Science vs Religion, I will solve this debate for you once and for all.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oddly, your comments about both science and religion suggest that you really know little about either. There are those here who might be able to help you -- in both, if you pay attention.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, for starters, people like me because I speak ultimate truths that aren't sugar coated. I'll give you an example, you crawled out of a ***** and you don't have any clue where you are. Nobody does. It's the greatest mystery that nobody likes to talk about. We like to pretend that we know everything, and we like to give things names because if we name something we can claim that we know what it is, but the reality is that we don't know anything. The reality is that we are very good at pretending things just like we did when we were kids. In fact I plan to make a point that there is two realities. The natural world aka the real world, and the pretend society that we create to hide from the gruesome natural world we all fear.

Before I get off topic, Science vs Religion. Who wins? That's easy...

Answer= Nobody, we all lose, because they are the same thing.

Crowd gasps, "What did he just say?"

Yes you heard me, they are the same. Religion by definition is a belief held with faith. The same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion. In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven. Not to say that some clever inventions haven't arisen from science like this laptop I'm typing on, but science can't be used to explain existence similar to how a holographic man could never understand what's outside the hologram.

I could get into deep heated argumentation over this no doubt, but I believe I can easily destroy anybody's scientific arguments with the following sentence.

Life itself is a paradox. Therefore all attempts at explaining life using science aka observing the universe is futile. Don't believe that life is a paradox? Here I'll show you it's easy:

There is only two possible options for life:

1. Life, and all matter, and energy, sprang into existence from nothing.
(We know that is impossible because something can not come from nothing everything must have a beginning.)

2. Life has always existed and has had no beginning.
(We know that is impossible because everything must have a beginning.)

Both of those options defy all logic yet there is no other alternatives.

There you have it indisputable proof that life itself is the greatest mystery and an unsolvable paradox. Something that all kids know. I don't think I'm smart for telling you this, in fact, I'm aware that you already knew this, but doesn't it feel refreshing to hear somebody say it?

The truth is that were scared of the natural world. Its terrifying. Imagine being in the woods alone at night with something stalking you trying to eat you. Sounds like a nightmare right? No, its real. It could happen. We live in a predatory parasitic world where to survive living sentient beings must be slaughtered and their flesh consumed for energy transference its quite sick and disturbing if you actually stop to think about it. Its no wonder we would literally do anything to distract our self from this thus we have created modern society which is mostly a huge distraction, and its no wonder the ancients used to worship the sun, their risen savior who brought light to the world and let them see the predators trying to eat them.

Religion your not getting off the hook so easy either. For starters all the religions contain ancient texts that predate the books they are presented in today. All these ancient texts were written by ancient man, but they are not divine, and they have been manipulated by your rulers with some things left out and some things added. The ancients were people doing what people do best, pretending and making things up to distract themselves from reality just the same as we are still doing today. In fact its better to argue about which is better, science or religion, then to think about the fact that your going to die and your entire existence may have been pointless.

The ultimate truth here is that nobody knows a damn thing about where we are, why were here, or how the universe and life started. It's all conjecture and opinion so lets stop pretending, arguing, and fighting over whos made up b.s. is better. My god is better than your god because my god has a giant cock!

Maybe the ancients were smarter then we give them credit for because they told us that to find real truths you must look deep within yourself, because that's where the true universe exists. You are infinite consciousness. You are a paradox, and you have the power!

Just a simple reminder from your friend, Focused Intent.

PLEASE educate on how the scientific method works before making phenomenally ignorant posts like this. It would be funny if it wasn't so very sad.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I´ll rather say: If Religion and Science don´t cooperate, they´ll both loose. The numerous cross cultural Stories of Creation holds much concrete truth which can support and correct cosmological science - and science can do the same for religion.

The standing problem is that modern science don´t take the religious telling of creation seriously because modern science have forgotten the the ancient way of describing cosmos. And the other standing problem is that many religious people take the religious texts literary.



Yes I´m sure our ancestors were much smarter than most people think. They really didn´t believe that the entire Universe was made by One Male God, but with both a female and male creation powers. Their stories of creation dealt specifically with the pre-creation and factual creation of the ancient known part of the Universe, namely our Milky Way.

