Science Creates Religion? Religion Creates Science?

[Fred Champion]

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

 

...

 

I don't understand why you believe the two are so different. For the most part, both are expressions of what the practitioners accept as the best way to live their lives. Religion and science are both very practical. The "rules" in both are our attempt to bring ourselves into harmony with our environment, through both understanding and action.

 

For religion this is probably, from what I understand of them, more obvious in "eastern" religions than the Jewish-Christian-Islamic ethic. It should be quite obvious in science. For example, the last 6 or 7, depending on how one separates them, of the 10 commandments are exactly the first directives social science would give for establishing and maintaining a stable and just society. The first 3 or 4 commandments are statements establishing authority for giving commandments not unlike the first paragraphs of almost every constitutional government.

 

It is worth noting that some authority is necessary for a sustainable social system. We have observed that a society in which everyone can do exactly as he/she pleases just doesn't work. We cannot escape our human nature; we are almost never completely rational.

 

At the fringes of every human endeavor we will find some irrationality, some conflict with other endeavors. Perhaps this is what you see as the conflict between science and religion. For example, we consider ourselves to be intelligent beings. That we should question our environment and our origin should be no surprise. That we should anticipate an intelligence as the agent of our origin should not be a surprise either.

 

We have restricted our science to what we can observe with our five senses and instruments which enhance those senses. It should be no surprise that we require science to rule out anything we cannot "see" and demonstrate. The fringe here is that science describes our origin as the ultimate non-demonstrable event, a "Big Bang". Even that origin as described is not an origin. Everything that was in the singularity was there before the bang.

 

So at best the Big Bang must be seen as a continuation, and so must the creation stories; in order for a creator to create, that creator, that agent, that force of change, however it is described, must have been present before the act of creation. I expect most of us would like to believe that we have the capacity to understand what was before, but it seems to me that it must be so far out of our shared experience that we have no words to describe it. Religion calls that status mystery, science calls it unknown.

 

Note that I refered to shared experience. Many have had experiences not directly attributable to the five senses. These are common enough that they cannot be entirely discounted. I suggest that if you never look for that sort of experience you will not find it, and even if you do look for it and have an unusual experience you may not be totally convinced you have found what others say they have experienced. We are capable of convincing ourselves of almost anything.

 

I can only tell you that my experience is that there is more than what one can experience with the five senses. The focus of our space programs is our search for other life. If we find it will that prove or disprove anything? I doubt it. It will likely raise even more questions. My suggestion to you is to keep searching even after you are comfortable with your approach to life, your philosophy for living, which is your religion, and appreciate the benefits of science.

[Nicholas Kang]

In what way would it be plagiarised?

I had apologize and end that matter now. No plagiarism.

 

 

My suggestion to you is to keep searching even after you are comfortable with your approach to life, your philosophy for living, which is your religion, and appreciate the benefits of science.

Keep searching for what? Uniting science and religion or just take it as nothing different, or not to think of such question, or simply ignore the crazy effort to unite science and religion. Take it as what it is. Don`t think to unite them.

[Delta1212]

Incidentally, on most forums IRC is more likely to refer to Internet Relay Chat than the charitable organization.

[Iota]

If anything philosophy lead to science. Religion hinders science and is incompatible with it.

 

Man created religion before science (as we know it today) existed.

 

Science is the result of man's search for answers, much like religion in that respect. However, only one of the two practices actually works.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Iota

[PeterJ]

Science is the search for the answers to scientific questions. If this is the only kind of question you want answered then you will make an excellent lab technician.

[dimreepr]

Science is the search for answers to reality; religion has already decided.

[John Cuthber]

Science is the search for the answers to scientific questions. If this is the only kind of question you want answered then you will make an excellent lab technician.

What questions are not scientific?

[Fred Champion]

...

 

Keep searching for what? Uniting science and religion or just take it as nothing different, or not to think of such question, or simply ignore the crazy effort to unite science and religion. Take it as what it is. Don`t think to unite them.

