Science (ssss) vs. Religion
what a useless argument…………
consider what each describes and how each is a mental framing tool,
( science ) is a description of the cause / effect nature of the physical environment
they do not describe the same thing, therefore any argument between the two about which is MORE right-er-er than the other, is a failure to understand the point of the framing tools,
and is a reflection that the ‘right-er-er’ stance stems from a deeper issue, one that is easily identified if the history of both framing devices is viewed in terms of how they have co-existed.
consider, ID, intelligent design, it represents a fusion of science and religion to prove the un-provable, to make religion just as logical as science. has anyone taken a second to consider the theories? man… they stretch for relevancy.
ID is a direct response to the scientific communities taunt, ‘Prove it!”, therefore is not relevant when the core truth is examined as the motivation for its creation was found as a way to argue a point that has no end due to its illogical nature.
I must respectfully disagree with your brief definition of science. Science is an attempt to explain reality. Most people assume that science negates religion, but religion is just another way to explain reality. On the surface, they contradict, but they are essentially one in the same.
Consider a human being compared to water. On the surface, they are different, but deep down, they have the same properties. Hydrogen and oxygen. Humans have a few more (properties) than that, but they are still the same. You just have to look beyond the surface. Most people argue on the surface, they are lacking on their information. I am not claiming to “know it all”, I am just trying to look beyond the obvious.
@nobodylies, Religion is the most outdated explanation of reality. It is set in stone. It does not change.
The more people are well versed in science, the less they see the need for a belief in a sky daddy
godel’s incompleteness theorem
” Science is an attempt to explain reality. Most people assume that science negates religion, but religion is just another way to explain reality. On the surface, they contradict, but they are essentially one in the same.”
Yup, my premises support this 100%, please re-read knowing I agree with you. They are essentially the same thing because they are framing devices, a-way-to-think-to-understand-reality, the difference is, they describe different things.
I agree to a degree, but even science’s venture into, “a description of the cause / effect nature of how we interact as humans and why”, Psychology, is limited in its ability to help because it cannot quite grasp human nature, only observe, record, then prescribe.
Religion offers a view on the human mind that, when taken metaphorically ( NOT literally ), helps explain an additional facet beyond the mind, or the body, and helps to formulate a way to see human nature.
and I would be careful to separate the ( ideas ) from the ( people ), as most complaints about religion stem from the ( people )’s inability to understand or follow the ( ideas ) fully.
I think both science and religion can be held in tangent, as in reality, they are just idea frameworks, both focusing on and explaining separate things
@antlob, Referring to the ineffable divine as a ‘Sky daddy’ is a surefire way to not think about the subject in depth. Our language limits us.
I don’t know what your views are but contemplating God based on the medieval perception of an entity distinct from everything else is pretty weak. You can’t enter the right headspace with those kind of preconceived ideas.
How the material that can guide one spiritually has been handled by humans in the past and the institutions they have created in the name of it are interesting but ultimately irrelevant to the task of finding God.
My opinion is that the Ideas of religion are pure, man then corrupts the Ideas when he uses them for personal gain, and that the bible (etc.) should be considered metaphorically, the stories a reflection of how the cultures explained reality before the grounding science has brought.
Do you agree or disagree?
“… before the grounding science has brought.”
and its foundation, logic.
I agree to a point because I think that it is necessary that the ideas be misinterpreted and exaggerated in order for them to survive.
Take the stories of Jesus Christ. I think they are about personal revolution and redemption. He was setting the example, an extreme example, of what it means to totally embrace all aspects of life; the good and the horrifically bad because they are vital to each other. With no means of communication these stories were passed by word of mouth, under quite heavy repression, and became full of myths and miracles…but the vital information is still there. How that survived, I don’t know. It could have easily been lost along the way.
But I think what Jesus did was too abstract to be understood at the time. We can know more now but if the real story was told at the time it likely wouldn’t be understood or popular. It may have just faded into obscurity.
What people have done in the name of a text that is probably not very true to real events is bad, sometimes good, but not important to the message at all. I don’t even think people need congregate for religious reasons at all. I think it is a personal journey but discussion is a good thing, too.
