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
( religion ) is a description of the cause / effect nature of how we interact as humans and why
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.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
“ike they came from somewhere higher is completely wrong.”
‘something higher’, not what I am trying to do bud, I split them into two categories because they are two different ways through which to frame reality, and what they use to frame is different as well what they are trying to understand.
“I feel like psychology is a much better word for that definition.”
— “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.”
“It actually a great idea but its sadly most likely a lie. Unless we can prove it I don’t believe.”
I agree, but what are we talking about here? What is the lie?
(1) The Ideas and the way they explain human nature?
(2) how ignorant people try to supernaturally interpret it?
I agree (2) is a lie, and sadly reflects how most people see it, but I do not think (1) can be dismissed so easily, especially if you are looking at what the Bible teaches you as a metaphor, rather than a literal, explanation
@tine no worries I’m not too well versed on the math of it either besides a shallow understanding. He’s got two theorems of incompleteness. The one I meant for this topic was the second which basically (math aside) postulates that any complex system which considers itself to be complete and consistent in all its terms could never fully prove itself to be consistent unless it were inconsistent. Sounds paradoxical but I understand it to mean a system cannot provide a mathematical or otherwise any proof of itself from within the system itself. In other words for life to be explained certain unfathomable a priori knowledge needs to exist which no part of (person) in the system (life) could ever prove exists therefore making the argument obsolete.
I posted it rather than agreeing with the last bit you mentioned about the pointlessness of the Intelligent design idea because it interested me and hoped you guys would find it fun to look up as well :)
@tine, Most of the world’s great religions started as campfire religions. The initial spark of the religion may have come from a remarkable human being having an insight or a vision, but much of the dogma and tradition was formed by ordinary disciples long after the founding teacher’s death. Many religious myths, which strict fundamentalists accept as fact, were created by disciples gathered around a fire at night and telling stories about the glory days of their long dead spiritual heroes.
The time is ripe for an explosion of consciousness. It has never been so ripe, because life is evolving and we are coming to a climax. If we don’t attain to a radical transformation, then this same state of evolved humanity will become a strain on us. Man is no more a child, and he if continues to wear the same clothes which were made for children he is bound to be in difficulty. He will remain unnecessarily crippled for the simple reason that the clothes are small and he has become big. Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, Mohammedanism, these are all clothes made for another state of humanity when man was more childish. Now they don’t fit, they are utterly out of date. These clothes were right for a certain time. Now they are not right at all. The time is right to change all clothes, the time is ripe to change the whole man. A total overhaul is needed.
“People assume because the religion is outdated it has nothing to share, despite it being the forefront to science in terms of explaining reality. In its evolution is has picked up and contextualized the illogical nature of man using metaphor to explain, and explains man’s base problems in a illogical format so it could be understand by the general populace.
If it is taken as any more than a metaphor I believe it has more to do with the individual’s ability to understand than the actual ideas presented
When Psychology realizes it has something to learn from all religion, and starts to quantify the base problems religion reveals, then science will supersede religion in terms of explaining.”
The older the religion the better it explains man’s core problems, because the further we regress in time, the more the general populace shifts from ( educated ) to ( uneducated ) to ( Barely civilized ) to ( Uncivilized ).
This means that man had very little social structure masking their base instincts.
This means that the intellectuals of the groups who were trying to unite everyone were dealing with man at our instinctive worst.
So the Old Testament tone was a commanding God, “You, savage humans who understand no reason therefore will not change, I will give you a reason, GOD WILL SMITE YOU IF YOU DO NOT OBEY”, this explanation of Love was a forced one, get along or GOD WILL SMITE YOU DEAAAAADD!! BAHAHAHAHA!!!
and though forced, was NECESSARY considering the cultural context of the time,
Then Jesus comes along, the New Testament, with a new tone. Man had evolved socially to the point where they were beginning to understand their impulses ( or at least some correlation ), there was religious oppression abound, the old ways were stagnant, the tone was set for something NEW!
Jesus. ( and Buhdda ), stepped onto this scene with a new way, a new reason, an example.
So the tone became Love and all its sub-categories.
Again, the shift shows a consciousness shift to a new reality filter.
The more ( educated ) the society the less its inhabitants rely on ( supernatural elements ) to explain the reality around them.
So now, we are at the stage where we can begin to understand and we no longer need the supernatural to explain.
It is in the supernatural part of their message your arguments lie.
The Ideas explain human nature to a T
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ( 23 ) gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
- Galatians 5:22-23
How, if practiced, would following these spiritual focuses not help you in amazing ways?
The Bible is an ammmaazzinnng collection of wisdom that gets shit-on because the individuals who ‘attempt’ to follow its wisdom tend to fail miserably.Many cannot understand the deeper meaning and assume something supernatural is affecting them, that doesn’t mean the book does not contain truths of the highest caliber….
I never quite understood how so many people could claim that Jesus isn’t real or that religion is fake or even a lie.
@kwelch5528 please prove to me that Ben Franklin existed and prove his accomplishments. For that matter, prove that anything in history actually happened. You can’t, can you? So am because you can’t PROVE anything am I supposed to believe that is is all a lie? Sure, can show me history books or letters or a bunch of other documents but you are still relying on what somebody else said. Religion does the same thing. You are just picking and choosing what to believe based on preference, not on actual truth.
If you have to ask, you’ll never know. There is no way to prove anything, so playing the “prove it” game is futile. You can’t even prove that you have thoughts so how do you expect anyone to prove religion to you. Btw I apologize if that sounded rude, it is not my intention to insult.