Keep searching for answers. Answers to your questions. Uniting science and religion is not a crazy idea to me. There is a saying: "you only know the songs you hear. Is this not true? You will know only the ideas you explore. Any time you think you have all the answers to, or an absolute understanding of, any question I assure you, you are wrong. There is always more to learn about everything.

 

Our science will only include the discoveries we allow ourselves to seach for. To me the sin people in science commit is closing the mind to new ideas, what religion calls hardening the heart. There are those who think that science somehow disproves religion. It does not. Science is discovery. Science can help us understand what is and how it works but, at least so far, it cannot explain any origin or life.

 

Many people reject the findings of science they see as a contradiction of their religion's dogma and then extrapolate that to see science as an assault on the religion. Their problam is usually a misinterpretation of their religious text. Literal translation of ancient text usually does not convey the intended meaning. Unfortunately many won't accept that ancient texts require intrepretation.

 

You already have a religion. Everyone does. It is your philosophy for living. It may not be well thought out or codified or shared with others but it is there just the same. It is how you approach living.

 

It is common for young people to reject religion when they begin their studies of science. Among the reasons for that are the teachers. Education should not be indoctrination. The laws of the US enforce that idea. What is not taught in school will not be learned in school. Many religious people who would be teachers drop out or do not enter the field because those laws restrict not just what they can say but also how they can say it and may open them up to lawsuits and harassment if they slip up and say something that is not politically correct. One cannot share what one does not have.

 

Don't condem people who try to share religion. Imagine what you would do if you truly believed you had some knowledge that would materially change peoples' live for the better and people were missing out. Wouldn't you feel compelled to share that knowledge? Would you condem someone in science for trying to share what he thought was a wonderful discovery?

 

Many people, and perhaps most young people who study science, come to reject religion because some or many of the beliefs of their religion include things which seem impossible to explain. They have been taught in science that if something cannot be explained by science and does not fit in with what can be explained by science then it is wrong.

 

I was very uncomfortable with religion, to the point of rejecting it, for this reason. At sone time I recognized that of all the fossils discovered each species was always that species; there are no "missing links". If evolution is correct then the vast majority of creatures and the fossils should be some "in between" sort of thing not a distinct species existing over long periods. I say this not to argue against evolution but to say that it seems more likely to me that mutation, not evolution, has been responsible for the variety we see. Once one begins to question science and see that it is not totally believable the result is much like when one begins to question religion and see problems.

 

If what religion tells us about God, heaven and the rest is true, then I conclude it is part of our Universe. The thing to do is figure out just how that environment and what is in it works. If it is true then the science of it must be consistent with the science of what we can see. I search for that.

[John Cuthber]

"Uniting science and religion is not a crazy idea to me. There is a saying: "you only know the songs you hear. Is this not true? ."

 

And the song you hear from religion is that the world is 6000 years old, microbiology doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't happen.

 

Eventually, when the evidence from science becomes overwhelming, religion grudgingly accepts the truth.

Yet it purports to have had the "revealed" truth from the start.

When religion claims to have truth and knowledge, it lies.

[Fred Champion]

"Uniting science and religion is not a crazy idea to me. There is a saying: "you only know the songs you hear. Is this not true? ."

 

And the song you hear from religion is that the world is 6000 years old, microbiology doesn't exist, and evolution doesn't happen.

 

Eventually, when the evidence from science becomes overwhelming, religion grudgingly accepts the truth.

Yet it purports to have had the "revealed" truth from the start.

When religion claims to have truth and knowledge, it lies.

Some on the fringe do count the "begats" and conclude the 6000 year story. Again, this is not mainstream and it is not taken in all religions. Don't know where you got the microbiology part. Evolution doesn't seem to be true, more likely mutation, but not continuous and slow evoultion as it is currently taught; if it were true the fossil record should show it, and it doesn't.

