Showing the other is correct.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

Science (reason) can show that revealed religions are virtually proven to be false. Why, because there's not a speck of evidence showing anything supernatural against a universe full of evidence for the natural. Add to this that everything we have about supernatural events and divine revelation is pure hearsay, and most of that is ancient hearsay. The only two positions on God that stand up to scientific reason are atheism and deism, neither of which rely on hearsay. And we have no evidence for or against either of those positions. Science (reason) says that there is no evidence for God, but that a deistic, laissez-faire God cannot be ruled out.

 

[HonestJoe]

As I wrote earlier:

It is "just" the modern people who have forgotten the ancient empirical wisdom from physical and spiritual observations of the creation.

You too seems to have forgotten

"Observation of creation" and "mythological stories" are two entirely different things though. I stand by my statement about the latter not being "real science" by any definition of the word.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can one particular religion show other religions are correct rather than just some fairy story?

Religion as a belief system can not, but religious practice may show there is an underlying truth to all religions, viz. there is one universal existence which can not be known or described by a mortal mind.

 

[Skwim]

Religion as a belief system can not, but religious practice may show there is an underlying truth to all religions,

What form would this religious practice take that may show there is an underlying truth to all religions?

viz. there is one universal existence which can not be known or described by a mortal mind.

And you know this to be a fact because _________________________________ .


.

 

[Native]

Science (reason) can show that revealed religions are virtually proven to be false. Why, because there's not a speck of evidence showing anything supernatural against a universe full of evidence for the natural. Add to this that everything we have about supernatural events and divine revelation is pure hearsay, and most of that is ancient hearsay.

For those who haven´t experienced "the supernatural realms", everything in this area is "pure hearsayings" - for all others it is just natural and "the other side of the coin".

 

[Native]

"Observation of creation" and "mythological stories" are two entirely different things though. I stand by my statement about the latter not being "real science" by any definition of the word.

The mythological stories derives from empirical observations of the creation via physical and spiritual senses.
A definition of "real science" depends on your points of views, your education and on your open mindedness.

 

[HonestJoe]

The mythological stories derives from empirical observations of the creation via physical and spiritual senses.

A definition of "real science" depends on your points of views, your education and on your open mindedness.

There are all sorts of vastly different mythological stories that will have been created and developed, often over long period of time, for all sorts of different reasons. Some will be designed as fables, knowingly fictional designed to demonstrate a point. Some will develop based on the natural human fears and imagination, especially of the unknown and poorly understood. Some will have been created or developed to promote particular religious beliefs and practices, sometimes out of real belief and sometimes knowingly fictional – not unlike the fables.

Thought in many of these examples, there will be an underlying basis in what people see and experience in the real world, the stories build more upon that reality that isn’t supported by that reality. That is where mythological stories diverge from science. There’s nothing wrong with that. Stories and fables can be great things, they’re just not scientific.

The definition of science doesn’t depend on any “points of view”. It is fundamentally, a fairly straight forward word. Again, observation of what is around us is a key element of scientific process but what we do with those observations is just as important in maintaining a valid scientific procedure.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What form would this religious practice take that may show there is an underlying truth to all religions?


And you know this to be a fact because _________________________________ .


.

Due to the actual realization.....the religious practice takes the form of establishing a mind free from thought.

 

[Native]

There are all sorts of vastly different mythological stories that will have been created and developed, often over long period of time, for all sorts of different reasons.

I´m specifically talking of Creation Myths and these can be found all over the world and they are very similar because they all speak of the same creation and not "for all sorts of reason".

The "reason" for these myths are people who have observed the natural dayly and annually rhythms of the creation and even have gained cosmic knowledge via spiritual experiences, i.e. it is the creation itself which are the reason for this empirical knowledge which is embedded in the numerous cultural Myths of Creation.

There are "myths" as in hearsayings and mumbo jumbo - and myths which is cosmologically correct - but of course, this demands expertise in the mythical language as well as in astronomy/cosmology in order to recognize the validity.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

For those who haven´t experienced "the supernatural realms", everything in this area is "pure hearsayings" - for all others it is just natural and "the other side of the coin".

So who gets chosen to experience the supernatural realms, and why? People who have blind faith in the first place, that is, people who want to believe without having to think it through.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."---Thomas Jefferson

That is more true than ever now, what with the incredible ability of the common man to summon facts and opinions with the touch of a finger. But it's too much effort--and too traumatic to face down the ghosts of their religions who live under their beds and in their closets.


hear·say
1. Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

How do you adequately substantiate that Jesus' body was resurrected 2000 years ago? Point to what some people wrote down and which made it into the Bible, even though the final versions which became canon on the decision of a committee, and the several versions don't even agree with each other?

