God and Science

[MigL]

Thanks INow.
My searches never give me results.
( lucky I'm not senile yet, and still have good memory )

Edited May 15, 2020 by MigL

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

Thanks INow.
My searches never give me results.
( lucky I'm not senile yet, and still have good memory )

I avoid the forum search function like the plague (or like covid now?). Enter your search term instead into the google machine and follow it with the search string of site:scienceforums.net to limit the scan to just that page. So here, “Was Jesus real site:scienceforums.net” pulled it (and one or two related others) right up. Cheers. 🥃 

[joigus]

18 hours ago, 0utmahfays said:

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God (i.e God caused the big bang, the simulation theory coinciding with the intelligent design, higher dimensions, etc.)

Brand new to the forum!

Would love to hear everyones non-biased opinion of this. 

The way I see it, the problem with 'God caused the big bang' is that there's a theory that, as it stands, is trying to grope further back from the big bang with a certain amount of success. If it does succeed, God will have to step further back. If God doesn't want it to succeed, who's going to tell him, 'please, can you step back a little bit?, we can't quite see out there.' It's a god that seems to install himself in the hollows of knowledge.

As to intelligent design, I see it as just a fancy name for wishful thinking. Who designed oncogenes? Errors in meiosis that lead to birth defects? Have you seen a person with microcephaly? If anything, biology suggests to me that there is no design nor there is a designer. No engineer would design a machine that uses the same material for fuel, structure, communication network, and then throws some of it away while it's recycling part of it, and needing more! This 'designer' would also have to intentionally make his machines go to waste just as they come out of the production line every so often, just for the fun of it. There goes my machine, oops!! So it's also a god who doesn't seem to care.

Having said that, I do find much of value in Taoism, which most people think is a religion, but I don't see it that way. It is a practical philosophy, it predicates the 'I don't know,' which is very healthy. The practice of Zen, e.g., is a breathing technique and a constant question 'what is "I".' And it doesn't require God. Only problem (for me) is I'm not very keen on tunics or prayers or looking at the statue of anybody as something particularly inspiring. (Although I love the ringing bells.) Maybe that's why I say 'Taoism' and not 'Buddhism.' 

Bias? Perhaps. But we're all biased.

[Markus Hanke]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

This seems to suggest that the life experience of those who are irreligious is somehow of less value than those who are religious, and similarly that the non-religious are unable to access the understanding you cite.

Apologies if it came across like that, that was not my intention. I do of course realise that not everyone has religious or spiritual aspirations, or feels any need for those; also, for any given person these inclinations can change over time as life happens. All of this is perfectly fine; religion is not necessarily required to gain an understanding of the human condition.

I think what I was attempting to say was that for many people religion/spirituality can be a very helpful tool. But of course (just like anything else) it can also become a trap and a source of enormous suffering, if it is related to wrongly. 

17 hours ago, MigL said:

I suppose Religion is the 'lazy' way to explain things; you don't have to put in the effort that science requires.

I personally think this is too simplistic a way to look at it. Of course, most people will relate to their religion in just this way - they attach themselves to their respective outer forms, teachings, rites and rituals, and leave it at this. That’s indeed a “lazy” way of engagement, and requires little else but blind faith. The problem with this is of course that it is not actually transformative, in the sense that rarely does it provide any answers and insights that go deeper than surface level. This is the archetype of your Sunday church goer who shows up for mass, and then goes back to his normal life unchanged and with their same vices, habits, and sufferings. If one seeks real answers to real existential questions, then a far deeper commitment is required; this is why Christian mystics went into the deserts to seek insight, why Buddhist hermits spend decades meditating alone in the forests etc etc. You get the idea. Religion is like a vehicle that can potentially get you to a place of deeper understanding...but that requires deep commitment and lots of effort. You get out exactly what you put in, and that is really not unlike what happens with science. It’s just that the questions that are being asked are different ones.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Of course, most people will relate to their religion in just this way - they attach themselves to their respective outer forms, teachings, rites and rituals, and leave it at this. That’s indeed a “lazy” way of engagement, and requires little else but blind faith.

What if they're happy that way?

