Science: The new religion

[Miao]

I love Science, it is the only thing I am really good at and the best way to aim for a little Change in this messed up world... still I miss the mystic taste of the all good days and all the things I used to believe that i dont anymore. Even more preocupiying Life is slowly loosing its poetry as the new modern world of technology and the really high demanding pace of this society takes me away from my roots and brainwashes gradually.

I am an agonistic towards everything related to the supernatural or divine and I am also very critical about science. However, the more I read and learn the less I rely on "religious faith" and the more I look forward towards the credibility of the "scientific Proof". I have to confess that I have never dedicated enough research and study to state anything in favor or against either of them but I still considered both a bit too edgy...

I read a nice debate about the subject in the book belief or non-belief? and lately I have been in touch with the writings of both philosopher existentialist Kierkegaard (writings of profound faith) the Great thinker Nietzsche in Humans all too humans and finally (lots of Skepticism) Carl Sagan stressing out the burden of proof in Broca's Brain...

I am very interested in the whole new science business and its uncertainties as the true knowledge that is changing our world and although I have already kind of conclued the whole issue to myself with a very different perspective I would like to hear what people who like to analyze these themes like you could add and recommend to a better understanding and judgment of this new "truthful sacred doctrine" that makes miracles on its own:
Science :goof:

Science is great!?
If it succeeds and the whole world becomes science literate it is going to save our planet, our resources, is going to enable us to go into space, cure all diseases, save people, make genetically "perfect individuals", and create an "utopian world". :brow: Sounds a lot like the paradise God promised once, with no diseases, healthy crops and animals, saintly people. The irony is the only thing that changes is the way it sounds; they have absolutely the same objective. Just a change of semantics and methods and we have lots of believers again. I guess it had to be understandable through experimentation, lots of brain power and a matter of chances. From my opinion although the principles and ethics of religion were good, i think they became a powerful weapon that only left our world in misery... the crusades, the crimes of the early church, the inquisition, the dark ages, Joan of Arch,and we had finally WWI, WWII, and i am sure there are lots more... :goof: I really dont want to find out how powerful of a weapon Science might be if its fully development was to land on the hands of a Second Hitler or a Nuclear Lunatic Bush...

I read Oryx and Crake, 1984 and brave new world...(awesome books) they are fiction but I think they have a potential vision... or am i just going a little crazy right now?? :confused:

Oh Ford... Oh Crakers... Oh brave new world!

The fool says in his heart “there is no God”
Psalm 14, 1-2

[Stanislaw]

People had their perfect world, however they committed the original sin, the tree in the centre of the garden of eden, and have remained cursed ever since. And how is it that whenever science is forwarded it is at the cost of many lives, and morality?

I am not a bible thumper, however science is not of God.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Stanislaw.... uh... no... just.... no.

It can be persuasively argued that God and Science not only co-exist, but lead to each other.

as for science being a religion, perhaps secular humanism would be a better term for this 'religion'... (thats the theology thats being taught in most classrooms today)

[seeker]

Stanislaw.... uh... no... just.... no.

It can be persuasively argued that God and Science not only co-exist, but lead to each other.

as for science being a religion, perhaps secular humanism would be a better term for this 'religion'... (thats the theology thats being taught in most classrooms today)


i couldnt have said it better

[Johnmc]

The problem with trusting in science is that it is based only on partial knowledge. As advanced as our society has become and the depth of knowledge that has been uncovered, discovered and attained is still only a miniscule fragment of the whole truth. Science has a great deal of value in that it strives to reveal the true nature of things, but too many scientists claim to know more than they really do, postulating theories based on partial and often disputable evidence. Evolution is a prime example. A theory that has become widely believed, which, when you examine the evidence, actually has little factual basis. Most of the evidence that claims to prove the evolutionary theory is based on geological evidence and molecular evidence that we have a highly limited understanding of. Despite the great strides in molecular science, genetics, and microbiology, we are eons from truly understanding how the simplest forms of life came into existence. And the geological evidence is so scarce I am amased at the arogance shown by some scientists who have reconstructed entire skeletons of these prehistoric animals from one or two fossilized bones. The dating methods are also full of assumption, did you know that a lava rock produce by Mount St Helens in 1980, tested in 2000 was reported to be between 100 and 200 thousand years old, when it was known to be only 20 years.
Science is a tool to be used and appreciated, but like all things human, it is falible. Science will give us a greater understanding of the nature of our existence, but in revealing the ultimate truths of the universe, I am afraid that all human endevors will alway fall short.

[Stanislaw]

Science, is a general term, and it uasually refers to those woh would contradict God. Many try to use science to disprove religions, if science was holy, why would God want to disprove himself?

