Science and Religion

[Native]

Well, I would suggest that you learn what Einstein's equations say and how the CC relates to them. In essence, it is an energy density of space itself and provides a negative pressure proportional to the density.

Here we go again being patronized by the "nude Emperor" . . .

"an energy density of space itself" is just another ad hoc invention in order to "explain" the false measurement method which provides crazy motions in the Universe.

 

[ChristineM]

I suggest the "6 days creation" really should be interpreted as "6 stages of creation".

Ahh, interpretation, a wonderful tool for defining things as you feel things should be. So whats wrong with the bible as written?;

 

[Native]

For example, it is assumed the universe inflates faster than the speed of light.

This directly contradicts the (strange) cosmological idea of speed and space-time equations where someting moving with the speed of light is motionless in the time dimension. If so, the Big Bang could never have happend at all.

 

[Native]

So, are they correlated? The question itself is a bit strange, but initially they were positively correlated. Now they tend to be negatively so.

Nice trying rescuing your confusion

Your first reaction was:

Correlation? Mostly a negative one: the more scientific one is, the less religious one is likely to be and vice versa.

"Initially they were positive correlated" but not now . .. ?

On the other hand:
The more scientific you become, the less can you see the initial correlations. Which is the real fact indeed. And this is why you came up with your negative answer in the first place.

You´ve simply lost the very ability to correlate between different approaches to knowledge in your scientific process of changing from one belief system to another belief system.

 

[Native]

Ahh, interpretation, a wonderful tool for defining things as you feel things should be. So whats wrong with the bible as written?;

Are you having troubles understanding the English language?

 

[ChristineM]

Are you having troubles understanding the English language?

Nope, but it seems you are, reading as written is far more accurate than interpretation tu suit ones sensibilities.

Or perhaps you mean something else, to which i replied, perhaps you didnt read it, or is it interpretation?

 

[Native]

Nope, but it seems you are, reading as written is far more accurate than interpretation tu suit ones sensibilities.

Or perhaps you mean something else, to which i replied, perhaps you didnt read it, or is it interpretation?

I wrote to you NOT to reply to me anymore.

IS IT CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

 

[osgart]

Religion uses myth and story, and imagination to answer questions about human morality, interaction, and conduct. In that sense it is useful.

Religion is highly subjective. Science tries to be purely objective.

Religion is an alternative way of making sense of the human condition. It is the effort to try to transcend beyond natural limitations.

Religion focuses on the heart of being, and science focuses on the stuff of being, and the reality surrounding us.

Religion is the effort to understand experience and reality through purely subjective efforts.

Religion avoids nihilism, it doesnt embrace it. Religion insists that life is meaningful beyond the temporal.

Religion also is interested in existential solutions to human existence.

Religion wants to know why. Science wants to know how things happen.

Religion explores inner being subjectively on its own.

Science relies on the objectivity of consensus results from experimentation.

I dont know about anyone else, but to not subjectively tackle life on ones own leaves one highly dependent on other people for everything.

Religion is subjective exploration. Some mystics are quite interesting in this regard.

I think where religion is a dead end is when it becomes dogmatic and conformist.

Religion also seems to be a dead end when it becomes too idealistic, and thus reaches out to be authoritative.

Of course any ideology, including scientific ones becomes a dead end when it seeks authority over the people.

Humans seem to demand conformity to their reasons. I find that a nasty aspect of any institution of human nature.

 

[ChristineM]

I wrote to you NOT to reply to me anymore.

IS IT CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

And i wrote, THIS IS A PUBLIC THREAD, WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT CONCEPT?

Oh look, i can write in bold capitals too, aint that interesting?

 

[Native]

And i wrote, THIS IS A PUBLIC THREAD, WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT CONCEPT?
Oh look, i can write in bold capitals too, aint that interesting?

 

[ChristineM]

If it makes you happy

 

[Native]

Religion is highly subjective. Science tries to be purely objective.

IMO you´re making the same mistake as most modern humans NOT to differ between the dogmas in religion and it´s factual cosmological contents in their Stories of Creation.

