Science or religion, what's your choice?

  • Thread starter Moetasim
  • Start date

Science or religion, what's your choice?

  • Science and Religion can never absorb one another.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Religion is the spirit of science.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Science is superior than religion as works with logic.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Science can never be the substitute of religion.

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • There is no war between science and religion.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • One cant live while having beliefs on both.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This war will never be over.

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Science is actually the logical reasoning of religion.

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
  • #1
20
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
2,225
0
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?
 
  • #3
50
0
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.
 
  • #4
1,944
0
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.
 
  • #5
2,225
0
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?
 
  • #6
1,944
0


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.
 
  • #7
3,762
2
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).
 
  • #8
1,029
1


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.
 
  • #9
3,762
2


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.
 
  • #10
russ_watters
Mentor
19,599
5,872


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.
 
  • #11
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0


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 refering to.
(Accordingly, I saw no adequate choices for me
to vote for in your list.)

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #12
20
0
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.....
 
Last edited:
  • #13
3,762
2
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.
 
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
1,944
0


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)
 
  • #16
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 knowledgable 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."
 
  • #17
FZ+
1,561
3
I don't suppose God wrote a will?
 
  • #18
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.
 
  • #19
1,944
0
Ahhhh, so it religious And scientific dogma!
 
  • #20
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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.
 
  • #21
2,225
0
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
 
  • #22
2,225
0
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
1,481
0
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.
 
  • #24
2,225
0
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! ...
 
  • #25
20
0
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!
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Science or religion, what's your choice?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
120
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
53
Views
49K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
97
Views
7K
Top