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The problem with this is of course that it is not actually transformative, in the sense that rarely does it provide any answers and insights that go deeper than surface level.

People who are happy with their lot don't necessarily need the transer.

Purely anecdotal, I was deeply unhappy for most of my life, I won't go into the details; but I needed to go deeper to find my happy place (contentment), I think only the people that need it, look for it. As with many of the religeous myths (if we can look past the dogma) I think it's reasonable to hypothesis the protagonists were unhappy before they set out into the wilderness, for forty days (a number that repeatedly crops up in these myths), to find their answer's.

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You get the idea. Religion is like a vehicle that can potentially get you to a place of deeper understanding...but that requires deep commitment and lots of effort. You get out exactly what you put in, and that is really not unlike what happens with science.

Or just a good teacher.

Edited May 16, 2020 by dimreepr

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I personally think this is too simplistic a way to look at it.

As it is, by definition, a very subjective topic, I can only speak about my views on the matter.
I recognize, and respect, that others' views will differ from mine.

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

I recognize, and respect, that others' views will differ from mine.

But can you accept them?

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What if they're happy that way?

Then that’s perfectly fine, I was not criticising. Generally speaking, the vast majority of people will only engage with the outer form, because that is all they can do and want to do. Only a few choose to go deeper, and a very few dedicate their entire lives to it. To use Christianity as an example - the vast majority of Christians are lay followers, they live normal lives and make their religion part of it. A few Christians then decide to take it a step further and enter priesthood / become preachers, and a very small number go further still and dedicate their entire lives to it by entering a monastic order as monks / nuns. 
 
Science is no different in that regard - most people are happy to just engage with a science topic using YouTube videos and pop-sci publications of various kinds. Only a few choose to go deeper. And some choose to go so deep that they make it their life’s work. But not everyone is capable of that, or finds himself in circumstances that are conducive to such an endeavour.

It becomes problematic only if people claim that a specific outer form is all there is to a religion, and attach themselves to it.

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

People who are happy with their lot don't necessarily need the transer.

True - and also, most people would not necessarily be capable of going any deeper, even if they wanted to. If you were to send a bunch of random people into the desert or forests to live like hermits do (or even make them join a monastery), it is unlikely that they would make it for very long, and it is even less likely that they would derive any kind of benefit from it. 

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think it's reasonable to hypothesis the protagonists were unhappy before they set out into the wilderness

Yes - though I would say that the decision to go into the wilderness generally requires more than “just” unhappiness; it’s a very momentous step. It usually starts with a deep existential crisis of some sort, which leads to equally existential questions being asked; followed by the recognition that leaving those questions unanswered is just simply no longer an option.

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Or just a good teacher.

In the beginning stages, a good teacher is essential and helpful; but once one chooses to go deeper, there comes a point when only direct experiential insight will do, and no teacher can magically convey this. It’s down to our own efforts then.
This is again similar to the sciences - a good teacher can teach you the fundamentals, but eventually the point comes when you can only make further progress by thinking about a topic yourself, looking at it from different perspectives, doing your own research...until one day, the penny just drops and you suddenly understand. Teachers can transmit only knowledge, but never understanding. But of course, knowledge is very important since it forms the foundation for all future progress - no understanding can come about if one does not have knowledge of the basics first, so yes, teachers are important.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Markus Hanke

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes - though I would say that the decision to go into the wilderness generally requires more than “just” unhappiness; it’s a very momentous step. It usually starts with a deep existential crisis of some sort, which leads to equally existential questions being asked; followed by the recognition that leaving those questions unanswered is just simply no longer an option.

While I mostly agree, I think the motivation is an addiction of some sort, and 40 days gives the body time to reset. In the case of Jesus (my parents religion) I think there's evidence to support my hypothesis, admittedly indirect, for instance the water into wine metaphore and the temptations he suffered in the desert. Abstination for a period of time is prevalent in many religions.

I think if we're all honest with ourselves we're all addicted to something, from coffee to entertainment and all points between. I think we'd all benefit from a system reset once a year, even if we go back to it, so we can start enjoying it again, rather than craving it.

