Science-Religion separation

[Balthazzar]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principal in their faith over the centuries?

Why, over the centuries, have Theists become less scientific and less focused on using the mind?

I believe there is the "law of a second extraordinary talent." Great talents are so rare statistically that a single human cannot hold two excellent skills. This explains why people are becoming significant but narrow specialists.

In my understanding, I am both. I am Scientist in Religion and Religious in Science.
The roots of modern Science are in monasteries. The monk was trying to use logic during the study of Religion.
Monks discovered scientific methods.

Scientists rely on facts and truth for the occupation. I can't answer why religion left the path of truth and life - People became too religious or too superstitious maybe? Maybe the focus was too little on science, or maybe education or lack of played role of inhibitor. In any case, there should be little if any separation between them. True is true a fact is a fact and a return to God with a truthful spirit, and honest and good heart will be needed for the reconcile. To honor in spirit and in truth -

 

[gnostic]

Scientists rely on facts and truth for the occupation. I can't answer why religion left the path of truth and life - People became too religious or too superstitious maybe?

That’s just it.

Science and science-related fields (eg medicine or surgery, engineering, technology, etc), are paths in professions, jobs, careers.

Religions are not professions, people joined religions because what they believe in. Unless you are professional scholars, studying some scriptures, you don’t have to have to have qualifications to believe in some deities, to believe in teachings of prophets, to believe in scriptures, to believe in some forms of afterlife.

You don’t have to understand how nature works, as that’s not a requirement to worship some supernatural beings, eg deities, spirits, etc, or to believe in another life after death.

Back in Jesus’ time and before, they thought the sun and moon across the sky, because they thought angels were pulling and pushing these celestial bodies. When there were thunders and lightning, they assumed that god was angry with them or someone else.

What god said in the book of Job, especially in chapters from 39 to 41, sounds more like superstitions than sciences.

The Bible, especially Genesis & Job, offered no scientific explanations about nature. These books show no understanding what nature are, nor how they work. The Genesis Creation is no better enlightened than contemporary Babylonian and Egyptian religions & myths.

 

[cladking]

Scientists seeking truth are the best scientists.

Those who believe they've found it are the worst.

"Truth" is always provisional and founded in definitions and axioms.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principal in their faith over the centuries?

Why, over the centuries, have Theists become less scientific and less focused on using the mind?

Because of the knowledge of good and evil. Its knowledge which grows over time but the tree of life is a spiritual essence tree. The other tree which Adam and eve eat was natural knowledge. One has temporal ability but the other eternal.

 

[paarsurrey]

" Science-Religion separation"

questfortruth said: ↑
You "know" that Jesus Christ is a "fraud", but do not know what happened to me? Why I am smart and religious.

Can't one give one's argument in a reasonable way instead of hurling accusation and or playing with " Jesus Christ" , Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah never gave such a teachings, please? Right?
Regards

paarsurrey ( 76) : (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah never spoke against Science, did he ever, please?

Did one ever use the qualifying adjective "fraud" against the Hellenist Paul, please? Right?
If yes, then kindly quote and or give its reference link, if one likes, please. Right?

paarsurrey: Isn't it, therefore, unreasonable to say Jesus s/o Mary was a " fraud", please, right??

Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principal in their faith over the centuries?

Because scientific research tends to expose religious claims concerning those topics as nonsense.
Whenever science and religion go head to head, religion never "wins".

Why, over the centuries, have Theists become less scientific and less focused on using the mind?

Because to theistic leaders, science is perceived as a threat. Reason is mentioned above.

I believe there is the "law of a second extraordinary talent." Great talents are so rare statistically that a single human cannot hold two excellent skills. This explains why people are becoming significant but narrow specialists.

In my understanding, I am both. I am Scientist in Religion and Religious in Science.
The roots of modern Science are in monasteries. The monk was trying to use logic during the study of Religion.
Monks discovered scientific methods.

Yeah, we already know that you consider yourself a genius.
You seem to be alone in that assessment though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What happened to me then?

Nothing special.

Nobody except yourself considers you a genius.

You have no recognized scientific accomplishments whatsoever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What happened to me then?

Perhaps you caught religion. For some it is like a disease. It can make bright people look very dense.

 

[PureX]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principal in their faith over the centuries?

Why, over the centuries, have Theists become less scientific and less focused on using the mind?

I believe there is the "law of a second extraordinary talent." Great talents are so rare statistically that a single human cannot hold two excellent skills. This explains why people are becoming significant but narrow specialists.

In my understanding, I am both. I am Scientist in Religion and Religious in Science.
The roots of modern Science are in monasteries. The monk was trying to use logic during the study of Religion.
Monks discovered scientific methods.

I disagree with the premise.

Science is a relatively new human endeavor aimed at understanding how the physical realm functions. Religion is a very long standing human endeavor aimed at relating oneself to the great mystery of existence as a whole. People that are interested in the specific quest that each of these endeavors explores will naturally gravitate toward the endeavor that affords them the opportunity to pursue those interests. Few are dropping one in favor of the other.

Also, people are often exceptionally good at more than one skill when those skills involve overlapping processes. For example, both Cher and Frank Sinatra were very good singers, as well as very good actors. Those are two very different examples of technical expertise, yet they do both involve the skill set of theatrical performance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principled in their faith over the centuries?

Perhaps these scientists belong to religions which are not scientific. I follow Advaita Hinduism in which there is no discord between religion and science.