[baddad]

Unlike the poor animal in the dream sequence in 'Crime and Punishment', I may have flogged this horse before, but it still keeps getting up......so without further ado...I shall strike again!

....I am assuming that the term 'religion', as it is being used in this thread refers to spirituality, an individual trait wholly disconnected from organized religion, organized religion being a creation by men supposing a superiority of knowledge above others, which I deny has any value other than inviting divisiveness between human beings.
I also assume, though I've accused man's headlong rush of acceptance these last 200 years as startlingly naive, that science has become less of a 'GOD' and more of a comfort allowing us to deny any involvement when/if things go wrong with said 'science'.

Do I have a point? Finally, yes. Religion is anthropogenic, and is not spirituality. Spirituality is wholesome, and a natural consequence of man's innate curiosity, as is science, science exemplifying man's innate need to expand his knowledge base. And as for science versus spirituality.....this knockdown bout shall never happen other than in intellectual/academic circles because the two have no common root, purpose, or end point. Science and spirituality run paralel, not counter-to each other.
Okay, I've just realized this is a soapbox I'm standing on, and not a dead horse.............

[seeker]

Science, is a general term, and it uasually refers to those woh would contradict God. Many try to use science to disprove religions, if science was holy, why would God want to disprove himself?

i am a Christian so ill try to put this in your terms:

science meerly the word used to describe God's creation.

as for trying to disprove religions, many myths have been disposed of due to science, but religion goes deeper than myths. if you fear science then that puts into quesiton the strength of Him who you call God.

if in your mind God and science cannot stand together then you display to others a weak God who is meerly a myth.


i wonder why we call it beating a horse... either way, they never seem to be beaten ino extinction. what a shame.

[Stanislaw]

I am not saying that God fears science, what I am saying is that science is infact a tool of great evil, or atleast has its roots in evil.
Yes science may be used to prolong life, but many use science to cling to life and allow themselves to indulge in Earthly pleasures for a longer period of time, an example of this would be viagra, and other such cosmetic products, their is no truly good cause fuling those creations.

[the mooring]

the science guides us to the really God ,because God who creates every thing he creates also "the science" , so science is just a slave for really God
especially in our age which full of inventions and new discoverments ,we will find that all these discoverments are mentioned in abook of the really God ,this book have been revealed and given to the uneducated prophet before 1425 years ,

the science and "the scientific miracles in the koran" will be great witnesses for the really God
regaaaaaaaaaaaaaards

[seeker]

just out of curiosity, are you a member of christian science group?

perhaps when science saves the life of a loved yours you will feel differently.

[Sakkarah]

Science is what will bring us either closer to God or to the Devil, just as religion has. And which ever way you choose to take, science or religion, it will bring you closer to self realization.

[Stanislaw]

Science, I believe was perhaps created by God, afterall he created everything. However it has been corrupted, like Satan.

Science, has saved many of my loved ones, and has murdered a great deal more, (aushwitz WWII)

[Sakkarah]

Cursed penicillin, cursed crop rotation, that which givith life also taketh away? Science is what's physical? Religion is an ideal. You can kill either by gun, or by hand. Its not what you use to kill its why you kill. The Nazis? mythological religion based hatred; NOT scientifically sound. Science will lead to immortality and unlimited knowledge limited only by the finite matter of space and matter through time and when we have no ability to kill or pretentious assurtion to base the justification of the elimination of another then all will be moral all will be just all will be Gods or Devils.
Forgive spelling errors, they do not matter.

[Stanislaw]

actually the nazis decided to systematically the jewish people, and others, based on Hitlers childhood, antisemitism ( very popular in europe) and a need to get rid of political enemies.

and Monkeys, are you calling us monkeys? :confused: , and like I said befor science is just used to prolong life in this world, prolong suffering and hate. not to mention the nazis used their victims for scientific research, bringing nazism into the debate is a moot point, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[s h i n y]

Science is a great blessing, it has advantiges and disadvantages,
and to enjoy the first, we must accept the second..

Science is one of the obvious evidences of the Unequalled Ability of God:

http://www.science4islam.com/pic/sci-e.jpg (http://www.science4islam.com/)
press this image...

[Riddick]

Thats neat, are you a follower of Islam? I believe that science is important to our society, it helps us understand new things, and provides an explenation for the bible. For example it is believed that volume will become non existance if an object is exposed to absolute zero, this could be a mechanism for the end of days, or for example evolution could explain how their were other people on earth when Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden.

I don't preach a specific religion, I try to embrace the beliefs of others, it results in less conflict, a growing problem in our culture, or any culture for that matter. Europeans, aswell as asians, americans, africans, and even people in the middle east are expieriencing more and more hatred each day, now i am not saying this is the fault of a specific group, that would only further the problem, I think we, as in all people, need to try to find common ground and get over our petty strife. For the most part we don't even really know what we are arguing about, chunk of earth, what colour people are, how many earthly goods we posses. I think if we let that go and treat our "enemies" like we would treat our brothers, we would get over this problem.