 

I will remind John Cuthber that you do have a religion. It is your philosophy for living, your approach to living. Do you really want to lump your philosophy for living in with all the other religions? I don't think so.

 

******

One thing I forgot to mention in my rather long post was that people have agendas. For example, socialism is based on the notion that we should overcome our human nature and share; everyone contribute what he can and take what he needs and we all take responsibility for the welfare of each other. It sounds good but, like all utopian ideas, we have seen that commune-ism doesn't work in the real world.

 

Religion, particularly the Jewish, Christian, Islamic ethic, demands personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Personal responsibility and accountability are anathema to socialists. They must drive religion out of society if they are to convince the public that one should not be "blamed" for actions that hurt others. They have to get rid of the idea of punishment and replace it with rehabilitation. Most religions do not accept the idea that "I'm OK, you're OK".

 

I encourage everyone to be aware that some use the discoveries of science, not to promote more science, but as a foil to denegrate religion and promote the socialist agenda. How politically uncorrect am I?

[John Cuthber]

You are basically making my point for me when you say

"Some on the fringe do count the "begats" and conclude the 6000 year story. Again, this is not mainstream and it is not taken in all religions."

It isn't mainstream now, but it was.

At that point the church was lying about being able to calculate the age of the universe by looking at an old book.

 

 

Lots of scientific discoveries ran into trouble with religion.

Since religion taught (but doesn't any more) that all the creatures on earth were for the benefit of mankind, the discovery of invisible life that man could not even see, never mind use was a problem.

The churches, initially refused to accept that they existed.

This was a particular problem with pathogens which struck people down with illness simply by chance rather than as divine retribution.

 

Then there's the view of the church that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

That overstayed its welcome to the detriment of many- the church finally apologized for lying about Galileo's ideas late in the 20th c.

 

And, re this

"I will remind John Cuthber that you do have a religion."

Nope, Atheism is not a religion any more than bald is a hair-colour or not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

[Iota]

Enough said.

[PeterJ]

It's no use Fred. This is not about rational arguments.

 

John - About scientific questions. Most important questions are not scientific. Or, this is the case if we say that metaphysics is not a science.

 

I like the Christopher Hitchens quote. It seems he thinks alchemy is proto-chemistry, and that he has an equally naïve view of all religion. No wonder he thinks it's nonsense.

Edited June 29, 2014 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

 

 

John - Most questions are not scientific, and all the important ones. Or, this is the case if we say that metaphysics is not a science.

OK, give me an example of a non scientific question (and that's the second time of asking, btw)

Edited June 29, 2014 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

How big is the universe? Did it begin with something or nothing? Is time fundamental? Is anything fundamental? Is there continuity after death? is Materialism true? Are we living in a dream? Is there a God? Why are all partial world-theories logically indefensible? What is the correct interpretation of QM? What is the origin of the laws of physics? The list goes on indefinitely.

[Ophiolite]

At that point the church was lying about being able to calculate the age of the universe by looking at an old book.

 

 

When religion claims to have truth and knowledge, it lies

 

I must take serious issue with you here John. Lying is the deliberate telling of an untruth, where the speaker or writer is fully aware that what they are saying is untrue. In general, if we set aside certain cynical elements in fundamentalists circles, the leaders and practitioners of religion sincerely believe what they are saying.

 

Asserting that these are lies is to fall victim to the same kind of dogma you rightly criticise. It diminishes the power of your argument and raises unwelcome questions about the objectivity of your motivation.

[Fred Champion]

One may be an atheist, but he/she still has a religion. One may deny the existence of deity, but one still lives his life with a philosophy for living. One may reject the idea of God or gods as popularly or traditionally defined or some obscure idea of deity, but one still approaches life with certain precepts. The way one lives his life shows his true religion. Theism may be a part of one's religion, or not, but if it is it is only one part of his religion.

