What if god...

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Sure. There are things we don’t understand. The fun of science is figuring them out.

I think a basic wrong assumption many folks are making is science claims to explain everything (like religions does). Rather, science is a methodology that aims to improve our understanding. After all, the job of scientists is predominantly working on the cutting edge of current knowledge, rather than blithely perpetuate existing knowledge (outside of teaching that is).

[Luc Turpin]

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think a basic wrong assumption many folks are making is science claims to explain everything (like religions does). Rather, science is a methodology that aims to improve our understanding. After all, the job of scientists is predominantly working on the cutting edge of current knowledge, rather than blithely perpetuate existing knowledge (outside of teaching that is).

The belief that science will "explain everything" helps explain why some think it already has, or will soon, provide answers to all questions about existence. The Theory of Everything, for instance, rests on the idea that uncovering universal laws will explain all phenomena. However, to achieve this ambitious goal, science requires more than just a reductionist approach. Emergent properties and the unpredictability of complex systems present significant challenges. A more holistic approach, one that accounts for subjective experience, might bring us closer to understanding reality, but it too may never fully achieve this ultimate goal.

In contrast, religion embraces the existence of mysteries that transcend human comprehension, such as: Why are we here? What is the soul? What happens after death? The nature of the Divine — all remain profound mysteries of life. Rather than striving to fully understand these mysteries, religion regards them as central to existence, meant to be revered and accepted. By acknowledging these mysteries, religion fosters humility, recognizing that some parts of reality are beyond human grasp.

Edited 8 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The belief that science will "explain everything" helps explain why some think it already has, or will soon, provide answers to all questions about existence. The Theory of Everything, for instance, rests on the idea that uncovering universal laws will explain all phenomena. However, to achieve this ambitious goal, science requires more than just a reductionist approach. Emergent properties and the unpredictability of complex systems present significant challenges. A more holistic approach, one that accounts for subjective experience, might bring us closer to understanding reality, but it too may never fully achieve this ultimate goal.

In contrast, religion embraces the existence of mysteries that transcend human comprehension, such as: Why are we here? What is the soul? What happens after death? The nature of the Divine — all remain profound mysteries of life. Rather than striving to fully understand these mysteries, religion regards them as central to existence, meant to be revered and accepted. By acknowledging these mysteries, religion fosters humility, recognizing that some parts of reality are beyond human grasp.

And we know religion gives us wrong answers, because there is more than one religion, and some of the answers are in conflict.

We don’t know what’s beyond our grasp unless we try to find out. And we keep expanding our knowledge.

[Luc Turpin]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

And we know religion gives us wrong answers, because there is more than one religion, and some of the answers are in conflict.

We don’t know what’s beyond our grasp unless we try to find out. And we keep expanding our knowledge.

I’m not suggesting that religion is necessarily right, but rather that CharonY might have had it backwards: science seeks to understand everything, while religion acknowledges the mysteries that remain beyond our comprehension. Both religion and science have their shortcomings — religion has its failings, and science has its limitations.

Moreover, the pursuit of knowledge beyond our current understanding is a virtuous endeavor. However, assuming that we will ultimately know everything may be presumptuous, as some aspects of reality may always elude our grasp.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’m not suggesting that religion is necessarily right, but rather that CharonY might have had it backwards: science seeks to understand everything, while religion acknowledges the mysteries that remain beyond our comprehension. Both religion and science have their shortcomings — religion has its failings, and science has its limitations.

Moreover, the pursuit of knowledge beyond our current understanding is a virtuous endeavor. However, assuming that we will ultimately know everything may be presumptuous, as some aspects of reality may always elude our grasp.

We don’t know some of these limitations of science without testing.

Of what practical use is a religious answer if we don’t know it’s correct? The notion that some god is looking out for you might provide comfort, but it’s not going to do much in determining if the bridge ahead is safe.

[Luc Turpin]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

We don’t know some of these limitations of science without testing.

Of what practical use is a religious answer if we don’t know it’s correct? The notion that some god is looking out for you might provide comfort, but it’s not going to do much in determining if the bridge ahead is safe.