[mono]

Well said, Riddick.
Though I rarely wander in the 'Religion' forum, this one, regarding science and religion, caught my eye, being a full-fledge science geek and nursing student; besides that, being fairly spiritual (Unitarian Judaio/Christian-Buddhist-skeptic-philosophynerd). I once heard a quote (Einstein or Oppenheimer, perhaps): "Science studies how things are; religion studies how things should be."
Despite some ambiguity, depending on the reader's perspective, I think no one could have said the point better. True, biology, chemistry, physics, and anthropology have defied (not deified) a few aspects of religion, but I feel both can thrive in harmony, as concepts of faith vs. reason/empiricism can thrive in ONE living being, like me.
Just a note: I noticed a few people made reference to pharmacology, which, I know not if one could consider it a science (the same with "computer science" and "political science"). Pharmacology, as with politics and computers, people created, and does not categorize as a "study of how things are."
Best of luck, anyway. I wanted to submit my few cents (sense?).

[Stanislaw]

I still don't think that science has furthered our society, every major advancement has been due to military conflict, that is not very Godly.

[ajoe]

By now I'm too tired to argue about science vs. God. But I just gotta say it always cracks me up when people say science is their religion. If science is equal to religion, then that means science is just something to assure yourself about the world like religion is, if you know what I mean. ;)

Hey, I love science, but I'm just sick of people who worship science so much they put other people's gods down. (I'm not pointing any fingers here.)

[Jester]

I do agree somewhat with what Stanislaw says about science being bad but I guess with the bad we had to counteract it and in came the good, for instance we created agriculture which is considered either human's greatest mistake or greatest achievement depending on how you look at it. But with agriculture (the kind that requires cash cropping and no crop rotation) we brought in the bad - soil infertility, water pollution, loss of trees and what not and again its up to science to right that "wrong"... its the same with a lot of aspects.

Science is not a religion, and those who say that it is don't know what a religion is (worship of something or another is a very frank term). But science can go hand in hand the same with evalution, I know very religious people who say that Evalution did occur and Adam and Eve were simply the best known or most famous humans (some of the first) to emerge out of which ever homo came first... I think it was habilus but I'm too lazy to look it up.

But seriously this day and age we need science to right some of the things that we done wrong. We need a cure for cancer (we startes it by producing extreme radiation levels - that's not to say cancer did not exist before I don't know but stuff like planes and power plants produce a lot more) and we need away of providing our every human need, like the internet, computers, paper and pen (that was a science back in its day, do you know how complicated it is to make papyrus paper and they were doing that thousands of years ago)... Some science does strengthen beleifs and thats just up to the veiwers.

Sorry about the long post, and ranting... It's late and I was just talking about this ealier...

[Sakkarah]

Moot yes tr.v. mooted, mooting, moots

1.
1. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewcolumn.php?id=9

Religion
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Science
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

IF you think science perpetuates hate then you should study race, and the existence of racism in the US society over time. I would assume that racism and the actions associated with it have decreased while Knowledge has increased. Science is the continual progression of learning how God, and the world he created works. That is if you accept the premise of God. Satan deceive, how best to protect yourself from deception? God himself has eaten from the tree of knowledge he did so when he created us, God himself cannot resist temptation. And he knew we wouldn’t be able to either, but we are only cursed so long as the process needs to continue. We are gods child who burns his self on the hot stove, licks the electrical socket and forgets to drop the cadmium and boron control rods back into the core. Thus we eat from the tree of knowledge.

The primary problem with science is ignorance, the ignorance of those who do not acknowledge the implications of their actions; Leaders, as long as we rely on them for guidance we will make mistakes and cause suffering on others.

Trying to control others behaviors and beliefs, use of force authorized, no matter the altruistic intent will result in the perpetual human existence marred in strife.

And why do you hate existence so much? I suggest you read Schopenhauer's Sufferings of the World, or just think about this phrase, "We should feel wonder at nothing at all in Nature except only the Incarnation of Christ"
and i just needed a title, and that word always pops into my head, dont make too many assumptions and take them to heart its bad for you; unless you desire the abuse.

[Sakkarah]

Science is a great blessing, it has advantages and disadvantages,
and to enjoy the first, we must accept the second..

to accept the second we must negate mans ability to chose

[BSturdy]

Stanislav - Prof. my serious condolences. That Jews have and continue to be persecuted is a travesty. The zealous take up of Pauline Christianity has not done them any favours - blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus was St Paul's unfortunate choice, as he wanted to convert the Romans. In medieval times Jews were not allowed to join guilds or practice most trades, or even to live in most towns - of necessity they were forced into pawnbroking and finance. This has not helped their popularity.