 

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

In the beginning stages, a good teacher is essential and helpful; but once one chooses to go deeper, there comes a point when only direct experiential insight will do, and no teacher can magically convey this. It’s down to our own efforts then.
This is again similar to the sciences - a good teacher can teach you the fundamentals, but eventually the point comes when you can only make further progress by thinking about a topic yourself, looking at it from different perspectives, doing your own research...until one day, the penny just drops and you suddenly understand. Teachers can transmit only knowledge, but never understanding. But of course, knowledge is very important since it forms the foundation for all future progress - no understanding can come about if one does not have knowledge of the basics first, so yes, teachers are important.

I think this is where science and religion diverge: 

A good science teacher inspires the student to pursue knowledge because it's endless.

A good religious teacher inspires the student to persue contment because it's the end.

[Markus Hanke]

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think this is where science and religion diverge: 

A good science teacher inspires the student to pursue knowledge because it's endless.

A good religious teacher inspires the student to persue contment because it's the end.

An interesting way to put it!
I personally would not consider contentment to be the goal of religious pursuit - but then, what the goal should be is, I think, in many ways a very personal decision. There is no “right” or “wrong” in this, so long as it does not negatively impact on other people or the wider world.

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

I personally would not consider contentment to be the goal of religious pursuit

If you read what's written in religious scripts, with contentment in mind as the goal of the lesson, it's surprisingly easy to see past the confusion of time and numerous mistranslation's and missunderstanding's.

Besides, I can't think of a greater gift from a teacher, it's both an end in itself and a platform to launch oneself from. 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

There is no “right” or “wrong” in this, so long as it does not negatively impact on other people or the wider world.

But there is ying and yang, in which both do both...

[Jack Jectivus]

I do not consider myself religious anymore, but when I did I committed myself to objectively defending my belief. It was my philosophy that if something is true then math, science, and reason will support it. 

Even today I see religion as a valid explaination for what seems unexplainable. I don't believe that it's the best explaination, but I grant that it is defensibly valid.

Who knows? Maybe we'll find the bearded man someday. Until then, I'm gonna assume nothing.

On 5/14/2020 at 9:25 PM, 0utmahfays said:

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God (i.e God caused the big bang, the simulation theory coinciding with the intelligent design, higher dimensions, etc.)

Brand new to the forum!

Would love to hear everyones non-biased opinion of this. 

I'm not religious, but I often think that simulation theory (excluding Bostrom's hypothesis, though that has its own issues) is a conveluded reimagining of Deism or even Theism in some versions

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Jack Jectivus said:

I do not consider myself religious anymore, but when I did I committed myself to objectively defending my belief. It was my philosophy that if something is true then math, science, and reason will support it. 

Even today I see religion as a valid explaination for what seems unexplainable. I don't believe that it's the best explaination, but I grant that it is defensibly valid.

I think science is ONLY interested in the best explanations. Truth is too subjective to be a scientific pursuit, so I don't see how using it as a bridge to religious claims can be either defensible or valid.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think science is ONLY interested in the best explanations. Truth is too subjective to be a scientific pursuit, so I don't see how using it as a bridge to religious claims can be either defensible or valid.

Forgive him, he didn't read the thread/s he's replied too... 😉

[FlawedBeing]

Lolol 

By definition, God stuff, especially trying to invoke science to show that Gods exist, is pseudoscientific.

A quick look on Wikipedia/Intelligent design:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, FlawedBeing said:

Lolol 

By definition, God stuff, especially trying to invoke science to show that Gods exist, is pseudoscientific.

A quick look on Wikipedia/Intelligent design:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

LOL, if I wasn't me, I'd have you down as a sockpuppet. Thanks 👌

[Polykephalous]

On 5/15/2020 at 3:25 AM, 0utmahfays said:

As an avid follower of Christ I strongly believe you can intertwine scientific beliefs with God (i.e God caused the big bang, the simulation theory coinciding with the intelligent design, higher dimensions, etc.)

Brand new to the forum!

Would love to hear everyones non-biased opinion of this. 

 

On 5/15/2020 at 3:44 AM, NineTwentyEight said:

What if I told you that saying that the past is the past is no more accurate than saying the past is the future. Our perception of time is a matter of subjectivity. 

 

 

The science of God and all existence works scientifically until you involve any of the prophets. This is not my opinion, but a reality.  

