Forums > Social Discussion > Religion and Science......
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
newbie
5 posts
Location: Western Cape, South Africa
newbie
5 posts
Location: Western Cape, South Africa
Posted:
This is a topic i regularly get to debate about with fellow students. Why do Science rarely make any mention of a higher power ie. God, Allah, or any deity for that matter when looking at things like Evolution?
Here's my opinion:
'If we have to bring religion into science and make a statement, say from a christian point of view that 'Because there is a God, the evolution theory is totally wrong', then other religions will begin to interpret sicence according to their own views and beliefs.
The only reason why science doesn't make any mention about religion, is so that we can all have a unified view on say evolution, or laws of motion ect'
Now, what do you believe? What's your opinion?
This is a topic i regularly get to debate about with fellow students. Why do Science rarely make any mention of a higher power ie. God, Allah, or any deity for that matter when looking at things like Evolution?
Here's my opinion:
'If we have to bring religion into science and make a statement, say from a christian point of view that 'Because there is a God, the evolution theory is totally wrong', then other religions will begin to interpret sicence according to their own views and beliefs.
The only reason why science doesn't make any mention about religion, is so that we can all have a unified view on say evolution, or laws of motion ect'
Now, what do you believe? What's your opinion?
we are all one...as we are part of space, space is also part of us.
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
typographical error
only some catholics thinks being gay is a sin
there all reading from the same book though
typographical error
only some catholics thinks being gay is a sin
there all reading from the same book though
Love is the law.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
no, the proof consists in an argument, composed of self-evident steps progressing from a self-evident (or thoroughly evidenced, etc.) premiss
it's not just a matter of shared beliefs
no, the proof consists in an argument, composed of self-evident steps progressing from a self-evident (or thoroughly evidenced, etc.) premiss
it's not just a matter of shared beliefs
ture na sig
member
28 posts
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta
28 posts
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta
Posted:
Oh! That's so wonderfully said!
I see this whole religion vs. science -thing this way:
Religion doesn't prove anything.
Science doesn't prove everything.
Religion can be right too in some things.
Science can be wrong too in some things.
Written by: ado-p
Religion proves things right and wrong.
Science proves things true and false.
Oh! That's so wonderfully said!
I see this whole religion vs. science -thing this way:
Religion doesn't prove anything.
Science doesn't prove everything.
Religion can be right too in some things.
Science can be wrong too in some things.
Padawan
197 posts
Location: Bolton
197 posts
Location: Bolton
Posted:
I think there's a bit more to it than yes and no. Religion and science shouldn't be kept apart form each other, as that would just be denying facts in some cases and belief/faith in others. Then again, it isn't possible to incorporate them both into some situations.
There's no way we're ever going to know everything there is to know about this universe so i think it's best to keep an open mind about things. I think it's fairly ignorant to deny the existence of something just cos you can't prove it exists, though it's also ignorant to think that the world just popped into existence when someone snapped his fingers and not be willing to accept any other possibilities.
I think there's a bit more to it than yes and no. Religion and science shouldn't be kept apart form each other, as that would just be denying facts in some cases and belief/faith in others. Then again, it isn't possible to incorporate them both into some situations.
There's no way we're ever going to know everything there is to know about this universe so i think it's best to keep an open mind about things. I think it's fairly ignorant to deny the existence of something just cos you can't prove it exists, though it's also ignorant to think that the world just popped into existence when someone snapped his fingers and not be willing to accept any other possibilities.
Damn the addictiveness of forums! (Or should it be addictivity?)
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
But I think it's more imprtant to remember that Science is probably right and that Religion is probably wrong.
Written by: SeleniaWritten by: ado-p
Religion proves things right and wrong.
Science proves things true and false.
Oh! That's so wonderfully said!
I see this whole religion vs. science -thing this way:
Religion doesn't prove anything.
Science doesn't prove everything.
Religion can be right too in some things.
Science can be wrong too in some things.
