Science Vs Religion

Science Vs Religion?

Most importantly...why?

Religion is apart of a Belief System that every individual has - Buddhist scientist don't exist? And I am assured they allow their beliefs in their work.... Science is a tool in which to investigate... If a religious fundamentalist just so happens to believe his holy book is a reliable source, and still continues to use other scientific research; archeologist, theologians, historians, modern evolutionary biology, etc. These are all studies (a frame of mind in which to investigate data). Religion is prior to the use of science, not after.

Also, scientific communities prove short-sighted, often. They stay within certain academic and cultural norms... Most communities do not even talk to one another... IT IS NO LONGER THE 1950's!!!!! The scientific community no longer exist, it is now mass communities.

Religion vs. Science debate is naive... Science is a skill, an ability (interpersonally) and a study or process (intrapersonally). Religion (depending on how the religion - your probably talking the Abrahamics) place their beliefs prior to data. Just like anyone else does, if your beliefs just so happen to be skeptical, existential, pragmatic, problematic, and other continental philosophy positions - that's great, it will come prior to your scientific investigations, gonna be better science. The debate should be "fundamentalism vs. deconstructionism."

This neo-atheism fade is just that, a trend. Let it pass, read about different already existing ancient philosophical schools (religion). Zen Buddhism can teach anyone a thing or two.

A simple questions***

*What do you believe in?
A lot of weird ****

*What do you believe to be true?
What ever I can absorb cognitively, rationally, empirically and intuitively - if I can do 1/2 it's not rejected completely, but not static.

*How do you believe the universe works?
Cycles of evolutionary patterns of energy reacting in seemingly spontaneous mannerisms. Randomness vs. determinism.

*How do you think the universe started?
A bang perhaps, multiple bangs, perhaps a "big bang" going off right now somewhere as we speak - starting another cycle... I don't know how the universe began.

*Why do you think we exist?
- Could be the Abraham God; but he was an alien, and we misinterpreted the translation of "angel."
- Could be an older alien than started life for an experiment.
- Randomness
- Who cares?

*How do you think we exist?
By gravity, oxygen and stuff like that.

*What do you think our purpose is, if there is one?
Singularity vs. self-destruction, you pick.

*What do you think happens when we die?
Reincarnation in some shape or form is the best bet if there is continual life after death in, again, some shape or form.

A static after life sounds childish, but if we are in a computer simulation and the programing creates it... you never know.

A simple question.
What do you believe in?
What do you believe to be true?
How do you believe the universe works?
How do you think the universe started?
Why do you think we exist?
How do you think we exist?
What do you think our purpose is, if there is one?
What do you think happens when we die?

Most importantly...why?

An even simpler answer.. Rational Metaphysics.

Ahh, I'm sorry for being rude not introducing myself before posting...

But as I see this topic it's about atheists vs. other religions... So I'm going to respond with this believe...

well science is the way of proving the world that I like... so I obviously don't while I obviously do believe in atheism and religion...

Now... Atheists... (for me) are people who use science and random thoughts and conclusions borrowed from other religons to make up their philosophy... (But still using mainly science while not full believing any other Religion)

I don't really like atheism as a general rule... because many of them seem quite rude (when it comes to believes)... Oh I also tend to believe all they think or say has a general low probability of being true..

People belonging to Religions... this is a big topic as it contains many groups... But generally I tend to like them for their willingness to discuss things, rather than just ignore everything but what famous people say (some religions do this as well but none of the major)... about their believe? I tend to think that there is a low probability of it being true...

(each individual religion being as probable as the atheists religion, but sharing a probability of being right at a 0.00001 % margin... said this just to make an image on how improbable I think it is... (in other words it's just a random number))

in other words I believe that atheist is one of the religions, not really caring about how they view the world... where other major religions tend to have (of course it's only by a small margin) more people who like to discus about how the world is.

Now what I believe? Well there is nothing I believe to be true nor wrong, just things I that I think are too unlikely for me to mention in my everyday speech...

so the answer to all the questions asked about what I believe is... Calculation probabilities, and the working on them never reaching any end... (although I wouldn't really be against there being an end either... but as I said unlikely...)