 

I suggest that if you were to take the time to develop as completely as you can your thoughts on how you approach living and write it all down you would find surprisingly few differences between what you accept as a right way of living and what is prescribed by most major religions. The one big difference would likely be what you see as the authority for making the goals and rules you would establish.

 

I expect you would accept that you, and you yourself alone, are that authority. I agree with that idea. It is one of the basic tenets of all the major religions. You have the authority; you are the only authority; only you can make your choices. With authority comes responsibility. The responsibility for the consequences of your choices must be yours and yours alone.

[Essay]

...the leaders and practitioners of religion sincerely believe what they are saying.

 

...especially if they might also view "what they are saying" as referring to a context broader than, or not limited to, only the material world.

~

[dimreepr]

One may be an atheist, but he/she still has a religion. One may deny the existence of deity, but one still lives his life with a philosophy for living. One may reject the idea of God or gods as popularly or traditionally defined or some obscure idea of deity, but one still approaches life with certain precepts. The way one lives his life shows his true religion. Theism may be a part of one's religion, or not, but if it is it is only one part of his religion.

 

I suggest that if you were to take the time to develop as completely as you can your thoughts on how you approach living and write it all down you would find surprisingly few differences between what you accept as a right way of living and what is prescribed by most major religions. The one big difference would likely be what you see as the authority for making the goals and rules you would establish.

 

I expect you would accept that you, and you yourself alone, are that authority. I agree with that idea. It is one of the basic tenets of all the major religions. You have the authority; you are the only authority; only you can make your choices. With authority comes responsibility. The responsibility for the consequences of your choices must be yours and yours alone.

 

 

 

The definition of religion is quite clear and 36% of the world’s population (from a 2012 poll), including me, may take exception to your claim.

 

 

Nope, Atheism is not a religion any more than bald is a hair-colour or not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

 

[John Cuthber]

How big is the universe? Did it begin with something or nothing? Is time fundamental? Is anything fundamental? Is there continuity after death? is Materialism true? Are we living in a dream? Is there a God? Why are all partial world-theories logically indefensible? What is the correct interpretation of QM? What is the origin of the laws of physics? The list goes on indefinitely.

I see the problem here.

You think that such questions are not within the realm of science because you don't know what science does.

For example, we know that the observable universe is a sphere with a radius of about 4.6 billion light years.

We also know that it is impossible to know what is outside that - neither religion nor science can tell you.

It's useful to remember that, so far religion and science are equivalent- neither can answer the question.

 

However science can do provide a better answer than religion.

 

Through science , we know that it does not matter if the Universe is infinite or not.

For example, imagine that I'm painting my bedroom and by some weird mechanism, if the universe is finite I should paint it blue and if the universe is infinite I should paint it green- otherwise I will suddenly drop dead.

OK, I choose to paint it green.

If I live then we know that the Universe is infinite, otherwise we know that it's finite.

But we know that the answer is, even in principle, unknowable.

So there can't be any mechanism to set up the requirements of the colour scheme.

 

The important point is that it doesn't matter what the criteria are- it they depend on unknowable things like the size of the universe- then we know that they can't matter.

If they made a difference, that difference would be a means to establish the issue (in this case the size of the universe)

 

"Did it begin with something or nothing?"

Probably not.

Because whatever it began with must be sufficiently odd that we wouldn't be sure to class it as a something or a nothing.

It would depend on the meaning of the words.

So, for example, there's a current suggestion that the universe began as a collision between two hyperdimensional planes.

Does that count as a "something" or a "nothing"?

It depends on your choice of definitions of words.

There's not a problem with the science there- the issue is linguistic.

Pick a definition and you get an answer.

 

The same goes for the definition of fundamental so this

"Is time fundamental? Is anything fundamental?" is meaningless.

It's fair to say that philosophy might get you nearer to an answer- but even it will end up tied up in definitions.

What's clear is that religion won't get you anywhere with this issue.

 

"Is there continuity after death?"