 

[Native]

So who gets chosen to experience the supernatural realms, and why? People who have blind faith in the first place, that is, people who want to believe without having to think it through.

I would say people who believe in the truth and wonders of Nature are preparing themselves for making a mutual contact with everything bigger than themselves, i.e. the creation as such.

That is more true than ever now, what with the incredible ability of the common man to summon facts and opinions with the touch of a finger. But it's too much effort--and too traumatic to face down the ghosts of their religions who live under their beds and in their closets.

I somewhat agree in this - and I´ve done my personal part of facing the dogmas and ghosts of my childhood religion.

How do you adequately substantiate that Jesus' body was resurrected 2000 years ago? Point to what some people wrote down and which made it into the Bible, even though the final versions which became canon on the decision of a committee, and the several versions don't even agree with each other?

The tellings of Jesus is misunderstood because it is taken literary. This myth belongs to the global myth of "the dying and rising God" which is connected to the motion of the Milky Way contours, which in several cultures are imagined as "a great god in the sky".

Because of the Earth rotation, the Milky Way contours (this man/god) can be observed in different positions around the Earth celestial pole:

1) As a laying man (dead)
2) A standing man (resurrection)
3) A flying man (ascension)
4) A diving man (diving towards the Underworld)

These 4 cardinal directions of the Milky Way contours marks the celestial cross as illustrated here.

The entire story of Jesus can only be understood as a mytho-cosmological story of the creation which is connected to the celestial images, especially the northern hemisphere Milky Way and to the Virgin Mother Myth which is known in several cultures as a part of their Creation Stories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births
That is: Ancient cosmological myths are left out of the Bible, but they still are told as pure dogmas without any logical explanation at all. They are left to be blindly believed even if they are unbelieavable without the natural explanation.

 

[Skwim]

Due to the actual realization.....the religious practice takes the form of establishing a mind free from thought.

So, purging one's mind of all thought shows a person there's an underlying truth to all religions? Really??? Just how does that work, where, although one is bereft of all thought, a person can think of the underlying truth to all religions?


.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, purging one's mind of all thought shows a person there's an underlying truth to all religions? Really??? Just how does that work, where, although one is bereft of all thought, a person can think of the underlying truth to all religions?


.

Unfortunately it appears you are unaware of the way a logical mind works, if the mind is free from thought, then logically there is no thought about the underlying truth to all religions. There is an essential prerequisite mind standard to be realized before one's mind is able to rest in stillness, and an alert and logical mind is a part of it. Until your mind has reached this prerequisite level of understanding, then you will not understand. So your net step if you choose to inquire further is to understand your not understanding...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, purging one's mind of all thought shows a person there's an underlying truth to all religions? Really??? Just how does that work, where, although one is bereft of all thought, a person can think of the underlying truth to all religions?


.

Unfortunately it appears you are unaware of the way a logical mind works, if the mind is free from thought, then logically there is no thought about the underlying truth to all religions.

There are essential prerequisite mind development standards to be realized before one's mind is able to rest in stillness, and an alert and logical mind is a part of this development. Until your mind has reached this prerequisite level of understanding, then you will not understand. So your next step, if you choose to inquire further, is to understand your not understanding...

 

[Skwim]

Unfortunately it appears you are unaware of the way a logical mind works,

Oh, I'm quite aware, but I just can't figure out how yours works.


.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

I'd say that this has already happened to a large degree

Science showed that the universe did indeed begin in a specific creation event, not static/eternal/steady state as atheists once claimed

That physical reality was predetermined by specific guiding forces and instructions, not a handful of simple 'immutable laws' and random chance

And that these instructions were necessary for life, and that this life subsequently developed in sudden distinct stages, 'explosions' not smooth gradual increments as once thought

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh, I'm quite aware, but I just can't figure out how yours works.


.

It is not a mind outside of you that should be of concern if truth is the goal, but the one you are using. For until it is free from error, then you can search forever without realizing truth.

 

[Native]

I'd say that this has already happened to a large degree

Science showed that the universe did indeed begin in a specific creation event, not static/eternal/steady state as atheists once claimed

On the other hand, several cultural Stories of Creation claims that the Universe is eternal and that everything in it undergoes an eternal formation of assembling into forms, dissolving the forms and re-creating forms again and again.

The Big Bang idea is just as religious as the general and dogmatic interpretations of the Creation Myths.

 

[psychoslice]

I would say no to both questions, science would not want anything to do with religion, science is more into reality and truth.

 

[Native]

I would say no to both questions, science would not want anything to do with religion, science is more into reality and truth.

I looking at for instants the scientific "Standard Model", this model are filled with metaphysical ideas and it is just as religious as with the worst of the religious dogmas.