There is nothing subjective in these Stories of Creation which are common human knowledge since thousands of years ago - or said in other words:

Regarding subjectivity, both dogmatic religion and modern science has the similar grounds, What is is called beliefs in the dogmatic and dualistic part of the religion, is just called hypothesis, theories and assumptions in modern cosmological science.

Personally I´ll hold my coins on the Ancient Knowledge of Creation. The modern cosmological science is complete lost in unnatural speculations and selfmade problems, all because of the strange and narrowminded ideas of having the weakest fundamental one-way-track-force of all to govern everything which is rotating and orbiting in the Universe.

 

[sealchan]

Do you believe there is a correlation between science and religion or not?

I believe that religion should help us be good students and practitioners of science and science should eventually help us understand how all religions express a common need in human psychology.

 

[Polymath257]

Here we go again being patronized by the "nude Emperor" . . .

"an energy density of space itself" is just another ad hoc invention in order to "explain" the false measurement method which provides crazy motions in the Universe.

No, it was a previously considered idea that fit the actual data.

 

[Dell]

Do you believe there is a correlation between science and religion or not?

Religion was in it's time the organization and authority to answer the questions of the universe. When intelligence evolved to prove a hypothesis by testing and observation, the concept became known as science, which also superceded religion as the organization and authority to answer the questions of the universe.

 

[Native]

No, it was a previously considered idea that fit the actual data

And what data in what theory/hypothesis would that be?

 

[Native]

Religion was in it's time the organization and authority to answer the questions of the universe. When intelligence evolved to prove a hypothesis by testing and observation, the concept became known as science, which also superceded religion as the organization and authority to answer the questions of the universe.

Yes to the first sentense

BUT: "When intelligence evolved . . . " is indeed questionable. On this stage, our ancestors have had several thousands of years of empirical physical inhereted knowledge of the creation as well as intuitive and spiritual experiences of the ancient known part of the creation.

Yes, today cosmological science has, for the time being, superceded religion as a method of knowledge, but this assumed "intelligence" has mostly become speculations instead of the intuitive wisdom our ancestors posessed.

I predict the modern cosmological science soon to be outdated and on it´s way to the bin, and the next evolution in cosmology will be the Plasma Cosmology in an Universe governed by the Electromagnetism.

Personally I have the ancient mythological knowledge lightyears ahead of the modern cosmological speculations and assumptions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Personally I have the ancient mythological knowledge lightyears ahead of the modern cosmological speculations and assumptions.

Any evidence of this?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Personally I have the ancient mythological knowledge lightyears ahead of the modern cosmological speculations and assumptions.

Any evidence of this?

You can take all of the most specific cosmological descriptions and illustrations in the cultural Ancient Myths of Creation as evidences - but of course it demands you to learn the mythical language and it´s symbolism in order to grasp and accept the evidences.

The biggest difference between the ancient and modern cosmolgical knowledge is the Cyclical and Eternal Perception of the creation in the ancient myths and the Linear and Big Bang Perception in modern cosmology.

Just this difference gives the ancient perception lightyears of advances compared to modern cosmology.

Maybe you´ll like to have a further glimse of the mythological thinking here - Science and Symbols of Creation

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Native said: ↑
Personally I have the ancient mythological knowledge lightyears ahead of the modern cosmological speculations and assumptions.

You can take all of the most specific cosmological descriptions and illustrations in the cultural Ancient Myths of Creation as evidences - but of course it demands you to learn the mythical language and it´s symbolism in order to grasp and accept the evidences.

The biggest difference between the ancient and modern cosmolgical knowledge is the Cyclical and Eternal Perception of the creation in the ancient myths and the Linear and Big Bang Perception in modern cosmology.

Just this difference gives the ancient perception lightyears of advances compared to modern cosmology.

Maybe you´ll like to have a further glimse of the mythological thinking here - Science and Symbols of Creation

I read that thread, but it mostly seemed to consist of very liberal re-interpretation of ancient mythology in light of current knowledge - nothing to really indicate that ancient knowledge of cosmology was superior to current knowledge. Do you have anything more concrete?