, meaning this is the form in which He chooses to appear. And quess what? the whole evolutionary process seems to have evolved in order to do just this, sustain "God's form."

Therefore it's entirely possible that God created the world first (through evolution), and so crowned His achievement by adding us later ... whereby he instilled in us an Eternal soul -- just as He has an Eternal soul -- and hence the blueprint which gives rise to Human form.

Why shouldn't the Universe create such a fine specimen as a human being, if in fact it wasn't a reflection of its most highest inclination?