A sample of what I believe of some religions... I believe that if a religion is true... then the humans who have written the text (holy works) could indeed have been directed by someone... I believe (please remember when I use believe it should translate to what I believe is most likely... it's just a bit long to write that every time) that if this were the case the human writing this down would not have been capable of understanding much of this... And would have translated it to simpler things... (after all how would a simple human ever comprehend the work of a god? [Superior being]) in this way the bible and all other works could be true... heck they could all be talking about the same thing, but gaining a different understanding of the words told by the god/Superior being (langue barriers could also result on this).

If above proved to be true (which I consider unlikely) then it is likely that humans are supposed to use science to gain a more true understanding of the superior beings/'s words of partial or absolute truth...

Now that is said what I really belive is most likely... is

we are not really alive.... (or well not alive in the definitive sense of having a worth (in life) soul or anything at all) But a chemical process much as acids transference of electrons and soaps ability to bind water and fat... I believe that the big bang created the universe... and that saying anything more about this is pure speculation with little chance of success...

I use the following way to perceive the world... a main part that is objective taking in the most likely scientific causes as a believe... and about a million other ways to both gain understanding of other, but also gain the understanding of subjects that would be meaningless to discuss in the first main ''truth'' (this will also mean that my moral will always vary depending the situation you ask me in ... (I am never of the same opinion))

I believe that morally there is no one incorrect, any murder is as correct as any benefactor of the poor.... (not correct at all in this case since it hold no meaning)

I believe that humans must ultimately become a stable tribe to survive as long as possible...

I believe war is a fight for territorial gain... and is a somewhat a part of evolution, I believe War=fights=money(financial fights)=food=disease=air=water=Natural disaster.... (in that it is all a population control factor...)

I believe that no life contains any real value in the consideration to the future (unless it contains real value to the entire colony) and main part of the world/life we live this I believe because a population varies and replaces itself with little trouble, the loss of one man is a gain of another... in the same the loss of one life is the (slow as in future) gain of another.

I believe I should not go further with this as I have already dragged it on to much and it would only confuse people (who were confused) further, I believe there is no reason to look at this I have just said with anger of disbelief, because the reason will not be clear to all (most) at first... and I really hope to get a meaningful response to this.

The Crow Sword wrote:

A sample of what I believe of some religions... I believe that if a religion is true... then the humans who have written the text (holy works) could indeed have been directed by someone... I believe (please remember when I use believe it should translate to what I believe is most likely... it's just a bit long to write that every time) that if this were the case the human writing this down would not have been capable of understanding much of this... And would have translated it to simpler things... (after all how would a simple human ever comprehend the work of a god? [Superior being]) in this way the bible and all other works could be true... heck they could all be talking about the same thing, but gaining a different understanding of the words told by the god/Superior being (langue barriers could also result on this).

Someone, some god, revealed religious truth to various persons each of whom interpreted the words of the god slightly differently? Is this correct?

The relative truths of religions can be explained just so. But why bother? Variations in beliefs have much more mundane causes than interpretations of some god's revelation. Why posit something as difficult and unnecessary as some god telling people what is what?

The Crow Sword wrote:

A sample of what I believe of some religions... I believe that if a religion is true... then the humans who have written the text (holy works) could indeed have been directed by someone... I believe (please remember when I use believe it should translate to what I believe is most likely... it's just a bit long to write that every time) that if this were the case the human writing this down would not have been capable of understanding much of this... And would have translated it to simpler things... (after all how would a simple human ever comprehend the work of a god? [Superior being]) in this way the bible and all other works could be true... heck they could all be talking about the same thing, but gaining a different understanding of the words told by the god/Superior being (langue barriers could also result on this).

Someone, some god, revealed religious truth to various persons each of whom interpreted the words of the god slightly differently? Is this correct?

The relative truths of religions can be explained just so. But why bother? Variations in beliefs have much more mundane causes than interpretations of some god's revelation. Why posit something as difficult and unnecessary as some god telling people what is what?

I must admit I almost laughed at this (at first), I'm very sorry you have my out most apology. And of course I'm not saying that my simple answer will be correct.

You ask why bother ask a question. That is pretty much the same question, as asking why bother reading philosophy, if we do not test every line of thought how can we hope to achieve anything though it?