Apparently Mohammed initially had great respect for the Jews and many of his revelations acknowledge a Judao-Christian basis. Then he got upset when they refused to follow his teachings.

The complete refusal of Muslims to question Islam is tragic and ironic in the context of the previous paragraph. On the other hand Islam is a young religion and to be fair the questioning process of Judao-Christianity has taken a very long time. Some of the things I have read on Islamic websites are beyond wild propaganda - that a rational person could believe some of these things is stupefying

I believe that the mind is a part of nature and God is (the first elements of the whole of) nature.....Science via our minds can surely only glimpse at nature

It has apparently been proven that a specific region of the brain is associated with religious experiences

[Stanislaw]

Perhaps science is only a tool, but I believe that it is reminisant of the tree of good and evil. Once eaten humanity will, and has been cast out of paradise again

[Sakkarah]

Alas my good friend drop that infernal device you use to communicate with this cursed language, this language which lacks true substance. Cast your eyes away from the monitor, it speaks only in linguistic riddles and has no substance as to the true meaning of existence. go, grip a cudgel, think not of the little minds who's sojourn in Babylon is dull and allows them to grow into a doddering age. Go into true substance which is ignorance of all but survival by instinct for that is the paradise you speak of.

[Jester]

If science is so bad.... why is being able to communicate with freinds that you haven't seen in six months and desperatly need their help at that moment and their so far away?

If science is so good... why then do we have weapons of mass destructions and wars that nothing in the past thousand years of our existence be compared to?

Just to confuse the matter more, plenty of examples of both advantages and disadvantages but remember by using a computer you are using an element of science, the same with a plow, a harness, a tent, and any other invention, it once was the science of the day and now is jsut commone knowledge.

'Every scientific truth goes through three stages. First people say it conflicts with the Bible. Next, they say it had been discovered before. Lastly, they say that they always believed it.'
-Louis Agassiz (paleontologist)

[Sakkarah]

I've grow very weary, mentally, at the constant useage of current political rhetoric, the term WMD and word regime in particular. WMD... is that like an asteroid that could destroy the world if the two celestial bodies collided?
Or fussion/ fission triggred nuclear reactions?
Nuclear bombs can be used in very usefulways, such as vaporizing rival countries.
And what is wrong with war, it decreases reduces the number of people on this already over populated earth and at times leads to scientific innovation.

[crisaor]

And what is wrong with war, it decreases reduces the number of people on this already over populated earth and at times leads to scientific innovation.
This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. I wonder how can you not see it? Or else, how you do not care? I'm guessing that if you were a victim, you'd feel differently.

[subterranean]

Or fussion/ fission triggred nuclear reactions?
Nuclear bombs can be used in very usefulways, such as vaporizing rival countries.
And what is wrong with war, it decreases reduces the number of people on this already over populated earth and at times leads to scientific innovation.

Wow, just what i need to 'wake up" my sleepy eyes.. :eek2: Too bad you didnt think twice before u posted that.Suppose u still live in the stone age era where killings mean survival.

[Sakkarah]

Thinking isn't dangerous, unless there are psychics out there, action is. I do live in a stone age and killing does mean survival. Nightly I have to cut a dead chicken with a knife. And if thinking is a continual process wouldn't I just think once, from birth to death.
Human existence is defined and made vibrant by all that we wish not to occur. Without fear, and hence without struggle, we grow fat and lethargic. Without the Spanish civil war I doubt Picasso would have been as great an artist and without the USSR we would not have made it into space as quick. The struggle of survival and thus the struggle between ideologies will always produce a product of better quality than a world at peace. That’s why I support Bush.

PS I use a ceramic knife.

[Stanislaw]

Are you refeering to making supper?

[Tabac]

....science is not of God.

Science = knowledge
Eden had the "tree of knowledge"
Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.

Indirectly, science is of God.

[mono]

Thinking isn't dangerous, unless there are psychics out there, action is. I do live in a stone age and killing does mean survival. Nightly I have to cut a dead chicken with a knife. And if thinking is a continual process wouldn't I just think once, from birth to death.
Human existence is defined and made vibrant by all that we wish not to occur. Without fear, and hence without struggle, we grow fat and lethargic. Without the Spanish civil war I doubt Picasso would have been as great an artist and without the USSR we would not have made it into space as quick. The struggle of survival and thus the struggle between ideologies will always produce a product of better quality than a world at peace. That’s why I support Bush.

PS I use a ceramic knife.

Sakkarah, use caution with what you say. The website administrator has banned all talk of politics, and may close this thread if needed.