But I think it's more imprtant to remember that Science is probably right and that Religion is probably wrong.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
....is a liability
899 posts
Location: playing with traffic
899 posts
Location: playing with traffic
Posted:
Here's my pennies worth:
Definition of religion: (theoretical = unproven)
A set of strong and shared beliefs founded around a parapsychological framework that there is a higher entity(s) involved in the creation, development and ultimately the destruction of humankind. The first key point is "shared", as I think religion is more to do with the spirit of people as it gives them common ground to build pre-conditioned (set by each religion) relationships on.
Definition of science: (fact = event which can be proven by means of controlled experimentation which can be repeated, producing the same results)
A framework of facts to explain or disprove theories (see above) and bring a better understanding of life, the universe and everything.
Religion relies on theoretical ideals whereas Science starts with theories and only acknowledges them as fact when they are proven or disproven.
As it is impossible to prove/disprove the theories of religion, they cannot be firmly associated with science.
BUT, if you take my statement that religion is the spirit of the people, you can say that it IS then scientific (if proven) because it will come under the conformity umbrella of psychology (that then opens a new can of worms of is psychology a science?)
I think I've just proper confused myself!!
Either way, each to their own. Without science, we wouldn't have KY jelly and handcuffs....give me a test tube and bunson burner over mass anyday
Here's my pennies worth:
Definition of religion: (theoretical = unproven)
A set of strong and shared beliefs founded around a parapsychological framework that there is a higher entity(s) involved in the creation, development and ultimately the destruction of humankind. The first key point is "shared", as I think religion is more to do with the spirit of people as it gives them common ground to build pre-conditioned (set by each religion) relationships on.
Definition of science: (fact = event which can be proven by means of controlled experimentation which can be repeated, producing the same results)
A framework of facts to explain or disprove theories (see above) and bring a better understanding of life, the universe and everything.
Religion relies on theoretical ideals whereas Science starts with theories and only acknowledges them as fact when they are proven or disproven.
As it is impossible to prove/disprove the theories of religion, they cannot be firmly associated with science.
BUT, if you take my statement that religion is the spirit of the people, you can say that it IS then scientific (if proven) because it will come under the conformity umbrella of psychology (that then opens a new can of worms of is psychology a science?)
I think I've just proper confused myself!!
Either way, each to their own. Without science, we wouldn't have KY jelly and handcuffs....give me a test tube and bunson burner over mass anyday
Pull my pin out, roll me in to a room and see what happens 
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Nuggit, by your definition you are limiting yourself, Buddhists for instance wouldnt be a religion under that definition... but this another argument altogether
You miss the point quiet. One deals with perceived reality and one deals with Ultimate Reality. Your referring, I believe, to those scriptures which overlap with sciences claims, which I am perfectly happy letting go of because they are not the heart of religious claims. Religious claims ARE experiencable through practice. Using Nuggits little definition above, religion is a science, because if you do the same thing (perhaps tweaked a bit for your own personality) you will reach a level of confirmatory experience.
Im not really religious, but Im spiritual, so when I say "religion" Im usually really speaking of spirituality, which is completely seperate from doctrine...
Nuggit, by your definition you are limiting yourself, Buddhists for instance wouldnt be a religion under that definition... but this another argument altogether
You miss the point quiet. One deals with perceived reality and one deals with Ultimate Reality. Your referring, I believe, to those scriptures which overlap with sciences claims, which I am perfectly happy letting go of because they are not the heart of religious claims. Religious claims ARE experiencable through practice. Using Nuggits little definition above, religion is a science, because if you do the same thing (perhaps tweaked a bit for your own personality) you will reach a level of confirmatory experience.
Im not really religious, but Im spiritual, so when I say "religion" Im usually really speaking of spirituality, which is completely seperate from doctrine...
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
buddism really isn't a religion, despite what people generally think. It is really a philospohy, and there is nothing keeping someone who practices buddism from being christian or jewish or whatever else.
buddism really isn't a religion, despite what people generally think. It is really a philospohy, and there is nothing keeping someone who practices buddism from being christian or jewish or whatever else.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'Religious claims ARE experiencable through practice.'
can you give me an example?