Here, the Biblical cultural telling and dogmatic interpretation have caused a huge cosmological misunderstanding which still rules both in religion and in the scientific approach to the religious knowledge in most religions.

Our ancestors also perceived the Universe to be of a eternal stage of creation, dissolution and re-creation i. e. a cyclical Universe which of course contradicts a Big Bang and it´s linear time conception. The ancient religious understanding is that there is no beginning and no end, but eternal changes. (Which answers the question of the Hen & Egg and lots of other things)

"The standing problem is that modern science don´t take the religious telling of creation seriously because modern science have forgotten the the ancient way of describing cosmos."

No, modern science doesn't take the religious telling of creation seriously because they do not stand up to investigation by the scientific method.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Somebody once combined science and religion. We needed Batman and Robin to sort out the resulting mess.

maybe our feeble attempts at science is represented by Robin, trying to understand Batman's ingenious creations?

reconciling science with atheism is a little trickier..

 

[osgart]

where science always meets frustration is trying to describe the origins of life by chance or determinism, and trying to materialize consciousness as explanation. also science conjures up multiverses, and probably will never ever explain the beginnings of existence nor this universe.

that always leaves the door open for religious hypotheticals. religions of the past are mired and laden with fallacy and myth.

what I think can be reasonably said is something intelligent created us, not god, just something intelligent. probability and impossibility dictates in math, that something intelligent created us. we will probably never know the nature of this intelligence.

So religion will likely always be around until we all cease to exist, or pass on to something unknowable.

science will get deeply more complex year after year, and they will do what they do best, manipulate and not ever be able to explain existence.

science sees only the material, and the physical as causes, so they exclude anything else from reasoning. they will always run into that limit, and always be perplexed or dangerously certain of what is beyond their naturalist reasoning.

let's face it there are things about reality that defy materialist logic, and they always will.

 

[David T]

So, for starters, people like me because I speak ultimate truths that aren't sugar coated. I'll give you an example, you crawled out of a ***** and you don't have any clue where you are. Nobody does. It's the greatest mystery that nobody likes to talk about. We like to pretend that we know everything, and we like to give things names because if we name something we can claim that we know what it is, but the reality is that we don't know anything. The reality is that we are very good at pretending things just like we did when we were kids. In fact I plan to make a point that there is two realities. The natural world aka the real world, and the pretend society that we create to hide from the gruesome natural world we all fear.

Before I get off topic, Science vs Religion. Who wins? That's easy...

Answer= Nobody, we all lose, because they are the same thing.

Crowd gasps, "What did he just say?"

Yes you heard me, they are the same. Religion by definition is a belief held with faith. The same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion. In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven. Not to say that some clever inventions haven't arisen from science like this laptop I'm typing on, but science can't be used to explain existence similar to how a holographic man could never understand what's outside the hologram.

I could get into deep heated argumentation over this no doubt, but I believe I can easily destroy anybody's scientific arguments with the following sentence.

Life itself is a paradox. Therefore all attempts at explaining life using science aka observing the universe is futile. Don't believe that life is a paradox? Here I'll show you it's easy:

There is only two possible options for life:

1. Life, and all matter, and energy, sprang into existence from nothing.
(We know that is impossible because something can not come from nothing everything must have a beginning.)

2. Life has always existed and has had no beginning.
(We know that is impossible because everything must have a beginning.)

Both of those options defy all logic yet there is no other alternatives.

There you have it indisputable proof that life itself is the greatest mystery and an unsolvable paradox. Something that all kids know. I don't think I'm smart for telling you this, in fact, I'm aware that you already knew this, but doesn't it feel refreshing to hear somebody say it?

The truth is that were scared of the natural world. Its terrifying. Imagine being in the woods alone at night with something stalking you trying to eat you. Sounds like a nightmare right? No, its real. It could happen. We live in a predatory parasitic world where to survive living sentient beings must be slaughtered and their flesh consumed for energy transference its quite sick and disturbing if you actually stop to think about it. Its no wonder we would literally do anything to distract our self from this thus we have created modern society which is mostly a huge distraction, and its no wonder the ancients used to worship the sun, their risen savior who brought light to the world and let them see the predators trying to eat them.

