Science and Religion overlap

[EyeofOdin]

i never thought religion and science contradicted each other. I also never felt they are cooperative. Imo, they're completely unrelated. Science is concerned with matter and physical being. Religion is concerned with spirit and metaphysics. Why use religion in the context of matter and science? It doesn't make sense. Why use science to prove the spiritual?

Science is concrete. Spirituality is abstract. Mixing the two is like using measuring units of volume for time. It's like asking "How many gallons is in a year?" No. It's apples and oranges.

I don't even take my mythology as fact or historical. Religious Lore, more often than not, is a HORRIBLE replacement for history books.

To not seem bias, I'm going to be scientifically critical of my own Heathen Lore.

One myth says that the world was created when Muspelheim, fire world, and Niflheim, mist world, gave elements to create Ymir, the first giant of immense size. From Ymir's armpits and feet he gave birth to spirits called Wights and others called Jotnar, or Giants. Buri, the first God, was born from the North in Niflheim, begot Buri who mated with a giantess Bestla. They parented the gods Vili, Ve and my favorite, Odin. The brothers did battle with Ymir and used his flesh to create the land, bones the rocks, blood the seas, brains the clouds etc.

Odin took the earth and Frigg, both probably pure giantesses, as his wives and fathered the gods of Asgard, a mighty fortress they built. Odin would create humanity from driftwood and ashwood with Vili and Ve.

This story scientifically is crap. It has no real value in a discussion on natural history. The only value it can possibly have is as a poetic metaphor.

Ymir's death is similar to some shamanic initiation rites, where the initiate would journey in a trance and visualize or hallucinate the spirits to take apart the body and reassemble it in a way that the spirits can use it.

Fire and Ice just emphasize the sanctity of elements and nature. Heathenry stresses ancestralism and the elements are mythologically our distant kin. Accidentally science says the same thing in its theories.

Giants, gods and wights in lore are often in human or animal form. Is there really a one eyed, Viking chieftain atop Asgard in Valhalla who rides on an eight legged horse and helped along cosmology to how it is today? No. That's dumb. Anyone who looks at that and take it literally is stupid.

The world is represented by a tree called "Yggdrasil" meaning "vehicle of the terrible one". Yggr, "terrible one", is a name for Odin. Sleipnir is his eight legged horse, whose name means "one who slides". He's Odin's ride or Vehicle. This could reveal the worldview, perceiving Midgard in the center and the eight others in different branching directions around it.

We could keep going on the abstract value of these myths. Why try to look for scientific value? Especially when there's obviously no science in it at all.

Genesis Creationism is another example. Did Yahweh really create the world in six days? Probably not. Did he have influence? In that worldview, it's a reasonable thought.

No matter where you look, it's irrational to apply spirit to study of matter or nature.

 

[chevron1]

>>Why use religion in the context of matter and science? It doesn't make sense. Why use science to prove the spiritual?

1. Because people use religion to hurt each other. You believe this, I believe that. If you don't believe what I believe then I want to hurt you. And this applies to religions that claim to be compassionate and tolerant too. Why? Because in exchange for your success or peaceful mind, there is some cost that is sometimes so high that you never forgive the religion for having paid it. If people are going to pay for their beliefs, then let's prove they are real!

2. At some point, religion and science must converge because if they do not, then the mind must deal with the duality of faith and reality and that duality can lead to a loss of faith and disharmonious living. If religion says that the earth is flat but science says that the earth is round, do we believe it is flat for church but then see it as round when we fly around the world? Religion that cannot reconcile science causes a schism in the person's thinking.

 

[metis]

Science and religion use two diametrically opposed approaches, whereas religion is based on hearsay information that largely cannot be verified nor falsified, whereas science is based on searching for objectively-derived evidence. Therefore, to me, there is no real overlap.

 

[chevron1]

>>Therefore, to me, there is no real overlap.

Then maybe they have to make an overlap? This would be for the benefit of the world.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

i never thought religion and science contradicted each other. I also never felt they are cooperative. Imo, they're completely unrelated. Science is concerned with matter and physical being. Religion is concerned with spirit and metaphysics. Why use religion in the context of matter and science? It doesn't make sense. Why use science to prove the spiritual?

Science is concrete. Spirituality is abstract. Mixing the two is like using measuring units of volume for time. It's like asking "How many gallons is in a year?" No. It's apples and oranges.