The question isn't properly defined so nothing can hope to answer it.

Questions like " is January in bed" which are meaningless are unhelpful.

 

"Are we living in a dream?"

Not without a very odd definition of dream.

Of course dreams are subject to scientific study.

 

 

And so on

[Deepak Kapur]

Some more questions....

 

What is the cause of inertia?

How does matter curve space..

Why does light move at c...

When does quantum turn into classical and how...

What are space, time, mass,entropy...

Is arrow of time correct...

What is the difference between natural & supernatural...

Will questions ever end..

Should there be an aim of science, if so what....

 

 

Is/will there a/be a single answer to the above questions....

[John Cuthber]

Some more questions....

 

What is the cause of inertia?

How does matter curve space..

Why does light move at c...

When does quantum turn into classical and how...

What are space, time, mass,entropy...

Is arrow of time correct...

What is the difference between natural & supernatural...

Will questions ever end..

Should there be an aim of science, if so what....

 

 

Is/will there a/be a single answer to the above questions....

Why would there be a single answer?

That's silly.

It's like saying what's your mother's name, what's your father's name?

Is there a single answer to the above questions?

 

Anyway the origin of this discussion was someone saying

"Science is the search for the answers to scientific questions. If this is the only kind of question you want answered then you will make an excellent lab technician."

And the questions you have asked are subject to scientific inquiry.

(there's a difference between "science knows the answer" and "science studies this sort of thing").

Thus far, I can't see why they think that philosophers should make especially good lab technicians.

If anything, the cliche lab tech is someone who doesn't ask any questions, but does what they are told to do.

Setting aside the fact that it's an insulting and inaccurate cliche, surely it's a description more suited to those who are prepared to follow the teachings of a 2000 year old book without questioning it?

[Deepak Kapur]

Why would there be a single answer?

That's silly.

It's like saying what's your mother's name, what's your father's name?

Is there a single answer to the above questions?

 

Anyway the origin of this discussion was someone saying

"Science is the search for the answers to scientific questions. If this is the only kind of question you want answered then you will make an excellent lab technician."

And the questions you have asked are subject to scientific inquiry.

(there's a difference between "science knows the answer" and "science studies this sort of thing").

Thus far, I can't see why they think that philosophers should make especially good lab technicians.

If anything, the cliche lab tech is someone who doesn't ask any questions, but does what they are told to do.

Setting aside the fact that it's an insulting and inaccurate cliche, surely it's a description more suited to those who are prepared to follow the teachings of a 2000 year old book without questioning it?

U havn't got my point....i am surprised!!!

 

I meant that will there be non-conflicting answers to such questions?

 

If not, these questions should be called ambiguious questions at best,imo

Enough said.

....just as obscurity of religion ends, ambiguity of science begins............

 

Ambiguity of science is superior to obscurity of religion, though....as it has the scientific method behind it¿

[Nicholas Kang]

My point:

 

Science is objective, Religion is subjective.

Science is constant. Einstein`s Theory is universal. Christian, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikh and Hinduism are relative and varies among people.

Science explains. Religion tells.

Science shows. Religion speculates.

 

I do reject religion when I first fall in love with Science but soon I found out that I was wrong. Minor religion believe is a must for everyone and this is basic philosophy. I opt for Science but I couldn`t give up religion.

 

I tried to quit religion before.

 

I failed.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Delta1212]

It's no use Fred. This is not about rational arguments.

 

John - About scientific questions. Most important questions are not scientific. Or, this is the case if we say that metaphysics is not a science.

 

I like the Christopher Hitchens quote. It seems he thinks alchemy is proto-chemistry, and that he has an equally naïve view of all religion. No wonder he thinks it's nonsense.

Alchemy basically is proto-chemistry, though. A lot of the modern science of chemistry grew out of work that was done by alchemists. Granted, most of what they believed was nonsense, but when you play around with chemicals as much as they did, you do wind up discovering some things about how they work.