Religion your not getting off the hook so easy either. For starters all the religions contain ancient texts that predate the books they are presented in today. All these ancient texts were written by ancient man, but they are not divine, and they have been manipulated by your rulers with some things left out and some things added. The ancients were people doing what people do best, pretending and making things up to distract themselves from reality just the same as we are still doing today. In fact its better to argue about which is better, science or religion, then to think about the fact that your going to die and your entire existence may have been pointless.

The ultimate truth here is that nobody knows a damn thing about where we are, why were here, or how the universe and life started. It's all conjecture and opinion so lets stop pretending, arguing, and fighting over whos made up b.s. is better. My god is better than your god because my god has a giant cock!

Maybe the ancients were smarter then we give them credit for because they told us that to find real truths you must look deep within yourself, because that's where the true universe exists. You are infinite consciousness. You are a paradox, and you have the power!

Just a simple reminder from your friend, Focused Intent.

Why the anger? Instead of imagining sleeping alone in the woods at night you might actually try it at least once. Very refreshing, you wake up realization you weren't eaten. Do that about 1,000 times it might calm you down. Pretty soon you and the trees are close friends, and a lot that you thought was important is no longer important.

 

[Native]

I believe in the harmony of science and religion, but a better understanding of science and its philosophy and methods must be clearly understood first. For religion to be in harmony with science, believers need to accept science as understanding of the nature of our physical existence.

The very same goes for people of science: They have to understand how the numerous cultural myths of creation describes the created cosmos and in order to do this, scientists have to compare these cross cultural myths and NOT judge everything mythical/religious from the biblical interpretation which is heavily distorted by the patriarchal and monotheistic religions.

It is my firm conviction that ancient Myths of Creation describes the formation/creation of our solar System more correctly than modern science sience as the ancient myths includes the formation in our Milky Way. Read for instants the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad and the Egyptian Goddess Hathor, who resembles the Milky Way, which central light is confused by scholars to represent the Sun instead of the central Milky Way Light.

The ancient story of creation doesn´t deal with the creation of the entire Universe, but it deals specifically of the creation of the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way and everything in it. From this telling one can conclude that the Solar System once was formatted/created in the center of the Milky Way (Light) and has moved out from the center to it´s actual position.

This is more correct compared to the modern theories of the formation of the Solar System, but of course it demands the familiarity and knowledge of ancient celestial symbolism in order to understand the telling.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If something has always existed with no beginning, or it has come into existence from a state of non existence, that constitutes a paradox.

Firstly, how?

Secondly, quantum physics also presents a fundamental paradox of our conception of existence - but it still occurs. There is no requirement for the Universe to make sense to us.

 

[Jedster]

Somebody once combined science and religion. We needed Batman and Robin to sort out the resulting mess.

I don't think they would be any help in this debate:

 

[Jumi]

A holographic man could understand what is outside of a hologram, if he developed a science and invented a method to analyze data from outside the hologram. He could, in fact, realize that he is different from the "outside" quite reasonably through experiment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

what I think can be reasonably said is something intelligent created us, not god, just something intelligent. probability and impossibility dictates in math, that something intelligent created us. we will probably never know the nature of this intelligence.

Except this calculation is bogus. It can only calculate the probability of a specific state arising by pure chance alone, but physical properties are not influence by pure chance alone but are influenced by physical forces and laws acting on their physical properties. When you bounce a ball, it is arbitrarily easy to demonstrate that the probability of the ball will bounce on any specific area of the earth's surface is ridiculously improbable. And yet that event still occurs. That's because a simple probability calculation can only calculate things being determined "randomly", and cannot take account of various, important factors like gravity or the direction the ball was dropped or where the ball was dropped from. Likewise, calculations like this fail to take account of the influence natural chemical processes or laws that can greatly influence the process. It's like arguing about the probability of both of your parents meeting by sheer chance without taking into account the fact of the geographical area your parents lived in, their common interests or relative social status. It's a meaningless exercise that demonstrates nothing other than that probability is something very easy to misuse.

 

[Valjean]

More conflated misinformation concerning science and how science works, and to numerous to respond again. Read my previous post. To add, you made a few good points about science.

Again and again . . . science does not try and prove or disprove theories and hypothesis.

But scientists do try to disprove their hypotheses. How can science work without hypothesis testing?
Science may not prove things, but it's been disproving things from the beginning.
and I reread your post -- where's the problem?

