Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[Delta1212]

Sorry. So, can you tell me all the parts in details? I don`t think such things exist in Wikipedia, do you?

 

Listening to the other sides of conversation? What conversation?

The conversation surrounding the relationship and interaction between religion and science.

 

It's important to understand where both come from, how they operate, how people who subscribe to each interact with their institutions and what one can and cannot say about the other.

 

It's a complicated topic and many people draw bad conclusions about it by oversimplifying things.

[Phi for All]

Sorry. So, can you tell me all the parts in details?

 

No. For reasons that should be obvious.

 

I don`t think such things exist in Wikipedia, do you?

It would be a great place to start.

 

Listening to the other sides of conversation? What conversation?

Discussion forum, talking about specific subjects, in particular having a conversation titled "Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Sceince?"

 

This conversation.

[Nicholas Kang]

Dear Mr. Phi For All,

 

I am not very sure if I had irritate you before. I apologize if I do so. You see, I try to maintain good communication with you. Can you do me a favour? Please don`t get angry with my comment or suggestion or reply. I am a straightforward person, so I actually cause a lot of people dislike me in school, and also in the forum too. Your answer seems to be quite a high standard for me to understand, so you know I feel like sweating when I try to understand what you mean. You are a great philosopher. Your answer is very good and I shall learn more form you. At last, I apologize if I have actually irritated you in the past. Sorry.

Dear Mr. Delta1212,

 

You are right, I shall learn about both groups and their institutions before further action. Maybe this is how I made Mr. Phi For All angry. Anyway, I can`t understand why most of you don`t want to tell me the parts in details. Am I too young to understand this? Or perhaps I am irritating? Or other reasons?

[Ophiolite]

Anyway, I can`t understand why most of you don`t want to tell me the parts in details. Am I too young to understand this? Or perhaps I am irritating? Or other reasons?

If you had asked for information on the Big Bang it would have been possible to give answers that ranged in size from a single sentence up to references to thousands of research papers and everything in between. The Big Bang has been thoroughly researched and quantitatively examined.

 

The questions you have asked are much more general and the answers to them are more matters of opinion than of fact. To properly answer them one would need to explore, in detail, such diverse fields as anthropology, history, psychology, economics, archaeology, evolution, religious practices, etc. How do you expect any of us to be able "tell you in the parts in detail"? One could explore this issue for a lifetime, write eighteen books on the subject and still not have provided a complete answer.

 

Or perhaps I am irritating?

Honest answer? Yes. I have already advised you to stop apologising, but you keep doing it. Please stop. I don't know if it irritates others, but is certainly irritates me. Most of the time you have nothing to apologise for and doing so is just distracting.

 

Secondly, you keep thinking you have annoyed or angered people. You seem to think this every time someone disagrees with you. This is a discussion forum - it is normal for people to give different views. It does not mean that they don't like you, or that they are angry. It just means that on that point they think differently from you. It is not a problem. Stop thinking it is one.

 

I realise this may be difficult for you since you are new to forums, but don't take things so personally. Relax and enjoy the conversations.

[Nicholas Kang]

Dear Mr. Ophiolite,

 

I try to avoid that but you know forum or web is a giant network liking everyone from the world. You see, how can I know I had irritate who? For you, maybe you won`t get angry easily but not the others. We see words not faces, I can`t know your emotions through your words. So, the best way is opt for Sorry. Anytime someone disagree, they can be in calm mood but some if continuous argument will get angry. Mr. Ophiolite, how can you be so sure that all of my apology is annoying. Sometime, for some people, my apology can extinguish their hot flame in their heart. If I don`t do so, people will think I am impolite.

 

Mr. Ophiolite,

 

Can you teach me how to differentiate when a person`s reply is showing you he/she is calm and when a person`s reply is telling you he/she is angry? I am a straightforward person, that`s why I had hurt many of my friends, even teachers and now it happens in the forum. If possible, please tell me how to not be a straightforward person, so I wouldn`t have to apologize so many times.

[Ophiolite]

I am also, I think, a straightforward person. When I write I have these simple rules in mind:

 

1. Be accurate.

2. Be clear.

3. Try to be helpful.

4. Try to stay on topic.

5. Correct errors of fact posted by others.

 

If someone is upset by something I post when I have been following those rules that is their problem, not mine. I have nothing to apologise for. If they are upset, they need to deal with it. It is not my responsibility to handle something they see as a problem when I have been accurate, clear, helpful and on topic.

 

I recommend you follow the same approach. Focus on the subject being discussed, not people's reaction to that subject. This is a science forum. It is the science that is important.

[Nicholas Kang]

Science influence greater than human feelings? Because Science, you can can simply ignore how someone feels? You are right, this is a science forum. It is Science that matters but not excluding feelings. It doesn`t mean you can simply say anything without taking others reaction into account. This is unfair to them, isn`t it?