I agree on both points, but believe it’s spirituality, not religion, that keeps us humble. Spirituality allows a personal connection to the unknown, accepting mystery without needing rigid answers to life's uncertainties.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’m not suggesting that religion is necessarily right, but rather that CharonY might have had it backwards: science seeks to understand everything,

No, science is a methodology that a) is focused on the physical world and b) acknowledges that is a journey. A scientist seeks new knowledge which implicitly assumes that there is no fixed end. If everything is understood, the job of a scientist is done and ends. And while I have heard many confident answers about the world from religious folks, I have not yet met a scientist who is confident that one day we will know everything there is to know. There is a type of humility in science (though not to be confused with personality of certain scientists...)  which folks don't see due to limited interactions with it. Almost all scientists I know and talk to (excluding hotshot youngsters who still believe that they alone will change the world), know that we know little of the world and that each of us will only contribute a tiny bit throughout our career. Thinking that at one point we know everything is akin to the infinite monkey theorem. Yes, theoretically if it goes on forever, there is the possibility that we will have explored everything (at which point the world might be a very boring place) but it a very theoretical consideration.

The key element in your sentence is "seek". It is a journey we do not expect to end.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I agree on both points, but believe it’s spirituality, not religion, that keeps us humble. Spirituality allows a personal connection to the unknown, accepting mystery without needing rigid answers to life's uncertainties.

So tell us the difference between religion and this quasi-religion you call "spirituality"? Please also tell us what is humble about accepting someone else's unsupported explanation about a phenomena without questioning it first? That doesn't fit my definition of humble. It's more like "naive" or "gullible". It describes someone who thinks blind faith in anything is a strong and admirable stance. It's definitely unscientific. 

I'm often humbled (in the real sense) when I read about scientific advancements or some new knowledge about life on this planet. I'm humbled to think that all life we've found in the universe seems to be clustered on the surface of this planet, but it's the life itself I observe that humbles me, not some imagined mystery involving things I can NEVER observe.

What if gods are just mental laziness on the part of otherwise intelligent humans?

[Luc Turpin]

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No, science is a methodology that a) is focused on the physical world and b) acknowledges that is a journey. A scientist seeks new knowledge which implicitly assumes that there is no fixed end. If everything is understood, the job of a scientist is done and ends. And while I have heard many confident answers about the world from religious folks, I have not yet met a scientist who is confident that one day we will know everything there is to know. There is a type of humility in science (though not to be confused with personality of certain scientists...)  which folks don't see due to limited interactions with it. Almost all scientists I know and talk to (excluding hotshot youngsters who still believe that they alone will change the world), know that we know little of the world and that each of us will only contribute a tiny bit throughout our career. Thinking that at one point we know everything is akin to the infinite monkey theorem. Yes, theoretically if it goes on forever, there is the possibility that we will have explored everything (at which point the world might be a very boring place) but it a very theoretical consideration.

The key element in your sentence is "seek". It is a journey we do not expect to end.

My understanding of science is that it is more than just a method; it’s also a growing body of knowledge based on observation and experimentation. New discoveries constantly expand our understanding, making science an ongoing journey that raises more questions than provides answers.

However, claiming that science doesn’t consider an endpoint overlooks some views in the field. Many theoretical physicists believe that a complete understanding, like a Theory of Everything, could be a potential "end point." The search for fundamental particles, a key pursuit in modern physics as well, could also be seen as aiming for an endpoint. For me, though, this search for fundamental particles has shown that science is an evolving journey rather than a fixed destination.

Additionally, claiming that religion knows everything is misleading. Most religious traditions embrace mystery and faith, recognizing that some truths are beyond human comprehension.

In summary, saying that science avoids an endpoint oversimplifies the issue, while suggesting that religion knows everything misrepresents most religious traditions, which embrace mystery, faith, and uncertainty.

[iNow]

I'd say it a different way: Science is a process to systematically remove bias from what we believe. Religion is a tool that codifies that bias and ends the search. 

[Luc Turpin]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So tell us the difference between religion and this quasi-religion you call "spirituality"? Please also tell us what is humble about accepting someone else's unsupported explanation about a phenomena without questioning it first? That doesn't fit my definition of humble. It's more like "naive" or "gullible". It describes someone who thinks blind faith in anything is a strong and admirable stance. It's definitely unscientific. 

I'm often humbled (in the real sense) when I read about scientific advancements or some new knowledge about life on this planet. I'm humbled to think that all life we've found in the universe seems to be clustered on the surface of this planet, but it's the life itself I observe that humbles me, not some imagined mystery involving things I can NEVER observe.