[crisaor]

I've never seen a more valid reason to do so than this one.
Justify nuclear bombing with killing a chicken, WTF???????
This is just wrong.

[subterranean]

I suppose she/he was just tyring to be noticed, getting a little bit attention..:rolleyes:
I'm not trying to be rude here Sakkarah, but get some help.
There's no justification, not even a single one, to all those words u posted

[Sakkarah]

You say there is no justification of the statement but rather you atack my, interpreted, personality Than provide proof that there is no justification. I directed your attention to the contribution of science to society (in the past). And sorry for making a joke about the present.

[Stanislaw]

"science is not of God.

Science = knowledge
Eden had the "tree of knowledge"
Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.

Indirectly, science is of God." - Tabac
But that statement sais that science is forbidden, and indirectly advertised by evil, God created evil, it doesn't make evil good... now does it?

And that was some joke... I don't see how you can not see the fundemental problems in killing millions of people. If you need proof, please refeer to holocaust survivors, family members of holocaust victims( my self). Or talk to japanese people who have live through the bombings. Or British surviving the battle of britain, or germans surviving the bombings in their cities. Or, another example the Ukrainians in former ussr under stalins regime.

[Sakkarah]

Only the last sentence was a joke, and that may be attributed to current politics is why I was apologizing. The rest is far from a joke.

Multiply Negative 5 by Negative 5
-5 x (-5)
What does it equal?
The World without ill would make the world ill
You without me (For now at least) would result in your boredom.
Our continued discourse demonstrates that people desire conflict.
And at worst agreement. For you do not want to agree with me and I wish not ever to agree. Because as you may concur the Nazis were most agreeable people, among each other.
Your current involvement in this discussion shows you're of a scientific mind. Regardless of your religious affinities partaking in a discussion regarding any topic puts you in collusion with all those you assume as being "atheists" and of a scientific disposition.

[subterranean]

Only the last sentence was a joke, and that may be attributed to current politics is why I was apologizing. The rest is far from a joke.

Multiply Negative 5 by Negative 5
-5 x (-5)
What does it equal?
The World without ill would make the world ill
You without me (For now at least) would result in your boredom..

I'm without YOU would result in my boredom? suppose this YOU is someone who thinks that kiling means surviving, that without the Spanish civil war Picasso would never have been as great an artist, or without the USSR the world would not have made it into space as quickly as now.

Oh, i surely would choose to experience the boredom than to live with such person.. :rolleyes:

[Stanislaw]

Indeed, I have no choice but to argue "with a scientific" mind, it is how I have been raised, and how I have been affected by popular propoganda.
And a world without conflict would presumably be a boring one, a productive, happy peacefull one... but boring. If people were raised in a peaceful world, they would not consider it boring, it would be the norm. (now I am starting to sound like polpot :rolleyes: ) If society were to return to a rural based society, with people focusing mainly on producing food, and surviving, the world would be a better place. Now I am not condoning totalitarianism, I am pointing out that people would not be bored, because they would be working, and they would be productive. Now such a system would need a just and fair leader, partil monarchy, perhaps elected. Personally I like the government system of ancient China. The government officials neede to pass a series of test befor they came to office, and they governed with the Emperor.

Perhaps there is benificial science in todays world, but it seems that we are discussing weapon technologies and mass genocidal conflict here... not very usefull or important science... the science of death
http://vigrid.clarence.com/archive/images/Corpi%20Ammassati%20Auschwitz.JPG
http://www.herodote.net/Images/Auschwitz.jpg

[subterranean]

with all these discussions that have been going on..it's interesting to see that Miao, the tread starter, hasn't give any comments at all. And he just leave, with 1 post, and never returned, and also inherit us all with an interesting thread..

[crisaor]

This is ridiculous. Blabbing nonsense does not qualify as science, and that term rarely defines a discussion on any given topic.
Boredom, I salute you. :rolleyes:

[subterranean]

Crisaor I don't get your point there..which part did u consider ridiculous and nonsense..?

:(

[mono]

What a depressing turn this thread has taken - from science and religion to politics and genocide! True, some science, such as applied physics, has led to the formation of atomic bombs (admittedly unintended by Einstein), but I feel science has done more good than harm, such as the many uses of biology, chemistry, and psychology in the medical field, or applications of ecology to the environment. Religion, too, does more good than harm, I feel, but mixing it with politics often proves . . . well, a conflict of interest - enough said, especially since the topic of politics is banned.

[Sakkarah]

Since baboons have a social hierarchy but lack the intelligence for belief, and humans require the appearance of superiority and intellectual justification, though on the decline, for our leaders to maintain power, religion was created. So Religion is the scion of politics created to justify leadership. And since we are for the most part an inquisitive group, Science Was created to validate our belief/Religion.