'Religious claims ARE experiencable through practice.'
can you give me an example?
ture na sig
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
furthermore: science doesn't deal with 'perceived reality', it deals with reality. do you want a capital letter on that?
you still haven't explained the difference between 'reality' and 'Ultimate Reality'. I suspect this distinction is either meaningless or false.
furthermore: science doesn't deal with 'perceived reality', it deals with reality. do you want a capital letter on that?
you still haven't explained the difference between 'reality' and 'Ultimate Reality'. I suspect this distinction is either meaningless or false.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
I can
The ten commandments
Dont steal
Dont kill people
Dont bed the missus next door.
etc
Living like this makes you a happier bunny and in turn improves the quality of your life and those around you.
This would probably make it easier to have a chat with the ticket man at the pearly gates. If your a pearly gates kind of person.
Interestingly enough. The buddists have very, very simliar rules/guides/commanments or whatever you want to call them. I think the first five are identical. Cept they have something like 130
thats just for monks though.
I can
The ten commandments
Dont steal
Dont kill people
Dont bed the missus next door.
etc
Living like this makes you a happier bunny and in turn improves the quality of your life and those around you.
This would probably make it easier to have a chat with the ticket man at the pearly gates. If your a pearly gates kind of person.
Interestingly enough. The buddists have very, very simliar rules/guides/commanments or whatever you want to call them. I think the first five are identical. Cept they have something like 130
thats just for monks though. Love is the law.
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I have to sort of disagree with you here. Science deals with modelling an "Ultimate Reality" but makes no claims as to what that "Ultimate Reality" is. Of course you could claim that a model that predicts everything in the Universe perfectly might as well be Real as it makes no difference even if it isn't...
Written by: quiet
furthermore: science doesn't deal with 'perceived reality', it deals with reality. do you want a capital letter on that?
you still haven't explained the difference between 'reality' and 'Ultimate Reality'. I suspect this distinction is either meaningless or false.
I have to sort of disagree with you here. Science deals with modelling an "Ultimate Reality" but makes no claims as to what that "Ultimate Reality" is. Of course you could claim that a model that predicts everything in the Universe perfectly might as well be Real as it makes no difference even if it isn't...
"Moo," said the happy cow.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'Religious claims ARE experiencable through practice.'
Ado-p: you think that 'don't kill' is 'experiencable through practice'?
If what you're saying is 'not stealing improves your quality of life', then I can understand that you can test it by putting it in to practice. But then that's not particularly religious: that's just a matter of good advice. What I'm looking for is an example of a specifically *religious* claim which can be tested through experience.
Spiralx: you haven't addressed my problem: i.e. what does 'Ultimate Reality' mean that 'reality' doesn't?
'Religious claims ARE experiencable through practice.'
Ado-p: you think that 'don't kill' is 'experiencable through practice'?
If what you're saying is 'not stealing improves your quality of life', then I can understand that you can test it by putting it in to practice. But then that's not particularly religious: that's just a matter of good advice. What I'm looking for is an example of a specifically *religious* claim which can be tested through experience.
Spiralx: you haven't addressed my problem: i.e. what does 'Ultimate Reality' mean that 'reality' doesn't?
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
why isnt it religious
its a commandment...
just because there are parrelells doesnt make it any less a part of the religion.
isnt that the point of this thread.... integration?
why isnt it religious
its a commandment...
just because there are parrelells doesnt make it any less a part of the religion.
isnt that the point of this thread.... integration?
Love is the law.
....is a liability
899 posts
Location: playing with traffic
899 posts
Location: playing with traffic
Posted:
Stab in the dark on this one Quiet.
Reality = perception (take a shizophrinic suffering delusions for example; to that person he/she may well be living in a horror movie where everyone is out to get them so it is their reality).