What if gods are just mental laziness on the part of otherwise intelligent humans?

Religion is a social construct, while spirituality is personal and individual. Religion is structured with doctrines, rituals, and often authority, and can sometimes-manytimes be used for control. Spirituality, on the other hand, focuses on personal growth, inner peace, and connection, without fixed rules or practices. One can be both religious and spiritual, or spiritual without a specific religion.

Acknowledging that some things may remain mysterious shows humility, while blindly accepting everything is being gullible.

You should also be humbled by the unknown and understanding that some truths may never be fully understood.

As for the concept of gods, I agree that for some, belief in gods may be seen as a form of mental laziness or a way to explain things that are otherwise difficult to understand.

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'd say it a different way: Science is a process to systematically remove bias from what we believe. Religion is a tool that codifies that bias and ends the search. 

Your statement oversimplifies science and religion. Both are complex and engage with reality in different ways.

Science is not just about removing bias, which it can never fully eliminate. It is a process of inquiry and exploration that evolves with new evidence, promoting skepticism as well as open-mindedness, which is sometimes overlooked. Science constantly refines its understanding, but it can sometimes be too rigid in its conclusions.

Religion is not merely about codifying biases. While it can be rigid at times, it also allows for growth, questioning, and offers a framework for understanding life, purpose, and meaning. Religion often embraces mystery, acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge.

In short, both science and religion are dynamic. Science provides knowledge based on evidence, while religion offers wisdom rooted in experience and faith. Together, they offer complementary perspectives on reality. Science may often be right, but religion also illuminates aspects of life that science cannot fully address.

Both science and religion can be destructive in their own ways. Therefore, I prefer to embrace the positive aspects of science while leaning toward spirituality rather than organized religion.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Religion is a social construct, while spirituality is personal and individual. Religion is structured with doctrines, rituals, and often authority, and can sometimes-manytimes be used for control. Spirituality, on the other hand, focuses on personal growth, inner peace, and connection, without fixed rules or practices. One can be both religious and spiritual, or spiritual without a specific religion.

Both sound like social constructs. I think you're applying some kind of unnecessary mystery to your concept of spirituality. A focus on growth and inner peace that enables connection with other humans is no mystery, and certainly nothing supernatural. We're social creatures with certain complimentary physical attributes that allow us to communicate with each other to an astonishing level of complexity, which in turn facilitates an incredible propensity for cooperation, which benefits whole societies. 

You keep trying to cram a bunch of woo where it isn't needed. Watch a protest march, or neighbors helping each other after a natural disaster, or locals gathering to help a beached whale regain the sea. Gods aren't needed at all for that feeling of oneness, of common bonds, of the spirit of hope in the face of adversity.

[Luc Turpin]

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Both sound like social constructs. I think you're applying some kind of unnecessary mystery to your concept of spirituality. A focus on growth and inner peace that enables connection with other humans is no mystery, and certainly nothing supernatural. We're social creatures with certain complimentary physical attributes that allow us to communicate with each other to an astonishing level of complexity, which in turn facilitates an incredible propensity for cooperation, which benefits whole societies. 

You keep trying to cram a bunch of woo where it isn't needed. Watch a protest march, or neighbors helping each other after a natural disaster, or locals gathering to help a beached whale regain the sea. Gods aren't needed at all for that feeling of oneness, of common bonds, of the spirit of hope in the face of adversity.

 

41 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Both sound like social constructs. I think you're applying some kind of unnecessary mystery to your concept of spirituality. A focus on growth and inner peace that enables connection with other humans is no mystery, and certainly nothing supernatural. We're social creatures with certain complimentary physical attributes that allow us to communicate with each other to an astonishing level of complexity, which in turn facilitates an incredible propensity for cooperation, which benefits whole societies. 

You keep trying to cram a bunch of woo where it isn't needed. Watch a protest march, or neighbors helping each other after a natural disaster, or locals gathering to help a beached whale regain the sea. Gods aren't needed at all for that feeling of oneness, of common bonds, of the spirit of hope in the face of adversity.

Human cooperation is focused on external connections while spirituality is an inward-facing experience, often centered on connecting with something greater than oneself, whether that’s a higher powe or the universe. Spirituality can also just encompass mindfulness and inner peace without a divine focus. While cooperation shapes external relationships, spirituality provides a deeper, personal journey to understanding one’s place in the world, offering meaning to life.