I don't even take my mythology as fact or historical. Religious Lore, more often than not, is a HORRIBLE replacement for history books.

To not seem bias, I'm going to be scientifically critical of my own Heathen Lore.

One myth says that the world was created when Muspelheim, fire world, and Niflheim, mist world, gave elements to create Ymir, the first giant of immense size. From Ymir's armpits and feet he gave birth to spirits called Wights and others called Jotnar, or Giants. Buri, the first God, was born from the North in Niflheim, begot Buri who mated with a giantess Bestla. They parented the gods Vili, Ve and my favorite, Odin. The brothers did battle with Ymir and used his flesh to create the land, bones the rocks, blood the seas, brains the clouds etc.

Odin took the earth and Frigg, both probably pure giantesses, as his wives and fathered the gods of Asgard, a mighty fortress they built. Odin would create humanity from driftwood and ashwood with Vili and Ve.

This story scientifically is crap. It has no real value in a discussion on natural history. The only value it can possibly have is as a poetic metaphor.

Ymir's death is similar to some shamanic initiation rites, where the initiate would journey in a trance and visualize or hallucinate the spirits to take apart the body and reassemble it in a way that the spirits can use it.

Fire and Ice just emphasize the sanctity of elements and nature. Heathenry stresses ancestralism and the elements are mythologically our distant kin. Accidentally science says the same thing in its theories.

Giants, gods and wights in lore are often in human or animal form. Is there really a one eyed, Viking chieftain atop Asgard in Valhalla who rides on an eight legged horse and helped along cosmology to how it is today? No. That's dumb. Anyone who looks at that and take it literally is stupid.

The world is represented by a tree called "Yggdrasil" meaning "vehicle of the terrible one". Yggr, "terrible one", is a name for Odin. Sleipnir is his eight legged horse, whose name means "one who slides". He's Odin's ride or Vehicle. This could reveal the worldview, perceiving Midgard in the center and the eight others in different branching directions around it.

We could keep going on the abstract value of these myths. Why try to look for scientific value? Especially when there's obviously no science in it at all.

Genesis Creationism is another example. Did Yahweh really create the world in six days? Probably not. Did he have influence? In that worldview, it's a reasonable thought.

No matter where you look, it's irrational to apply spirit to study of matter or nature.

there is often a contradiction in predictions though

'science' used to say that the universe was static, eternal- uncreated hence making God redundant, religion predicted that it began in a specific creation event

'science' also said classical physics was a complete explanation for the workings of the physical world, again 'making God redundant'. while religion said that it probably relies on much deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces..

assuming 'no spirit' as a prerequisite does not have a very good track record when it comes to the big questions. It's no coincidence that both Lemaitre and Planck were skeptics of atheism.

i.e. I agree there is no contraction between science and religion, but there certainly is between science and atheism

 

[chevron1]

>>'science' used to say that the universe was static, eternal- uncreated hence making God redundant, religion predicted that it began in a specific creation event

To be a Taoist is to flow with change. That includes revising belief as one approaches the Truth. Civilization has become too advanced to proceed purely on faith. We want proof. That seems reasonable.

They used to say that a God-less universe could not account for all the diversity everywhere. Metaphysical Taoism adopts a genetic model of the universe (supported by physicists like Leonard Susskind, who have said that the universe could be ruled by a form of cosmic DNA based on String Theory) that can account for all the diversity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They used to say that a God-less universe could not account for all the diversity everywhere

Most people still do, and I agree- the diversity of life on Earth needs to be driven by more than chance, but how did this Cosmic DNA materialize? Can that, likewise be chance driven, or would creative intelligence not be a better explanation?

 

[metis]

>>Therefore, to me, there is no real overlap.

Then maybe they have to make an overlap? This would be for the benefit of the world.

That certainly would be nice as both have something to offer.

 

[chevron1]

>>the diversity of life on Earth needs to be driven by more than chance, but how did this Cosmic DNA materialize?

Presumably, the cosmic DNA evolved from the elements of String world to meet the needs of complexity. The metaphysical model of Tao is based on a panentheistic model. Just as many Taoists today concentrate their chi to generate an immortality child, so Tao would "concentrate" energies to form the universe.

