Science (ssss) vs. Religion
science needs to ( accept ) religion for the positives it offers in terms of describing humanity and the benefits its practices can have on an individual’s reality.
the fact that religion has negatives is the eyes of science is vvveeeerrrrrryyyy apparent and should be considered ‘known’
science’s inability to get past the hurt religion has caused them, as a framework and as individuals, keeps religion as a main explanation system,
science is needed to categorize the religion by attributes, not by emotion, so society can accept the reality of what it represents.
i think you are failing to follow my arguments sir, there is no trickery in my approach, in fact, I am the one who started this topic, out of the two of us, who is the more likely to be staying on the main point, the one who brought the conversation, or the one trying to understand through their own perspective.
you responses indicate a perception of what I am saying that I am not. If you allow yourself to relax and examine what I have said more closely, you will see that I not only agree with you, but offer a way to beat them at their own game.
but you are being defensive for some reason and I do not know how to explain what I mean any other way
“If you allow yourself to relax and examine what I have said more closely, you will see that I not only agree with you, but offer a way to beat them at their own game.”
I agree with you and I LOVE TED talks, thanks bud, I’ll check’em out, ty for the scholarly context builder
i’ve already seen the 2.0 one, good concept he presents
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.
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
@tine, “To understand the misery and confusion that exist within ourselves, and so in the world, we must first find clarity within ourselves, and that clarity comes about through right thinking.
K, and again, I do not disagree with you here….. you are stepping out of the what this conversation is about,
this is not about which-is-better
before you can see what I am trying to say you must first see the benefits that religion has brought,
forget all your facts for one second and regress your mind before the internet and television and radio and consider religion’s purpose for the social agenda
see the benefits, because if you do not see anything then you are blinded by an emotion
once you can see the benefits you can then truly deal with religion as an idea, as the destruction of their argument is found in this acceptance.
@tigerturban, You said it right. Before Newton, PEOPLE thought God moved the sun, religion didn’t claim that. But Darwinism is far from explaining the origin or species. All he proved was that species can adapt, not transform into other species. I’m sure someone as informed as you has hear of missing links, the lack of fossil evidence documenting the in-between creatures. Also, if you don’t know what the Cambrian Explosion is you should look it up. All of a sudden, creatures started appearing, and no one knows why. Science just explains what religious people already know.
I will give you the fact that there are some fucking idiots out there who ruin it for everybody, but that can be said about anybody. A few dumb American tourists in Europe make Europeans believe all Americans are like that. A few dumb blonds make everyone think all blonds are dumb. A few crazy Muslims make people think all Muslims are crazy. Yes, humans are designed to generalize, but someone thinking at your level should be able to realize that a few representatives to not describe the whole bunch.
All doctrine is a product of the mind, and the esoteric leap beyond the mind leaves all philosophies far behind. Religion should be with the common man in mind. Religion should be life affirming and value honesty, family, democracy, and reasonable nonviolent behavior. Organized religion is useful to elevate the masses to the point where superconsciousness begins. That point is beyond the mind and beyond any organization, scriptures, rules, or teaching.
@nobodylies, Oh God..even The Pope admits creationism is a load of crap and evolution is what is real.
@tine, In Christianity, all humans are born with sin yada yada, so in order to get to God, they must make sacrifices (See Old Testament of Bible). Jesus being the only way is just saying He is the final sacrifice. That’s why religious people (for the most part) aren’t killing animals anymore.
But as for this debate I think I finally understand ( a little) of your view… You believe the morals taught in religion are of benefit, but the God part is fake, right? So religion teaches morals while science explains our environment?
I must admit I do not agree with the idea that they explain different realities because I believe religion explains what science explains in a very simple manner.
But yea, social manipulation, that is for sure real. Many are taken advantage of and convinced to think certain ways and abstain from free thinking. People are constantly trying to replicate their ideas. Replication is the strongest force in the universe. It has been for the beginning. I suppose that’s why God created humans in His image (replication, haha).
As far as people base science on concepts, it is nothing more than a religion itself. See what science truely is, understand it by concept, sure, but it is not concept. Religion has only ever been concept and concept can only ever be religion.
@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.
@nobodylies, so what are you alluding to? Aliens? God? some weird force that “decided” to disverisfy the fauna? what?
@alltoohuman, If you are capable of concept, you are capable of gathering scientific information, but unlike religion, that information pre-exists concept.
A lot of religion can be interpreted in scientific terms, do not dismiss the alterations and advances of terminology and meaning.
As for evolution/creationism: If we one day master genetics, and find that with our mastery we can alter dna into new species that never existed before, this is solid evidence that evolution may never have happened, because despite the lack of solid scientific evidence supporting an idea like sentient energy, we cannot immediately dismiss it either. DON’T PRESUME SUPERIORITY OF REASON!!!
@nobodylies, well said!
@alltoohuman, The same can be said of anything really, if you do not absolutely know the universe then you cannot absolutely know the universe. It goes into probabilities, but probabilities can only be based on available evidence, and with a universe full of unknowns our glimpse is incredibly slight. Perhaps you can base on microcosm, interview 10 people to get a consensus on a million, and such, but it depends highly on who exactly you are interviewing. Our glimpse of the universe may well be in a neighbourhood of Nazis and what we are not seeing is what makes the senslessness make sense.
@alltoohuman, I don’t deny the validity of science, but the sum of human knowledge is not limited to science so to limit ourselves to science is a limitation of our knowledge. It is simple really. Why would anything exist if it has no grounds in science? So even the knowledge furthest removed from scientific reason has a pure scientific right in existence. Where do you draw the line of what is real and what is fiction? Especially that any line drawn is known to be fiction in itself.
@alltoohuman, That is something I have been trying to tell people, I’m sorry if it is disorganized but it is new to me also. We have been seeking a way to explin God with religion and we have failed for thousands of years, so we try to explian God with science, we have failed for hundreds. The thing that both have in common is both are described with concepts, we are trying to describe something completely void of concepts with concepts, and that is why we fail.
An example: What is a paradox? An impass of logic and reason? Well everything we know has just been made up, an observation of something simple is made and we use that observation to base every other observation on. But effectively, a leap of faith had to be taken somewhere just for us to be able to accept an observation. So if the grounds of all we know are built on faith then any leap of faith is acceptable. Paradox has a new meaning: Reality.
Here is something to think about: Because a lie can occur at all suggests two possibilities: 1) That a lie is scientifically acceptable to the universe or 2) Lies do not exist at all, we only interpret them as such.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.