Ultimate reality = Actual reality. Which is reality existing in it's own right without any interpretation - take the colour Red, I interpret it as red for heat, danger and passion but if I didn't exist, the colour red still would, just without my interpretation.
But this is only my perception (this could go on forever!!)
Complete guess really - I just wanted to have a pop at intelligence (and impress the girls)
Written by: quiet
Spiralx: you haven't addressed my problem: i.e. what does 'Ultimate Reality' mean that 'reality' doesn't?
Stab in the dark on this one Quiet.
Reality = perception (take a shizophrinic suffering delusions for example; to that person he/she may well be living in a horror movie where everyone is out to get them so it is their reality).
Ultimate reality = Actual reality. Which is reality existing in it's own right without any interpretation - take the colour Red, I interpret it as red for heat, danger and passion but if I didn't exist, the colour red still would, just without my interpretation.
But this is only my perception (this could go on forever!!)
Complete guess really - I just wanted to have a pop at intelligence (and impress the girls)
Pull my pin out, roll me in to a room and see what happens
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
i'm saying that there's nothing peculiarly _religious_ about a commandment 'do not kill'
for instance, i could - without any religious framework - tell you not to steal, and you could put that command through the tribunal of your own experience, and thereby confirm that it's a good piece of advice
but what i'm asking for is some *specifically religious* claim, such as 'there is a god'. . .
again: i'm not saying it isn't a part of the religion, i'm saying that it could also be issued outside of any religion; hence the bit that is being tested isn't specifically religious. what i'm interested in is the notion that you can 'test' religion through your experience. I don't think you can.
Let me make this clearer. All of the 'commandments' - like 'do not steal' - may well be the kinds of things that you can test by your own experience. But once you've tested all of them, you haven't gained confirmation for your *religious* beliefs, but rather you've gained confirmation that those commandments are good pieces of advice. I'm doubtful that testing can confirm religion (as opposed to science), and so I think that there's a difference. I'm open to counterexamples.
i'm saying that there's nothing peculiarly _religious_ about a commandment 'do not kill'
for instance, i could - without any religious framework - tell you not to steal, and you could put that command through the tribunal of your own experience, and thereby confirm that it's a good piece of advice
but what i'm asking for is some *specifically religious* claim, such as 'there is a god'. . .
again: i'm not saying it isn't a part of the religion, i'm saying that it could also be issued outside of any religion; hence the bit that is being tested isn't specifically religious. what i'm interested in is the notion that you can 'test' religion through your experience. I don't think you can.
Let me make this clearer. All of the 'commandments' - like 'do not steal' - may well be the kinds of things that you can test by your own experience. But once you've tested all of them, you haven't gained confirmation for your *religious* beliefs, but rather you've gained confirmation that those commandments are good pieces of advice. I'm doubtful that testing can confirm religion (as opposed to science), and so I think that there's a difference. I'm open to counterexamples.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
can science comfirm the creation of the universe?
can science comfirm the creation of the universe?
Love is the law.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
what do you mean?
and can you provide a counterexample as requested?
what do you mean?
and can you provide a counterexample as requested?
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
i just did
im drawing another paralell between religion and science
science measures the universe but cant explain how it was created....
religion teaches you how to live in the universe but cant explain how it was created....
your argueing that living by the rules of a religion doesnt validate it. yet thats essentially what a religion is. a set of rules for you to live by. so if you live by them and your happy, its valid
confirming the presence of god is exactly the same as trying to confirm the big bang.
i just did
im drawing another paralell between religion and science
science measures the universe but cant explain how it was created....
religion teaches you how to live in the universe but cant explain how it was created....
your argueing that living by the rules of a religion doesnt validate it. yet thats essentially what a religion is. a set of rules for you to live by. so if you live by them and your happy, its valid
confirming the presence of god is exactly the same as trying to confirm the big bang.
Love is the law.
....is a liability
899 posts
Location: playing with traffic
899 posts
Location: playing with traffic
Posted:
Fight fight fight fight
A lot of good theories and opinions going on me thinks.