The big question is why? In metaphysical belief, Tao is undergoing transformation and it changes by generating a fetus as a carrier of change.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

>>the diversity of life on Earth needs to be driven by more than chance, but how did this Cosmic DNA materialize?

Presumably, the cosmic DNA evolved from the elements of String world to meet the needs of complexity. The metaphysical model of Tao is based on a panentheistic model. Just as many Taoists today concentrate their chi to generate an immortality child, so Tao would "concentrate" energies to form the universe.

The big question is why? In metaphysical belief, Tao is undergoing transformation and it changes by generating a fetus as a carrier of change.

From the pure religious pov...the Tao that is conceptualized in not the Eternal Tao. Science deals with the apparent infinite manifested aspects of the Tao...but can never apprehend the non-dual nature of the non-conceptual Tao...

 

[chevron1]

From the pure religious pov...the Tao that is conceptualized in not the Eternal Tao. Science deals with the apparent infinite manifested aspects of the Tao...but can never apprehend the non-dual nature of the non-conceptual Tao...

that was certainly true in ancient times, if we are talking about string theory, but in modern days, if we do talk about what Tao really it, it must be because it isn't real or someone wants to silence us. people are looking for believable religion before it is too late. if taoism can supply the understanding, then it must - as far as it can.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

that was certainly true in ancient times, if we are talking about string theory, but in modern days, if we do talk about what Tao really it, it must be because it isn't real or someone wants to silence us. people are looking for believable religion before it is too late. if taoism can supply the understanding, then it must - as far as it can.

Yes..ironically in the first verse of Tao Te Ching...it explains that the Eternal Tao is beyond conception...but nevertheless goes on to talk about the manifested aspects in the rest of the verses... The is much wisdom there, but for me, the key is non-dual implication of the Eternal Tao.

I presume you are familiar with the Verses on the Faith Mind by Chien-chih Seng-ts'an. Fwiw..the opening verses...

The great Tao is not difficult for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth, then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.

When the deep meaning of things is not understood, the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.
The Way is perfect like vast space where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.
Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things.
Be serene in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.
When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity, your very effort fills you with activity.
As long as you remain in one extreme or the other, you will never know Oneness.

 

[Popcorn]

i never thought religion and science contradicted each other. I also never felt they are cooperative. Imo, they're completely unrelated. Science is concerned with matter and physical being. Religion is concerned with spirit and metaphysics. Why use religion in the context of matter and science? It doesn't make sense. Why use science to prove the spiritual?

Science is concrete. Spirituality is abstract. Mixing the two is like using measuring units of volume for time. It's like asking "How many gallons is in a year?" No. It's apples and oranges.

I don't even take my mythology as fact or historical. Religious Lore, more often than not, is a HORRIBLE replacement for history books.

To not seem bias, I'm going to be scientifically critical of my own Heathen Lore.

One myth says that the world was created when Muspelheim, fire world, and Niflheim, mist world, gave elements to create Ymir, the first giant of immense size. From Ymir's armpits and feet he gave birth to spirits called Wights and others called Jotnar, or Giants. Buri, the first God, was born from the North in Niflheim, begot Buri who mated with a giantess Bestla. They parented the gods Vili, Ve and my favorite, Odin. The brothers did battle with Ymir and used his flesh to create the land, bones the rocks, blood the seas, brains the clouds etc.

Odin took the earth and Frigg, both probably pure giantesses, as his wives and fathered the gods of Asgard, a mighty fortress they built. Odin would create humanity from driftwood and ashwood with Vili and Ve.

This story scientifically is crap. It has no real value in a discussion on natural history. The only value it can possibly have is as a poetic metaphor.

Ymir's death is similar to some shamanic initiation rites, where the initiate would journey in a trance and visualize or hallucinate the spirits to take apart the body and reassemble it in a way that the spirits can use it.

Fire and Ice just emphasize the sanctity of elements and nature. Heathenry stresses ancestralism and the elements are mythologically our distant kin. Accidentally science says the same thing in its theories.

Giants, gods and wights in lore are often in human or animal form. Is there really a one eyed, Viking chieftain atop Asgard in Valhalla who rides on an eight legged horse and helped along cosmology to how it is today? No. That's dumb. Anyone who looks at that and take it literally is stupid.