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Polykephalous said:

The science of God and all existence works scientifically 

Since you claim this is reality, will you state this in a manner that actually makes sense and we can evaluate the veracity if that assertion? 

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, Polykephalous said:

The science of God and all existence works scientifically until you involve any of the prophets. 

No, it doesn't. Your god can't be observed (or chooses not to be?), so science has no way to measure it, or to test it, or to predict what it will do next based on past observations. If you can't use scientific methodology to arrive at reasoned conclusions about a phenomenon, then it's considered supernatural (outside nature). Many try to claim their god is nature itself to get around this, but the fact remains that beliefs based on trustworthy methodology aren't compatible with beliefs based on faith alone. By their very nature, the two contradict each other.

16 hours ago, Polykephalous said:

This is not my opinion, but a reality.  

This is wrong as well, for the reason stated above, but I especially wanted to point out that this is a dangerously misinformed thing to say when discussing religious topics. Especially when trying to mix faith-based beliefs with more trusted knowledge.

 

[Azerbaijan land of fire]

If people improve their science they believe in  God. in each holy books (Bible,Kuran, Torah) God say us must study and learn science but some people say God doesn't like science or studying . I think if our science improve very much , if we  can be high civilization we can believe and understand our God

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Azerbaijan land of fire said:

If people improve their science they believe in  God.

An assertion like this is easily disproven with a single example. Learning science helped me see that deities aren't needed to explain what we observe, and religion isn't required as a moral foundation. 

[joigus]

40 minutes ago, Azerbaijan land of fire said:

If people improve their science they believe in  God. in each holy books (Bible,Kuran, Torah) God say us must study and learn science but some people say God doesn't like science or studying . I think if our science improve very much , if we  can be high civilization we can believe and understand our God

I'm not sure that would work. You can't have two people doing the same job.

Dramatization:

Afflicted person: "Why, oh God, why!!"

God: "Well, that's because..."

Science: "If you allow me, God, I'll do the talking"

[Azerbaijan land of fire]

There are 3 way for understanding science and God

1)Science usually says true things, indeed if we believe science,if we believe Big bang theory it means God doesn't exist, 

2) some people says may be religions created for control people

3)if you read,  in every holy books (Kuran, Bible,torah) we can read some useful thing, 1500-2000 yeras ago the science didn't invent some thing but we can read these things from these book

 

[Phi for All]

50 minutes ago, Azerbaijan land of fire said:

There are 3 way for understanding science and God

This is another assertion that can be disproven.

50 minutes ago, Azerbaijan land of fire said:

1)Science usually says true things, indeed if we believe science,if we believe Big bang theory it means God doesn't exist,

Actually, science looks for the best supported explanation, NOT the truth. Truth is too subjective, and changes depending on who is judging what is true. Theory is better than "answers", because we constantly update our theories based on experiments, predictions, and observations. But when we think we've found an "answer" (Truth), we stop looking any further.

I'm not sure why you think our current cosmological model means your god doesn't exist. The LCDM model doesn't cover how or why the universe was created, only the expansion and evolution from a very hot, dense state. As an omnipotent deity, couldn't your god have taken an unstable prior universe (we can't know if there was a prior universe), given it three spatial and one temporal dimension, and then allow it to expand and evolve into what we now observe?

Gods choose to be unobservable, at least by scientific means, since we can't summon them or get them to do anything we can predict. We have great explanations for most phenomena WITHOUT using gods. Science finds no evidence to support god(s), but since we can't observe them, science also doesn't say they don't exist. Science deals with the natural world, and gods are, by definition, SUPERNATURAL.

50 minutes ago, Azerbaijan land of fire said:

2) some people says may be religions created for control people

Who says that? Give me their names and I'll see that they're punished for these lies! You, of course, will be blessed for telling the truth.

50 minutes ago, Azerbaijan land of fire said:

3)if you read,  in every holy books (Kuran, Bible,torah) we can read some useful thing, 1500-2000 yeras ago the science didn't invent some thing but we can read these things from these book

I have better books. Books with REALLY useful things, and nothing about where to buy my slaves,  and who I'm allowed to rape.