[Ophiolite]

Science influence greater than human feelings? Because Science, you can can simply ignore how someone feels? You are right, this is a science forum. It is Science that matters but not excluding feelings. It doesn`t mean you can simply say anything without taking others reaction into account. This is unfair to them, isn`t it?

I am not saying that feelings are not important. But, let's take an example. Member X posts a statement that "plate tectonics has been occurring on Mars throughout most of its 4.5 billion year history".

 

This is wrong. There is no evidence that it is true and there is plenty of counter evidence that it is false. I shall post a correction saying so. It will be accurate, clear, on topic and helpful. It may also make X feel bad. He has been publicly shown to be incorrect. How embarrassing. What shame!

 

So, should I think carefully about Member X's feelings and not make the post? That might be better for Member X's feelings today, but that means I leave Member X (and many who have read his statement) in a state of ignorance. I am more concerned about them being ignorant than I am about them feeling embarrassed that they have made a mistake. Frankly, if people cannot accept correction they will have a tough time in the world. (Personally, I am delighted when I am corrected since this means I have learned something.)

 

So, while I will not seek to hurt someone's feelings, but if that is a side effect of ensuring the facts are known and accurately presented then their feelings will be hurt. And that is their problem, not mine.

[Nicholas Kang]

Ok, ok, no objections. At least in the forum no one will see how you feel after being hurt by someone else, we should think of the bright side. Every hurt has its meaning, but do remember not to use foul words.

[usmanishaquecdz]

Its a bit compilcated question, I think religion creates science because science do experiments what religion tells us.

[Nicholas Kang]

And almost every time Science do experiments on what religion tells us, Science prove them fail and/or do not exist.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Fred Champion]

And almost every time Science do experiments on what religion tells us, Science prove them fail and/or do not exist.

I suggest that the problem you identify is mostly a problem with interpreting what is included in a religion.

 

You may wish to consider that religion is a philosophy for living one's life. It is the approach one takes to himself, his environment and the other objects and lives in that environment.

 

Philosophy must begin with some recognition of "self"; without that there is nothing else to consider. Self includes identity and consciousness. It seems to me that most people (even if they are not willing to admit it) do not consider their identity to be just the collection of molecules which makes up their body. Consciousness is not well understood. There does not seem to be a way for a collection of molecules to make choices (exercise what is called "free will"). Material objects react, they do not make choices. We have then the perception of an identity and consciousness which is "more" than the result of a mechanical body.

 

Those who do perceive that something "more" identify "it" as the spirit, the spark of life, the soul, the life force or any number of other terms. Whatever it is called, it is regarded as the true self, what you mean when you say "I". Science describes everything in some "frame of reference". The experiences of individuals are in a frame of reference too. The environment we exist in is our matrix and our identity is the origin of that matrix.

 

I think it is quite natural for us, as identities, to describe what we experience and call our universe as having a beginning, since we observe other things, including lives, to begin and end. Science cannot accept "something from nothing", thus the Big Bang. Common religious ideas propose the beginning as a creation. A creation requires a creator. Neither of these actually describes a beginning. Something before the beginning is posited in both.

 

In an effort to not be partial, we can say that religion gives us an account, in general, of what has happened and science provides an account of how it has happened. I see no conflict in that. If the "mystical" side of existence as described by religion does indeed exist, then it is a part of our universe and I think it is likely that science will discover it. Since we cannot prove a negative, it seems best to not dismiss religion entirely until science can prove that self and consciousness and the ability to make choices are just a process performed by collections of molecules.

[Ophiolite]

Fred, your take on the nature of religion does allow the space to accommodate religion and science in the same mind. Unfortunately, many individuals require that their religion contain some tightly constrained specifications - such as the world was created, literally, in six days - that place it in conflict with religion. This produces a backlash from some of those who are looking at things from a scientific point of view and conflate this narrow approach with the more philosophical stance you are suggesting.

[Fred Champion]

Fred, your take on the nature of religion does allow the space to accommodate religion and science in the same mind. Unfortunately, many individuals require that their religion contain some tightly constrained specifications - such as the world was created, literally, in six days - that place it in conflict with religion. This produces a backlash from some of those who are looking at things from a scientific point of view and conflate this narrow approach with the more philosophical stance you are suggesting.

Yes, I think I know what you mean. I've known people who were offended when I reminded them that Jesus was a Jew. A few have even argued that he wasn't. Interpretation is the key. In the archaic, "40" means "a lot", a "mansion" means a private dwelling, etc. The "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day" of the Bible can lead to different ideas.

 

In considering any text, and especially an ancient text, I encourage the reader to consider that the writer was writing for a contemporary audience. On the other hand, the "666", the mark of the beast, a man-made symbol, would have made no sense to people of that age if it had been presented as the scheme for the UPC label of 3 six-digit numbers (which is required on all packaged goods sold today).