Fight fight fight fight
A lot of good theories and opinions going on me thinks.
Pull my pin out, roll me in to a room and see what happens
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I'm saying more that Ultimate Reality is a bit of a rubbish concept
Either you accept religion's view of what's "really there" or you accept that all you can know is what you can measure and that that's it.
I'm saying more that Ultimate Reality is a bit of a rubbish concept
Either you accept religion's view of what's "really there" or you accept that all you can know is what you can measure and that that's it. "Moo," said the happy cow.
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Theres no reason you cant have both. And more.
Theres no reason you cant have both. And more.
Love is the law.
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
"Complete guess really - I just wanted to have a pop at intelligence (and impress the girls)"
I commend your honesty sir
"Complete guess really - I just wanted to have a pop at intelligence (and impress the girls)"
I commend your honesty sir
Getting to the other side 
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
'your argueing that living by the rules of a religion doesnt validate it. yet thats essentially what a religion is. a set of rules for you to live by.
that is precisely what i am disagreeing with. i DO NOT think that 'what a religion is . . is a set of rules to live by'
for example: christianity doesn't just tell you what to do [e.g. love your neighbour], it ALSO claims that there is an omniscient, omnipresent God. and *that* [the second bit] is what i'm suggesting that experience can't confirm. what do you think?
'your argueing that living by the rules of a religion doesnt validate it. yet thats essentially what a religion is. a set of rules for you to live by.
that is precisely what i am disagreeing with. i DO NOT think that 'what a religion is . . is a set of rules to live by'
for example: christianity doesn't just tell you what to do [e.g. love your neighbour], it ALSO claims that there is an omniscient, omnipresent God. and *that* [the second bit] is what i'm suggesting that experience can't confirm. what do you think?
ture na sig
member
28 posts
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta
28 posts
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta
Posted:
Actually, there is no ''color red'', it's... aaam... valon aaltopituuksia in Finnish... wave... lenght? of light... Even the sciense can't prove, that all the people can see the color red in the same way, in fact sciense proves, that they _can't_.
So, is the color red then a reality or a thing to believe in?
Actually, there is no ''color red'', it's... aaam... valon aaltopituuksia in Finnish... wave... lenght? of light... Even the sciense can't prove, that all the people can see the color red in the same way, in fact sciense proves, that they _can't_.
So, is the color red then a reality or a thing to believe in?
Weilder of the P.E.T.S.O.C.K.
247 posts
Location: Adelaide
247 posts
Location: Adelaide
Posted:
...Reality is mass beleif...
Mull on it for awhile, I like it.
Thats my two cents worth, if you want more ure gonna have to pay me
...Reality is mass beleif...
Mull on it for awhile, I like it.
Thats my two cents worth, if you want more ure gonna have to pay me
Reality is mass beleif...
Feed me and I will grow, give me drink and I will die...
I'll lap at your heels, if you give me the chance. Though I won't fetch or stay, I surely will dance...
Enjoy, be happy, and don't forget to breathe...
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Not sure about that. If you saw my reality you'd understand
quiet, i understand you better now. and your right, there doesnt seem to be a way to prove the existance of god through scientific means. perhaps its because god, or any higher power manifests itself differently in different cultures and different individuals and it just isnt measurable because its not physical. But then, people arent measurable either and i feel that god exists through life. The mind the spirit/soul and the body (call them what you wish) working together arent measurable. We seem to percieve and feel that there is something there more powerfull than us and many are driven to put a name or an explanation on whats going on. To me religion looks like a rationalisation on something that seems at first to be a irrational concept. Yet gives us something more tangible, a faith that we have a purpose by being alive, faith that death may not be the end, faith in a greater good such that even though the world always seems to be falling apart around is, it isnt all bad and there is joy to be found in love.
Scientists cant measure love. They can feel it though.
Written by: Flame Swirl
...Reality is mass beleif...