The world is represented by a tree called "Yggdrasil" meaning "vehicle of the terrible one". Yggr, "terrible one", is a name for Odin. Sleipnir is his eight legged horse, whose name means "one who slides". He's Odin's ride or Vehicle. This could reveal the worldview, perceiving Midgard in the center and the eight others in different branching directions around it.

We could keep going on the abstract value of these myths. Why try to look for scientific value? Especially when there's obviously no science in it at all.

Genesis Creationism is another example. Did Yahweh really create the world in six days? Probably not. Did he have influence? In that worldview, it's a reasonable thought.

No matter where you look, it's irrational to apply spirit to study of matter or nature.

Science is ripe with as much superstition as religion. Look carefully at the periodic table of chemical elements, look at all the symbols on there and what the words mean. Start with Hydrogen, where does that word come from, even what is a letter H that as you draw it does it even resemble a hydrogen atom at all? Astronomy is hopelessly dependent upon the Zodiac, is that science? I think it's something about civilization and a motivation in people to the perfection of knowledge over time, and science is part of that process.

 

[metis]

Science is ripe with as much superstition as religion. Look carefully at the periodic table of chemical elements, look at all the symbols on there and what the words mean. Start with Hydrogen, where does that word come from, even what is a letter H that as you draw it does it even resemble a hydrogen atom at all? Astronomy is hopelessly dependent upon the Zodiac, is that science? I think it's something about civilization and a motivation in people to the perfection of knowledge over time, and science is part of that process.

So, just because different elements were given different names that somehow makes science superstitious? Also, astronomy has really nothing to do with the zodiac, so I think you're confusing it with astrology, and the latter is not scientific but comes from the eastern scriptures.

 

[outhouse]

i never thought religion and science contradicted each other

You think mythology and science are similar?

 

[Looncall]

Science is ripe with as much superstition as religion. Look carefully at the periodic table of chemical elements, look at all the symbols on there and what the words mean. Start with Hydrogen, where does that word come from, even what is a letter H that as you draw it does it even resemble a hydrogen atom at all? Astronomy is hopelessly dependent upon the Zodiac, is that science? I think it's something about civilization and a motivation in people to the perfection of knowledge over time, and science is part of that process.

Aha! Another contestant in the specious nonsense steeplechase!

This forum is attracting more and more crackpottery. I hope that this does not indicate an increase in foolishness around the world.

 

[Valjean]

there is often a contradiction in predictions though

'science' used to say that the universe was static, eternal- uncreated hence making God redundant, religion predicted that it began in a specific creation event.

'science' also said classical physics was a complete explanation for the workings of the physical world, again 'making God redundant'. while religion said that it probably relies on much deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces..

Sciences proposes the most likely explanation based on available evidence. Science gathers evidence and draws inferences. It tests them, it tries to disprove them. If they prove robust and cannot be invalidated they may eventually be accepted as theories. These theories are then revised, retained or rejected as additional evidence accumulates.
Science is a methodology. Science is a posteriori.

Religion is not based on evidence and is not tested. It's a priori. It's immune to contradictory evidence. It's based on faith. It's often an appeal to magic

assuming 'no spirit' as a prerequisite does not have a very good track record when it comes to the big questions. It's no coincidence that both Lemaitre and Planck were skeptics of atheism.
i.e. I agree there is no contraction between science and religion, but there certainly is between science and atheism

What is a "skeptic of atheism?" How are you defining atheism???

 

[chevron1]

Science is a posteriori.
Religion is not based on evidence and is not tested. It's a priori. It's immune to contradictory evidence.

religion is not immune to contradictory evidence. if it were, why do we have religious war? it is because of religious war that science must rule, even if we must learn the truth slowly.

 

[chevron1]

Aha! Another contestant in the specious nonsense steeplechase!

This forum is attracting more and more crackpottery. I hope that this does not indicate an increase in foolishness around the world.

but it is spreading and hopefully will become the only religion that people can believe.

New Scientist article: Don't believe in belief

 

[Valjean]

religion is not immune to contradictory evidence. if it were, why do we have religious war? it is because of religious war that science must rule, even if we must learn the truth slowly.

If religion were evidence based there would be no religious wars. Disputants would just present their evidence and both sides would accept whatever conclusions it led to.
It's religion's immunity to contradictory evidence that necessitates "convincing" opponents by force.