[Stanislaw]

Relegion was not "created", by leaders so that they could maintain power. It was not actually invented- "you know what I am going to invent today mary" "what bob", "Religion, that way, our leaders will be able to controll us in a more efficient manner".

Leaders have in the past used religion to solidify their position, and it has even been the source of great conflict. but religion was not thought up and dreamt by man. If you are a practising muslim, then you are infact spouting herasy, if you are not a practicing muslim, then why have you adopted the title of faith, when you are secular. God, or Alah, or Creator, what ever you want to call him, created religion, for the people. So that they might live by his laws and do his will on earth.

[crisaor]

Crisaor I don't get your point there..which part did u consider ridiculous and nonsense..? :(
Sakkarah's posts.

[the mooring]

i am still thinking that the science comes as agreat leader to the right religion because our God "The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful "" will not leave the people in puzzlement and in hesitancy without any evidences or sings of the right religion that He wants people to follow it ....

so there is no conflict between the science and the right religion....
regaaaaaards :wave: :wave:

[Sakkarah]

I agree with mooring

But maintain my position
"The Sumerians also developed pseudo-science like astrology, within the context of religion. The believed that the stars on the sky were gods that controlled the events in the world, and that the position between these gods could be used to predict events in the world, as well as the fortune for individuals." http://i-cias.com/e.o/sumer.htm

[subterranean]

..........so there is no conflict between the science and the right religion...:

the right religion...hmm i wonder what that is :rolleyes:

[Sakkarah]

Im sure its different than all other religions. Unlike christianity, duh duh ch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian#Religion

[mono]

Sakarrah, somewhere exists a forgotten virtue called 'reverence,' which incorporates itself in, among other things, religion. Look it up in the dictionary, and try to at least act slightly enlightened. The "right" religion to me does not exist, but I believe all religions contain their elements of truth, for "the human perception of truth is subjective" (Immanuel Kant).
Science, I feel, also establishes itself on truth, but also empiricism, which seems why everyone labels most sciences as materialistic, but objective.

[subterranean]

Im sure its different than all other religions. Unlike christianity, duh duh ch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian#Religion

You should learn the meaning of rolleyes..

[Scheherazade]

so there is no conflict between the science and the right religion....


If there were no conflict between religion and science, then there have never been any persecuted scientists by religion and vice versa...

[Stanislaw]

well put, Scheherazade.

forgotten virtue called 'reverence,' , another excellent point...

About he perfect or right religion. I believe it is a blend of the religions. For example, most religions share similar beliefs and have common grounds, good/evil a main creator and his followers. If people cooperated perhaps we would be enlightened. Instead of carrying on the ol' religiouse persecution and holy war ideals. Those aren't from God, those are a corruption of faith.

Lets all try to get along. I remember the last guy that said that... he got nailed to a tree. ( a loose paraphrase of the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy
)

[Scheherazade]

Lets all try to get along.

Yes, let's...

Religion is nothing but a way we strive to justify and explain our existence in this world. Why does it matter which reason we favour? The undeniable fact is that we are all here. Let's play nicely and get along. :nod:

[subterranean]

If there were no conflict between religion and science, then there have never been any persecuted scientists by religion and vice versa...


this is a matter of men's interpretation of the teachings..since the killing of socrates..it also involve enviness of religious leaders..fear of loosing authority and the privilages of being the sole and major source in determining what is right and what is wrong

[the mooring]

I agree with mooring

But maintain my position
"The Sumerians also developed pseudo-science like astrology, within the context of religion. The believed that the stars on the sky were gods that controlled the events in the world, and that the position between these gods could be used to predict events in the world, as well as the fortune for individuals." http://i-cias.com/e.o/sumer.htm



Ithink it is not alogical beleive that this large univesre hase more than one really God...
image that there is acountry .....avery small country has two presidents what the condition of this small country will be??
ofcourse there would be many problemes between the two presidents ...the first one wants the the vacation in Sunday :nod: and the second wants it in Saturday . :cool: ...or both of them would fight each other :argue: because each one of them want to be more powerfull than the another .....and image how people would suffer from this bad conditions.... :(

the same thing would happen if the world had two Gods or more ....
the first wants the coulor of the water black :eek: ...the second wants it red . :goof: ...
have any one of you wake up in the morning and find that the sun turns to moon!! or he sees aflying people and walking birds go to bank because the second god get bored from the usual condition ???? :crash:
ofcourse we dont see such conditions because the really God is the only one who controls the whol univurse so that we dont see any contradiction in the system of the world....

greetings... :wave:
sorry for my poor english :)



ofcourse

[the mooring]

the right religion...hmm i wonder what that is :rolleyes:


ask the sun , the moon , the birds,and the animales in the forests
who is the really God that saves them ,teaches them and creates them ???