It is however true that I personally myself belief in different more common answers. Also I am in no way against the thought that differences in religion would simply have come though conflicts additions and changes. But you can hardly expect me to say everything I believe in one post. Not that I won't answer, just that I will not be able to nor want to write every thought and idea of mine in one post.

Another question, my assumption build on the belief of god. How can you expect that there is a god, and that humans have achieved the knowledge of this god, if he did not somehow reveal himself.

Another thing would be to clarify that they did not just interpreted it different, but simply because their language and environmental setting is different, some things contained different meanings from other religions.

And I apologize I probably won't be able to give another response before the 20'th (April) and after. Since I'll be traveling with little time to log on to check this.

Edit. I really see no reason to conclude why those other theories would be the only factor either. I do see where you are coming from, the fact that we are already speaking of a highly unlikely subject, means that it's probably best to take all things into equal consideration, simply because that if we have to assume religion as being true, we can't leave out anything, when we have so little from the get go.

To The CrowSword, what I actually did write was:

Someone, some god, revealed religious truth to various persons each of whom interpreted the words of the god slightly differently? Is this correct?

The relative truths of religions can be explained just so. But why bother?

I never at any time asked why bother asking a question!

Religion... Roughly 150,000 findable years of history of study, observation, and theory.

Science... Roughly 2,000 years of history of study, observation, and theory.

I tend to listen to mountain climbers about climbing, not gardners.

I see the merits of science, and do not argue most of that which is found by it. However, in this topic, as the question was if we had to choose a primary concept of universal law, then it is Religion... just not a religion that you could name.

i would have to disagree you see when people believed in gods they also believed in a scientific belief. They believed in studying and observing their habitat to make a logical decision on where they should go to hunt or for shelter this is one of the most basic forms of scientific study. So science and religion have been around the same amount of time.

Conflicts between the two started a few thousand years ago.

I would prefer to consider Science and Spirituality as a comparison. Religion is a part of spirituality so spirituality is the broader term as science is the broader term of many disciplines. Spirituality is not exclusive from science. Some of the founders of QM were spiritual.


Some quotes by one of the founders of QM Erwin Schrodinger:

Quote:


" Thus you can throw yourself flat on the ground, stretched out upon Mother Earth, with certain conviction that you are one with her and she with you ... For eternally and always there is only now, one and the same now; the present is the only thing that has no end.

No self is of itself alone.

Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge... It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion.

I insist upon the view that 'all is waves'.

Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind...

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary...

In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world.

The plurality that we perceive is only an appearance; it is not real.

We must therefore not be discouraged by the difficulty of interpreting life by the ordinary laws of physics. For that is just what is to be expected from the knowledge we have gained of the structure of living matter. We must also be prepared to find a new type of physical law prevailing in it. Or are we to term it a non-physical, not to say a super-physical, law?


It seems plain and self-evident, yet it needs to be said: the isolated knowledge obtained by a group of specialists in a narrow field has in itself no value whatsoever, but only in its synthesis with all the rest of knowledge and only inasmuch as it really contributes in this synthesis toward answering the demand, "Who are we?"

The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one.

The material world has only been constructed at the price of taking the self, that is, mind, out of it, removing it; mind is not part of it...

Matter and energy seem granular in structure, and so does 'life', but not so mind.

This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance."

End quotes

Here are some cool quotes from Werner Heisenberg that I found interesting.

Quote:


“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”


“Quantum theory provides us with a striking illustration of the fact that we can fully understand a connection though we can only speak of it in images and parables.”

“The reality we can put into words is never reality itself.”

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

“There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them.”

“Every tool carries with it the spirit by which it has been created.”

“An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his subject, and how to avoid them.”

End quotes.

I think religion at its core is inimical to science. Although god has been driven out from most explanations of reality, religious people will still at some point resurrect their gods to describe some clandestine element of existence. To say “god did it” is in my opinion the worst answer ever given to any question. It can be said by anyone, at anytime about anything offering no real explanation aside from an illusion of knowledge which at its worst stifles the spirit of wonder and curiosity. It was once the case that science had to twist its findings in accord with religious dogma. Today, science is free to treat religion like background static which can be safely ignored. On the contrary, it is now theologians who are trying to incorporate modern science into their stone age mythologies in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. Its definitely progress of sorts.