But not on the same quest. Science seeks the 'how', religion seeks the 'why'.

Can't it seek both, depending on the situation?
"Who," on the other hand...

I am not presenting a logical fallacy, I am pointing out that life itself, especially consciousness, is a paradox.

How so?

If something has always existed with no beginning, or it has come into existence from a state of non existence, that constitutes a paradox.

A paradox is more than something we don't yet understand, nor do we know that these are the only possibilities.

 

[pearl]

Can't it seek both, depending on the situation?
"Who," on the other hand...

Absolutely, that's why I see no contradiction between science and religion.

 

[Valjean]

Absolutely, that's why I see no contradiction between science and religion.

But they're completely different things, they operate differently and have different qualities.
Religion isn't an investigative modality.

 

[pearl]

But they're completely different things, they operate differently and have different qualities.
Religion isn't an investigative modality.

Your right, I should have phrased that differently, science and theology and the 'investigative' methodology.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, for starters, people like me because I speak ultimate truths that aren't sugar coated. I'll give you an example, you crawled out of a ***** and you don't have any clue where you are. Nobody does. It's the greatest mystery that nobody likes to talk about. We like to pretend that we know everything, and we like to give things names because if we name something we can claim that we know what it is, but the reality is that we don't know anything. The reality is that we are very good at pretending things just like we did when we were kids. In fact I plan to make a point that there is two realities. The natural world aka the real world, and the pretend society that we create to hide from the gruesome natural world we all fear.

Before I get off topic, Science vs Religion. Who wins? That's easy...

Answer= Nobody, we all lose, because they are the same thing.

Crowd gasps, "What did he just say?"

Yes you heard me, they are the same. Religion by definition is a belief held with faith. The same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion. In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven. Not to say that some clever inventions haven't arisen from science like this laptop I'm typing on, but science can't be used to explain existence similar to how a holographic man could never understand what's outside the hologram.

I could get into deep heated argumentation over this no doubt, but I believe I can easily destroy anybody's scientific arguments with the following sentence.

Life itself is a paradox. Therefore all attempts at explaining life using science aka observing the universe is futile. Don't believe that life is a paradox? Here I'll show you it's easy:

There is only two possible options for life:

1. Life, and all matter, and energy, sprang into existence from nothing.
(We know that is impossible because something can not come from nothing everything must have a beginning.)

2. Life has always existed and has had no beginning.
(We know that is impossible because everything must have a beginning.)

Both of those options defy all logic yet there is no other alternatives.

There you have it indisputable proof that life itself is the greatest mystery and an unsolvable paradox. Something that all kids know. I don't think I'm smart for telling you this, in fact, I'm aware that you already knew this, but doesn't it feel refreshing to hear somebody say it?

The truth is that were scared of the natural world. Its terrifying. Imagine being in the woods alone at night with something stalking you trying to eat you. Sounds like a nightmare right? No, its real. It could happen. We live in a predatory parasitic world where to survive living sentient beings must be slaughtered and their flesh consumed for energy transference its quite sick and disturbing if you actually stop to think about it. Its no wonder we would literally do anything to distract our self from this thus we have created modern society which is mostly a huge distraction, and its no wonder the ancients used to worship the sun, their risen savior who brought light to the world and let them see the predators trying to eat them.

Religion your not getting off the hook so easy either. For starters all the religions contain ancient texts that predate the books they are presented in today. All these ancient texts were written by ancient man, but they are not divine, and they have been manipulated by your rulers with some things left out and some things added. The ancients were people doing what people do best, pretending and making things up to distract themselves from reality just the same as we are still doing today. In fact its better to argue about which is better, science or religion, then to think about the fact that your going to die and your entire existence may have been pointless.

The ultimate truth here is that nobody knows a damn thing about where we are, why were here, or how the universe and life started. It's all conjecture and opinion so lets stop pretending, arguing, and fighting over whos made up b.s. is better. My god is better than your god because my god has a giant cock!

Maybe the ancients were smarter then we give them credit for because they told us that to find real truths you must look deep within yourself, because that's where the true universe exists. You are infinite consciousness. You are a paradox, and you have the power!

Just a simple reminder from your friend, Focused Intent.