ask your heart your eyes your hands your lungs and your kidney
who orders them to work and make us alive even when we are sleeping ???

ask all things around you ...beleive me their respons will be more eloquent than my speech ...

regaaaaaaaaaards :wave: :wave: :wave:

[the mooring]

If there were no conflict between religion and science, then there have never been any persecuted scientists by religion and vice versa...



yes ther is no any conflict between the right religion and the science

i saw one day in T.V many american scientists who converted to Islam because they found in Quraan many scientific facts that themeselves ignore them ,and this means that Quraan came from The really God who knows every thing in the past ,the present, and the future

so that i am sure that science leads us to the right religion
regaaaaaaaaards :wave: :wave: :wave:

[Stanislaw]

Now we are getting into dicey territory, claiming that one religion is the "right religion". Lets not go there, the reason people practice their religion is because they believe their's to be the right religion. For example, I am catholic, so I believe my religion is the corect one, mooring appears to be muslim, so he believes that his religion is the proper religion... this is how the 'holy' wars came about. narrowminded people started putting labels on their religion, which religion was superior.
I don't think this is what God or Allah intended, my friend. I think he means for us to get along in harmony, once we coopperate then god/Allah will tell us which religion is the proper religion, (it may not even be one existing yet). I have seen enough violence over religion and religiouse debates, lets put the past behind us, and accept that neither one of us will change the others opinion.

I don't submit to your belief, I just offer a peaceful resolution.

[Riddick]

Now we are getting into dicey territory, claiming that one religion is the "right religion". Lets not go there, the reason people practice their religion is because they believe their's to be the right religion. For example, I am catholic, so I believe my religion is the corect one, mooring appears to be muslim, so he believes that his religion is the proper religion... this is how the 'holy' wars came about. narrowminded people started putting labels on their religion, which religion was superior.
I don't think this is what God or Allah intended, my friend. I think he means for us to get along in harmony, once we coopperate then god/Allah will tell us which religion is the proper religion, (it may not even be one existing yet). I have seen enough violence over religion and religiouse debates, lets put the past behind us, and accept that neither one of us will change the others opinion.

I don't submit to your belief, I just offer a peaceful resolution.

I think you are getting a bit offensive Stan, cool it down, the guy has a point.

[subterranean]

I dont see Stan being offensive there in his post..

[Stanislaw]

um yeah, I really didn't mean to be offensive.

[Stanislaw]

on a completely different topic, how come I am usually the last to post in a thread?

[seeker]

haha topic killer!

[subterranean]

Stan, people just wondering what should they post as a reply of your (mostly)interesting comments ..:D

[Stanislaw]

Ah, I like SubT's response... must be my vast intellect... :lol:

[blackhawk20]

Ok I have a question. Does any body here think science is becoming like religion is? what this means is, is science becoming a thing that u have to believe in because u can't see it? For example scientist are trying to solve the universe and they already think they know what its all about even though they have never been there. they see it but thats all they do. they can create tests of what they think they are seeing, but still if you have never been how can u assume what happing.


I know I know scientist or astronomers have the telescope. it really isn't that big of a deal because what they are really is spying on the universe.

That actually reminds of a old movie where a guy is stuck at home, in a wheel chair and he is spying on his neighbors. If u really think about it thats all science through astronomy is. complete and utter speculation. but the problem they don't leave the door open for other possiblities especially they impossible. and thats all i got to say about that. :lol: :lol: :lol: :brow: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[baddad]

I'm not sure that science is based on faith. A hypothesis must be able to be tested (true science dictates that a theory must be able to be proved wrong through experimentation) In other words, if there is no way to test a theory, it is not science. While I don't acccept all 'science' as infallible, generally speaking most accepted theory is proveable through mathematics, experimentation, measurement, etc....

Welcome to the forum Blackhawk, and thanks for the dancing bananas.......the world never has enough of those.......

[subterranean]

Yes, agree with you there baddad,

Science = rational
religion = irational

I mean if you embrace a particular religion, then actually you're being irrational. Of course, I'm not saying that it's a bad thing ;).



I'm not sure that science is based on faith. A hypothesis must be able to be tested (true science dictates that a theory must be able to be proved wrong through experimentation) In other words, if there is no way to test a theory, it is not science. While I don't acccept all 'science' as infallible, generally speaking most accepted theory is proveable through mathematics, experimentation, measurement, etc....
.....

[byquist]

An individual once wrote this: "Jesus was the most scientific man who ever trod the globe. He plunged beneath the material surface of things and found the spiritual cause." Who is this individual author?