I guess you can’t know it intellectually. You have to ‘know it’ in an esoteric sense. I don’t know that I do yet, but I have come on much in the last year.
“He was setting the example, an extreme example, of what it means to totally embrace all aspects of life;”
Yes! exactly what I think. He sets an example to be studied, understood, then applied. It is like action-based therapy.
“I guess you can’t know it intellectually.”
I agree, and I think it is the reason why religion is still relevant, science is limited to the logic of cause / effect, human nature is not, therefore science still has a hard time understanding.
Here is where my mind is taking me, the turning point in Christian history was when the Roman Empire adopted it as a state religion. The reasoning behind the adaptation was ‘need’, the power of the Christian based way of thinking was starting to threaten the power of the state, therefore was put into submission when adopted.
It was a manipulation, a way to placate the masses while bringing them further under control, this was the point of the Roman adaptation.
A proof of this thought is in the Religion’s adaptation of pagan rituals and gods, done to make the transition over to the new system, easier. This is social manipulation.
So, and know I am not coming from a place of, ‘I KNOW!’, if the adaptation of the faith was a manipulation, it is also likely things were added to the framework to add validity to Jesus’s authority, like his claiming to be the son of god,
A proof of this thought is going back to the example you talked about. Jesus accepted everyone, everything, regardless of personal history.
Believing Jesus is the only way to God, because, “Jesus said so”, has been one the greatest dividing lines in global history and has been more at the center of war, rape, torture, and persecution in general than almost any other collective Idea out there.
So, by believing that Jesus is the son God and is the only way to God, I respond to reality in the opposite of the example he set.
This contradiction doesn’t make sense to me…. unless the divinity part was added.
If anything, consider the transformation of the religion from a manipulation standpoint,
Consider the psychological cause / effect that occurs in an individual who willingly submits to a higher authority and how likely this person will remain docile and obedient to other forms of authority, without even a seconds thought.
This is why Christ’s divinity is so important.
@tine, There was no “Lord Jesus,” only a carpenter who made extravagant claims.
@nobodylies, well said
Let’s over-exaggerate our lives, make a website and talk about bullshit until we fucking die.
“( religion ) is a description of the cause / effect nature of how we interact as humans and why”
in this sentence you could easily replace “religion” with “sociology” and sociology is a science.
I agree more with the definition of @nobodylies. science and religion are both atempts to explain reality.
“There was no “Lord Jesus,” only a carpenter who made extravagant claims.”
But, did he make those claims? Or were the claims added later to ‘prove’ his divinity?
Because you cannot argue the wisdom of his approach to reality. You cannot argue with pure ideas of ‘Hope’ and ‘Love’, you can only argue a human’s inability to live up to these standards.
“and sociology is a science.”
“My opinion is that the Ideas of religion are pure, man then corrupts the Ideas when he uses them for personal gain, and that the bible (etc.) should be considered metaphorically, the stories a reflection of how the cultures explained reality before the grounding science has brought.”
” … even science’s venture into, “a description of the cause / effect nature of how we interact as humans and why”, Psychology, is limited in its ability to help because it cannot quite grasp human nature, only observe, record, then prescribe.
Religion offers a view on the human mind that, when taken metaphorically ( NOT literally ), helps explain an additional facet beyond the mind, or the body, and helps to formulate a way to see human nature.”
If science’s venture was more successful than religion, it would not contribute to the problem. It is because science cannot factor (well) the illogical human element due to the logic it is based upon.
Until Psychology can represent the concept of the ‘spirit’ (or whatever you want to call, please don’t get hung up on terms), it will never be able to replace religion.
“godel’s incompleteness theorem”
I am intrigued, I took a look at the wiki for this and saw I was out of my depth in terms of my current math knowledge, would you care to elaborate?
Splitting religion and science into two categories like they came from somewhere higher is completely wrong. Their is science and their is religion. Their similarities are very little. Science is a way of proving something is real with physical tests, ideas and explanations. No you said religion is the idea of how people act. I feel like psychology is a much better word for that definition. Religion is this idea were even though we can’t prove its there that it is. which is somewhat pathetic but helps people have these false hopes that they can follow to make there life’s better. It actually a great idea but its sadly most likely a lie. Unless we can prove it I don’t believe.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.