 

When it comes to faith, or believing, in religion and science, I think we should consider whether we are going to believe in what the person instructing us is saying or believe in the person. I prefer to trust the person but still be free to question what he is saying. Blind obedience is never a good thing.

[PeterJ]

I am not a fan of the idea of 'believing' in science or religion. It would be a bad mistake in my opinion. We should trust them in their own domain to the extent that they prove themselves trustworthy, always aware that if we do not know something then we do not know it. When scientist tell me to stop eating butter and eat margarine instead I know someone has lost the plot and take no notice. When religion tells me that I need to belong to their church to get to Heaven I know someone has never found the plot and take no notice.

 

The trouble is that religion suffers far more from pseudo-religion than science does from pseudo-science, and so more study is required to see past it for the former than for the latter.

 

On the OPs question, human beings created science and religion. I can't see any way to make sense of the idea that one created the other. Cleary they have influenced each other's evolution, but this is not the same thing. I suppose that in the end it would all depend on the definitions.

[Nicholas Kang]

Yes, I am seeking for someone who is able to connect/link those 2 almost-entirely-different fields-religion and Science.

 

Dear Peter J,

 

It seems that you are trying to separate them but my intention is to connect and unite them. This inspiration actually came across my mind when I am thinking of the effort of scientists uniting Quantum Mechanics and Einstein`s Theory of Relativity. Although both theories are form Science, I still insist that there must be something shared among Religion and Science.

 

Some examples:

 

1. Some myths and legends can be solved by Science

2. The Heisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle can somehow explain the probabilities in Religion, maybe yes, maybe no, it is just my own thought

3. The God that is suspected to create us and our universe may share the same properties with the Big Bang theory, again, just maybe

[Phi for All]

Yes, I am seeking for someone who is able to connect/link those 2 almost-entirely-different fields-religion and Science.

 

This would probably be better as its own thread.

 

Although, imo, if you look at religion and science as tools that help us understand ourselves and our universe, trying to use one to study the other is like using a song to measure how tall your house is. Science measures what it can observe, and most religious claims are not observable, or have explanations based in the natural world.

[Nicholas Kang]

First question, what does imo means? I came across this word for a few times and still couldn`t get the meaning.

Next, if Science and Religion are incompatibile, then why some scientists used to study religion druing their last few years, like Newton. he did try to prove that God exist but failed till he died.

[Ophiolite]

imo is an abbreviation for In my opinion. Another common one used in the forum is IIRC, if I recall correctly. Both are used to indicate that poster is not claiming these to be solid, verifiable facts, just opinions, or best recollections.

[Nicholas Kang]

I think it is better to use appropriate and correct English than weird abbrevations like imo and IIRC. IRC is sometimes regarded as International Red Crescent. This sounds like plagiarize.

[Ophiolite]

I think it is better to use appropriate and correct English than weird abbrevations like imo and IIRC. IRC is sometimes regarded as International Red Crescent. This sounds like plagiarize.

These are standard abbreviations within English language forums. I generally prefer to type out the full English expression, but I am an antiquated, old-fashioned Scotsman.

 

This is assuredly not an example of plagiarism. Looking up one website I find 19 different meanings for the abbreviation IIRC and 49 different ones for IRC. This is common.

[Nicholas Kang]

Ok, I learnt something new today. I am actually shocked with the fact that there are 19 different meanings for IIRC and 49 different meanings for IRC. So, no objections.

[PeterJ]

Nicholas - They are separate. I don't have to try to separate them. But I'm with you all the way in trying to reconcile them. As far as I'm concerned they are both crucially important and it is daft and unnecessary to throw out one and keep the other. I see no inconsistency between them. The inconsistencies are just matters of prejudice, dogma and opinion. In the end there is what is true and what is false, and which topic heading it comes under makes no difference to me. Lots of people imagine we have to choose between them, but nobody can prove it.

 

I would even go so far as to say that done right they both rely on exactly the same method, that they each shed light on the other, and that they should both appeal to the same sort of thinker. But the situation is made unclear by the failure of our education system to deal properly with metaphysics and religion, by the naivety and vociferousness of commonplace theism, and by the insanity that reigns in certain parts of physics where it is thought that knowing about electrons gives one an expertise in all other disciplines.

 

I say long live religion and science. Indeed, I have toyed with a book title, 'Science and Religion: The Only Way Forward'. Maybe a tad ambitious though.

 

As for God creating the universe, I don't buy it, and it is not a necessary idea in any religion that I know of. Just a dogma in certain schools of thought.

Edited June 26, 2014 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

I think it is better to use appropriate and correct English than weird abbrevations like imo and IIRC. IRC is sometimes regarded as International Red Crescent. This sounds like plagiarize.

In what way would it be plagiarised?

[iNow]

I still insist that there must be something shared among Religion and Science.

The easiest connection between science and religion is found in the field of psychology.