 

[gnostic]

Scientists seeking truth are the best scientists.

Those who believe they've found it are the worst.

"Truth" is always provisional and founded in definitions and axioms.

In Natural Sciences, scientists are seeking understanding about nature or the natural world, through testable observations of facts...

...meaning facts are observing evidence in nature.

So Natural Sciences deal with facts about nature, not the loaded nebulous word called “truth”.

The word have different meanings in mathematics, in social sciences, in philosophies, and in religions & spirituality...hence that’s why “truth” is nebulous, can have multiple definitions, depending on which of the above areas you are talking about.

There are thousands of different schools of thought - past and present - in philosophies and in religions.

For instance, in religion, there may be different sects and these would have different philosophies, eg Hinduism is both religions with multiple sects and there are multiple philosophies for each sects. Each schools of thought would have their own truth.

This is why there are so many philosophies to be meaningless, because there are no means of philosophers of being objective in their search of their respective truths, and like religions, when you look at the whole, there are too many different versions of the “truth”.

As I get older, I get tired of wrangling between philosophies and between religions.

For nearly 2 decades, I had believe in Christian Faith, but they fight not only outsiders (eg Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc), they fight among themselves - Catholics vs (eastern or Greek) orthodox, Catholics vs Protestants, Protestants vs Protestants.

In Islam, they have similar history, fighting outside as well as among themselves for their respective truth.

And in religions, it can get pretty violent, when they fight for their respective truth.

Even in th Far East, they didn’t escape escalating violence. Shintoism vs Buddhism, Buddhism vs Taoism, Confucianism vs Taoism, and so on.

You may think violence don’t exist in philosophies, but in political philosophies they do, eg Democracy vs Communism or Socialism, Democracy vs Nazim in the last century, or the monarchy vs republic.

 

[cladking]

As I get older, I get tired of wrangling between philosophies and between religions.

We all have philosophy whether we know it or not. The closest anyone can come to no philosophy at all is to be devout; a firm believer in science, religion, or some other set of means to deal with reality and other people.

Frankly I agree with you about much of what is called "philosophy"; it is stuff and nonsense. But every philosopher and every individual has at least some keen insights I can steal. People make sense because it's what we do but we each make sense only in terms of our premises so I seek these premises to understand them and their insights.

What I like about "philosophy" is that the insights which I treasure the most come largely from this field (and natural science, of course). Lately I'm finding these insights in a far broader array of places from hermetic texts, to religion, to message boards. It's a wondrous world right up until we quit looking or seeing.

 

[gnostic]

But every philosopher and every individual has at least some keen insights I can steal. People make sense because it's what we do but we each make sense only in terms of our premises so I seek these premises to understand them and their insights.

And you think no one else seek answers through various philosophies, past and present philosophies? You don’t think I have try, what you have done?

I have for decades, piece together small and large portions that were relevant to me, to make my own mishmash philosophy.

But I am more than my philosophy, and I more complex than any philosophy, as well as each every other person in the world.

And as I grow older, things in my life changed, and so does my mishmash philosophy. I may add something new, or remove those no longer to apply to me.

Do you think you were the only one to follow metaphysics?

I did too, for some times, but as I grow, metaphysics was one of those I ditched...more than a decade ago...when I became more aware of just how outdated it is, and more importantly, I came to realize it metaphysics don’t apply to how science work.

 

[cladking]

But I am more than my philosophy, and I more complex than any philosophy, as well as each every other person in the world.

I don't really doubt this though I'm sure I often sound otherwise. I do believe all people make sense but sometimes I have no use at all for their premises. I respect them but most people pay little heed to the beliefs thy adopt and have no idea that in time they become those beliefs. Children must be warned.

Do you think you were the only one to follow metaphysics?

Relatively few individuals pay much attention to how we know what we do. Scientists often have a clear understanding of this in their college days but it fades as they age.

I have been on a somewhat different path from a young age though. I was concerned principally with understanding how all things work and adopting only beliefs that with with existing knowledge. I was not so concerned with cold hard logic which has severe limitations because of not so much language but because so many variables are unknown or unquantifiable. If answers can't be tweezed out by measurement and logic than it seemed to follow skipping ahead to the answers was the only route to where I wanted to go.

Everybody their own beliefs and virtually unlimited rights to practice them. There's no certainty ANY beliefs are superior to any others. We all want to be right so we almost all have no choice to turn to science and religion. I've really done the same but I see both from another perspective and despite the fact I "believe" in the Bible I still am solidly in the "science" camp. I still believe reason and science are the only means of discovering reality but I also believe that religion is a "dust bin" for 40,000 years of another science.

I really don't believe in intelligence. I believe we each use our own assets and proclivities to reason in circles and just as I don't believe in "survival of the fittest" I also don't believe that any people are less fit mentally. We all need to be shaken from our round glass houses once in a while.

I did too, for some times, but as I grow, metaphysics was one of those I ditched...more than a decade ago...when I became more aware of just how outdated it is, and more importantly, I came to realize it metaphysics don’t apply to how science work.

We're still using different definitions for the word. "Metaphysics" is the basis of science. If you parse it another way then you are not parsing it as I intended. It is your job to parse words as the author intended in every single case. If sentences don't make sense then it is your job to try to find what words you are parsing wrong. This is simply the way it has been since the "tower of babel"; If you want to communicate.