@tine I am unsure how you think that science and religion describe different things, but I suppose that is because when I use the word religion or science I am thinking about something completely different than what you think of when you hear those same words. Sigh, damn the restrictions of language… I do agree with you that the more educated a society the less people think they need the “supernatural”.
@alltoohuman you are correct, playing the “well, you can’t know anything for sure” game is silly. That game starts with another person’s “prove it” statement. People blindly accept history (just books written by people) but question the Bible ( a collection of books written by people) and vice versa. We are all using recycled information which makes it tough, we just have to be willing to actual think about topics instead of just browsing the surface and dismissing anything that doesn’t fit with our frame of mind.
We just don’t like not knowing, we cannot call ourselves “advanced” or “civilized”, generally intelligent people when we do not know the first thing about the world. The thing is that after science peeks, and there is nothing left to learn according to it, we will still have things to explore that do not fall under science, the un-provable, the intangible, and in this there is still room for any metaphysical pasiion you want to entertain.
There is no conflict between science and religion, people just do not understand what absolute means and they do not see how things can be more than the sum of parts. That is because we limit ourselves with meanings and contradictions, and especially that we cannot accept a universe without conceptual constraints.
@tine, So if I may explore your thoughts, what do you think is different between religion and science? Consider the most cornerstone of each, the beginning of the universe. Science attributes it to the Big Bang (everything was once one or perfect, then the higgs boson separated from everything, followed by other particles separating and expanding and the rest is history) while religion attributes it to a Creator ( In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth). They say the same thing, but science says it in more words. Religion is so successful because it is simple to understand.
Look at your hand. Do you see the bone and tissues? Do you see the blood? Do you see the molecules, the atoms, the protons, and electrons? Technically, you do see all those things, but its much easier to say you see you hand.
Religion is the simple way to describe reality, while science is the long difficult way to explain reality. God didn’t actually say the words “Let there be light”, but it’s way easier for the majority of people to understand that than to try and comprehend that light is electromagnetic radiation, first formed when electric particles and magnetic particles interacted to create a series of chain reaction reinforcing each other and resulting in visible energy (or something like that haha)
hrm, well to start, know I consider our perspective as an accumulation of our knowledge and experience, the logic of which limited to the accumulation,
through this perspective we peer at reality
we can layer our perspective with many things, from anxieties to explanation systems to logics to defining mechanisms. the more we layer in a way that builds us, the more reality becomes apparent, the more we layer in a way that destroys us, the more cloudy reality becomes as we create lies to justify our actions, reality must pass through the cloudy filter first which narrows the scope of the data that eventually reaches the mind.
( science ) is a reality layer that allows me to see reality ‘x’ way, allowing for a provable understanding, it is a layer because before you try it on you could not see reality the way you could after. science uses logic to collect its data to display reasoning for our physical reality. logic is required or the explanation is not considered valid. so how does logic approach illogical human behavior? by generally prescribing simply to treat the symptoms, creating an excuse for the behavior that could have otherwise been changed by self realization
but if i layer reality with the metaphoric ( religious ) view, human behavior makes sense, “Ooo, so they are simply responding to the consequences of their actions… ooo, these are the correlated warning points… ”
I view them both as lenses to be worn for the consideration of reality.
I consider them separate because they describe different realities, science describes the physical reality, what we can quantify, see, prove, religion deals with social reality, and though social reality is not real, it is real to the individual seeing it, therefore dictates their response within the physical reality they exist.
as for creation or after death arguments, I avoid these, after years of having them , viewing it from both angles, I have come to conclude that nobody actually knows what the fuck they are talking about, because nobody was there, therefore we can only speculate… from a perspective that only exists for +-80 years… that is largely formulated from the knowledge of others… others who are human and flawed…. flawed ALSO with a limited understanding
to argue from the position that one side is wrong means that you have an example of one that makes more sense….. of the nonsense…. that no one truly knows….
so i view the argument from a, i don’t know standpoint, and listen to those that ‘do’… and grow tired of the pointless circle.
@tine, So, to use an analogy. Let’s say reality is a car. Science explains what the car is made of and how it was built while religion explains how to drive a car. I know that may be a stretch of an analogy, but does it fit into what you are claiming?
btw what religion do you think of when you use the term religion? Judaism? Christianity? Hinduism? Islam? Or any others that I failed to mention?
If the religion is being used outside of its social context it is likely being used improperly
this is long, but if you are interested, i’d be curious as to your take:
“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.”
“So, to use an analogy. Let’s say reality is a car. Science explains what the car is made of and how it was built while religion explains how to drive a car.”
hrm.. maybe, i personally see it more as, science explains the car, religion explains the driver, and then offers wisdom that can be followed or ignored.
to define religion i consider it attributes, so a collection of ideas and practices that offer guidance that build or destroy, the builders tending to represent the more popular of the two and usually find their foundation on connection attributes such as Love
@tine, i feel like teaching someone to drive has no religious ways! It seems you could explain the whole way of driving by science! right? hey turn left by turning the wheel left. then this person turns the wheel as “Sees” that the front wheels go left! so seeing that made it so he believes it
Science and religion are entirely compatible. Yes, it is ridiculous for any one group to claim they heard God ‘speak’. God exists outside of matter, and to give God a human quality such as speaking is ridiculous. Rather when we understand physics we enter the mind of God. I think the nature of God is quite apparent through the natural world. After all, that’s where most of the first ideas of God came from, from people looking to the heavens. Having religion, or a concept of spiritual life certainly isn’t a bad thing, we just cannot remain in a primitive religious mindset from thousands of years ago. Let us take their understanding of the divine and compare it with what we know now.