Much of what you wrote is spot on IMHO.

The formula of the universe is nothing plus nothing equals everything! God and Genesis 1 make sense to me, the more I consider scientific discoveries.

Science is used like a religion by some on this forum, yes.

Science is ill equipped to handle metaphysics, the more so since it holds certain metaphysic truths as axiomatic, for example, truth is something that is not false and absolute truths and falsehoods exist.

Clearly, the best religion then, would obey mathematics and logic. Biblical Christianity is higher than science although the scientific method of observation and hypotheses can be used on the scriptures. The scriptures also add higher love.

 

[blü 2]

science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven

You appear to be confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis' here.

In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven.

Perhaps. Perhaps like Newton they'll simply be glossed, simply seen and expressed in a wider context. But no argument from me that 'truth' has always meant 'our best opinion for the time being'.

science can't be used to explain existence

It hasn't explained the origins of existence so far, but you appear to assert that it's unable to do so in principle. I see no basis for that claim. How do you demonstrate its correctness?

There is only two possible options for life:

1. Life, and all matter, and energy, sprang into existence from nothing.

2. Life has always existed and has had no beginning.
(We know that is impossible because everything must have a beginning.)

First, I like the hypothesis that spacetime is a quality of energy (or if you prefer, mass-energy), that is, exists because energy does, and not the other way round. Thus there's nothing to explain about the origin of matter, which is likewise a set of qualities of energy.

Second, the origin of life, the means by which chemistry becomes active biochemistry, is not yet demonstrated, but again I see no reason in principle why science should be unable ever to explain it.

The ultimate truth here is that nobody knows a damn thing about where we are, why were here, or how the universe and life started.

Where? On earth, Why? Life began here and we, like all other living things, evolved from there, and have highly evolved instincts and appetites that help us survive and breed. How it started? As above, I hypothesize.

It's all conjecture and opinion

Some of the conjectures and opinions are much more informed, much more soundly based than others. You have no intention of chucking them all out, any more than I have.

 

[Valjean]

Your right, I should have phrased that differently, science and theology and the 'investigative' methodology.

Now you've got me completely confused.

Science is an investigative modality. Religion is not.
Science is evidence based. Religion isn't.
Science forms and tests hypotheses. Religion does not.
Science is falsifiable. Not religion.
Science is constantly evolving. Religion -- not so much.
Science is a posteriori, religion, a priori.
Science invites criticism. Religion discourages it.
Each edition of a science text is updated and corrected. Religious texts tend to be writ in stone.

 

[shunyadragon]

But scientists do try to disprove their hypotheses. How can science work without hypothesis testing?

Science may not prove things, but it's been disproving things from the beginning.
and I reread your post -- where's the problem?

The different concepts in philosophy of 'proof' and 'falsification' are very important in the philosophy of science. To prove and disprove is the realm of logic and math, and not science. Falsification of theories and hypothesis is how science works with objective verifiable evidence and existing knowledge. Nothing is ever considered proven nor disproved. There is a degree of uncertainty in theories and hypothesis that they are subject to change over time. The philosopher Popper has had a great influence on the philosophy of science along these lines of reasoning.

The use of 'proof' in science leads to the misuse by those who challenge science on theological grounds.

Can't it seek both, depending on the situation?
"Who," on the other hand...

Who like why would be a phiiosophical/theological question and not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Now you've got me completely confused.

Science is an investigative modality. Religion is not.
Science is evidence based. Religion isn't.
Science forms and tests hypotheses. Religion does not.
Science is falsifiable. Not religion.
Science is constantly evolving. Religion -- not so much.
Science is a posteriori, religion, a priori.
Science invites criticism. Religion discourages it.
Each edition of a science text is updated and corrected. Religious texts tend to be writ in stone.

Excellent list showing the difference between science and religion.

One significant exception to 'Science is constantly evolving. Religion -- not so much.' is the Baha'i Faith. which proposes that human knowledge evolves and changes in process called progressive Revelation. This follows that one of the principles of the Baha'i Faith is the 'Independent Investigation of Truth,' which encourages criticism and dialogue.

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges the evolving changing as the standard for understanding the nature of our physical nature, and the understanding of scripture, including the Baha'i Faith, concerning the nature of our physical existence must be understood through science.