[Miao]

is religion neccessary irrational?
is it irrational to love other as you love yourself, or to help the poor, or choose no violence, to embrace life with arms wide open, to have faith in ones future. Is it irrational to try to... nevermind that is not religion. the Definition of religion as the oxford dictionary gives it is the service and worship of god or the supenatural and devotion to a religious faith... well i guess the definition is pretty outspoken itself. But how does science differ from this, is the fact that a primate with an extraordinary brain can argument through what he call logic any more real, or truth that the believe in a god. How does energy differ from the holy spirit, both created by an animals mind both trying to explain something that can not be understood, and I have to admit although Science is takes a more delicate approach to it nevertheless it is no more truth or reliable than the concept of a holy spirit. The empirical method claims it can be tested, it gave it a name "energy" it claimed its differences with some more classifcations "thermal energy, chemichal energy, potential energy, kinetic energy..." and so on, but in a couple of thousands of years in a post scientific era (Only if Bush or any body else does not destroy the world in the next couple of decades) Science is going to be seen as we see Greek mythology nowadays.

Again from where i am standing I have to say that science has been a trascendence from religion but he/she who says that it is more truth or less truth just because it can be logically argued, empircally proved, tested or probabilistacally expected by our human rationale... is just giving an argument of why we should take facts and more facts into our mind proccessing. however in the same way, religions got to convince all their believers through experiences, demonstrations and acts of faith that their teachings were the most truthfull, nevertheless it satisfies only their rationale in a more persuaisive approach... the pattern i am triying to make is that both satisfy a desire for explanation that is good enough to take in as reliable. but is it truth really?

I wounder if a being from other distant galaxy (lets pretend it is a non biological individual from a more evolved civilazation) came to earth and we would try to explain him this new religion call science...

[baddad]

Science= hard data that is available to any who wish to repeat the experiment that produced it.

Religion= data only available through faith, hope, superstition.

Anyone here see the difference?

Now, if an individual wishes to have faith, hope, or a comforting superstition to explain their own existence, or as a comfort to the travails of human life, so be it, and no disrespect to their approach to life.

But to claim that religious belief and science share the same validity... is to live a life adorned with cataractic blinders filtering reality.

Labeling something as valid to reality does not make it so. Labeling a 'coffee cup' a 'tree' does not make the cup a tree. Religious belief carries no shade of fact. Religion is pure faith.........nothing more. And this is as it should be. I am a spiritual being myself, but I'll not deny my intellect by confusing faith with facts. In fact, there is no reason to confuse the two, IMHO. Why would anyone want to? If I choose to live my life with a little 'faith' that helps me through the day, through the rough patches of life, great!! But I will not delude myself into thinking that my existence is entirely dependent upon a Diety created by man's mind millenia ago to soften a short and brutal existence. There is no such thing as magic...........but we may kid ourselves that magic exists if we wish to belay some of the weight of life......so be it...

[Tabac]

My great-nephew was introduced in school not long ago to the differences between evolution/big-bang theory and creationism. The teacher carefully explained that the one is more scientific in nature and proof while the second is largely based on the Bible. The students were asked to think about the differences overnight and return with a short paragraph explaining how they felt. He wrote:

"It is the job of science to determine how the world was formed; it is the job of religion to determine why."

He even punctuated it correctly!

[baddad]

It may be the job of religion to establish 'why' the world was formed, yet the answer is only valued for those seeking something more than simple existence. It seems inherent in the homosapien to always seek 'more'...and this sense of exporation seems to encompass a search for hard data as well as a metaphysical hunt for something more than concrete existence...

It may be inherently natural to search for more, but when the metaphysical search ends fruitlessly it is also possible (probable if experience with people counts for anything) that it is inherent in humans to craftily 'invent' solutions that satisfy their quest.

[Pendragon]

I made the case for science being a religion on another thread and got buckshot flying over it! But I'll stand by what I said. People accept what they read in scientific journals as "truth" without question. One atheist posted that he only believed in what he could see, feel, etc. Threrefore, I assume he doesn't believe in say, quarks, although science tells us they exist. It does come down sooner or later to a matter of having to accept something on faith alone, be it religious or scientific. I have no problem with physics telling me that because molecues are in constant motion there is theoretically enough space for my hand to pass though a solid object without damage to the object or to my hand. But my mind won't believe it. It was like when I was learning to break concrete blocks. The sensi (excuse the spelling, I'm deslexic) asked if I could do it with a hammer. Of course, I said sure. He then said that the power lay not in the hammer but in my arm. The difference was in my mind, to get rid of it. It worked! Perhaps the differences we are fussing about exist only in our minds? :idea:

[tiny explorer]

Nothing comes in my mind than.....Science is a good thing where people find some rational answers and proofs to feed the queries on human minds but I don't think it to be religion..nope!I'll try to support this when I get back I just have to go.Thanks!