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.”
@kwelch5528, You seem unable to look beyond the surface. The car scenerio was an analogy. Yes, physically teaching someone how to drive has nothing to do with religion. That’s why I premised the phrase with, “so, to use an analogy”.
@tigerturban, Kudos for being bold enough claim to know what the Pope thinks. Personally, I’m not swayed by the opinion of an old man in charge of the church systems, because church is not religion. And I am also impressed that you think that evolution is an alternative to creationism. There is still much debate in the realm of science as to what evolution really is, and the great part is that the strongest theories are talking about adaptation, not transformation.
BTW, those theories that you and I are referring to are fake. Literally. Scientists make up variables to explain their equations.
@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”.
To you it’s just a casual pursuit. You’re certainly not a die-hard fundamentalist, but you figure that if you drink the wine and chew the wafer now and then, it’s good enough to get you a free ride into a half-decent afterlife. You belong to the pro-God club. Surely there’s safety in numbers. Two people can’t be wrong… although 4-1/2 billion supposedly can.
In this case you become an apologist for your own religion. You don’t want to be identified with the extreme fanatics, nor do you want to be associated with the non-believers. You figure you can straddle both sides. On earth you’ll basically live as a non-practitioner (or a very sloppy and inconsistent practitioner), but when you eventually die, you’ve still got the membership card to show God.
But of course is the arguement “lies do not exist, that is why they are lies” but really think about it. If I say “computers don’t exist” the statement itself exists, just truth does not exist with it. So this means errors in wording are acceptable to the universe. You are right back where you started, the same point. According to many scientific minds, things only exist at all due to error, if there is no design the only explaination is error of nature, random fluke.
Does anyone see the hypocrisy of science? Just as bad as any religion, if you ask me. Science says there is a cause for everything but then it says there is no cause for anything in the same breath. Be consistent.
and remember, the point of the conversation is about the logic that there is even an argument at all, not about who-is-more-right.
once who-is-more-right is removed from the equation, science and religion will begin to fuse as societal thinking will shift.
and science will be right
but science first needs to remember this truth and ‘act’ like they are right by not attacking theories like they had validity.
Could religion have started as a means of explaining the unexplainable, but developed into a crutch through life for those who cannot accept the impermanent nature of all we know? A need to accept any sort of afterlife to sweeten the bland taste of naked reality?
“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
@mfowler73, I like where your heads at. I believe I can agree. Quantum physics has opened up a whole new world where people can understand that “the man in the sky” might be a dumbed down version of saying what God truly is. Way back when, people couldn’t comprehend what we are exploring in science now, so they were satisfied with “the man in the sky” bit. Science is trying to explain God and people don’t realize that because they think science and God are enemies
” 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.
@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.
I am only pointing out the logic that is apparent to anyone willing to consider it, I have no agenda but a need to point out the illogical nature of the argument between religion and science as the tools describe different ( types ) of reality, a physical reality and a social reality, respectively.
Ideas should not oppose ( absolutely ) because ideas are not real, they are simply framing devices for reality, NONE is ( absolute ) or ( complete )…ever, therefore none can come from an ( absolute ) position that the other is wrong, which is what the argument between science and religion represents.
I propose, neither is right, I propose, one spawned the other, they are part of the same thought process, therefore should not be in opposition but should evolve in tangent
the only thing we can understand is that we do not know, and go from here
consider the ( religious ) fundamentalists personality type. now consider the personality type of fundamentalists in ( general ),
are they not the ( exact same ), the only difference being the idea they use to interpret reality with?
science has a plentiful share of ignorant people too.
I feel that nowadays, people are more apt to support science and discredit religion entirely. However, like some of the other commenters have mentioned already, science has its limits as well. If left unchecked, it can function as dogma just as any organized religion can. And religion wasn’t always narrow-minded and oppressive (like Christianity is today). I feel as if both are necessary and neither is superior. Well, actually, I don’t know if religion is necessary… but some form of spirituality is necessary.(maybe? I’m still not so sure….)
@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
man does not need religion to motivate it to understand the universe and its origins, looking up at the night sky does this,
and if a motivation to explain the universe’s origins is partly to discredit religion, this introduces a perspective bias into the mind of the researcher and ( taints ) his ability to see clearly
@alltoohuman, I don’t often thing about what I say, I just say. But I have thought about it and I have come to some kind of organization of my words, just for you.
What does science and religion have in common? How are they even comparable? The only real connection they have is divination of the Alpha and Omega of the universe. But where science deals in the sum of parts, religion deals in something that is considered more than the sum of parts.
Science is limited to the tangible, and yes the tangible is actually far more than what is immediately evident. Take art, you can scientifically disect techniques of production, and then you can explore psychological motivations behind both the artist and subject matter, as well as the psychological reaction of those who look at the art. But at some point a variable hits, something science cannot go into for one reason or another.
There is scientific facts like Phi, the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden ratio, all formulas that when combined produce an infinite variable, and so every asthetic phenomena of the universe is explained, all but beauty.
But the Alpha is unrepresentable, if you think of nothingness, how can you represent it because a representation is always somethingness. If you think about the Omega, it is everythingness, also unrepresentable, even the symbol for infinity does not do it justice. These are things you cannot manufactor any concept to describe, albeit you can develop mathematical formula to explain them but it is not translatable into human terms, it always falls short. At this point science becomes frustrated and settles for the only word they are allowed to use, the only word left available to them: God.
Religion has been way off, yet suprisingly accurate at the same time and everything in between Alpha and Omega, if it makes sense or not, is valid simply because it exists within.
@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 :)
One of the worst mistakes you can make in life is to attach your identity to any particular religion or philosophy, such as by saying “I am a Christian” or “I am a Buddhist.” This forces your mind into a fixed perspective, robbing you of spiritual depth perception and savagely curtailing your ability to perceive reality accurately. If that sounds like a good idea to you, you’ll probably want to gouge out one of your eyeballs too. Surely you’ll be better off with a single, fixed perspective instead of having to consider two separate image streams… unless of course you’ve become attached to stereo vision.
Religions are authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate your free will. They’re power structures that aim to convince you to give away your power for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people. When you subscribe to a religion, you enroll in a mindless minion training program. Religions don’t market themselves as such, but this is essentially how they operate.
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.