Not sure about that. If you saw my reality you'd understand
quiet, i understand you better now. and your right, there doesnt seem to be a way to prove the existance of god through scientific means. perhaps its because god, or any higher power manifests itself differently in different cultures and different individuals and it just isnt measurable because its not physical. But then, people arent measurable either and i feel that god exists through life. The mind the spirit/soul and the body (call them what you wish) working together arent measurable. We seem to percieve and feel that there is something there more powerfull than us and many are driven to put a name or an explanation on whats going on. To me religion looks like a rationalisation on something that seems at first to be a irrational concept. Yet gives us something more tangible, a faith that we have a purpose by being alive, faith that death may not be the end, faith in a greater good such that even though the world always seems to be falling apart around is, it isnt all bad and there is joy to be found in love.
Scientists cant measure love. They can feel it though.
Love is the law.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
reality is mass belief?
really?
so if nobody thinks that the Holocaust happened, then it didn't happen?
sounds like a crazy idea, to me.
seriously - if this sort of subjectivist, post-modernist anti-realism appeals to you, have a skimread of Harry Frankfurt's 'On Bullshit'. it deals with the topic nicely.
ado-p: my problem is simply that if there's no measurable effect, there's no reason to believe that there's anything going on. i grant that religion may have benefits other than 'representation of the truth'; but, to be honest, i'd rather face squarely the fact that when i die, it's all over. it's not a comfortable thought, but at least it's honest.
i'm going to have one more bash at this realism = perception nonsense:
'Reality = perception (take a shizophrinic suffering delusions for example; to that person he/she may well be living in a horror movie where everyone is out to get them so it is their reality).
really? a sensible question for the schizophrenic to ask would be 'are my delusions accurate? do they map onto reality?'. similarly, if you've taken a psychotropic drug and you're hallucinating e.g. a pink elephant, then you are seeing something which is not real: it's a hallucination, damnit. ok, it's a real delusion; but that doesn't mean that it represents reality. the point of this is that your perceptions do NOT constitute reality, since it's always a valid question to ask whether or not your perceptions MAP ONTO / REPRESENT reality accurately. in order to allow for the possibility of error, you *must* allow that perception and reality are distinct.
having done that, you should feel free to consign talk of 'ultimate reality' to the fire: reality doesn't come in degrees.
reality is mass belief?
really?
so if nobody thinks that the Holocaust happened, then it didn't happen?
sounds like a crazy idea, to me.
seriously - if this sort of subjectivist, post-modernist anti-realism appeals to you, have a skimread of Harry Frankfurt's 'On Bullshit'. it deals with the topic nicely.
ado-p: my problem is simply that if there's no measurable effect, there's no reason to believe that there's anything going on. i grant that religion may have benefits other than 'representation of the truth'; but, to be honest, i'd rather face squarely the fact that when i die, it's all over. it's not a comfortable thought, but at least it's honest.
i'm going to have one more bash at this realism = perception nonsense:
'Reality = perception (take a shizophrinic suffering delusions for example; to that person he/she may well be living in a horror movie where everyone is out to get them so it is their reality).
really? a sensible question for the schizophrenic to ask would be 'are my delusions accurate? do they map onto reality?'. similarly, if you've taken a psychotropic drug and you're hallucinating e.g. a pink elephant, then you are seeing something which is not real: it's a hallucination, damnit. ok, it's a real delusion; but that doesn't mean that it represents reality. the point of this is that your perceptions do NOT constitute reality, since it's always a valid question to ask whether or not your perceptions MAP ONTO / REPRESENT reality accurately. in order to allow for the possibility of error, you *must* allow that perception and reality are distinct.
having done that, you should feel free to consign talk of 'ultimate reality' to the fire: reality doesn't come in degrees.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
after spending two hours writing a reply and losing it entirley, it all came down to this for me.
Both Religion and Science were invented by mankind.
Why do we have either?
It occured to me that you dont need god to have a religion. The ones that dont go by differnt names. Philosphies, Pagans, Hedonists, Heathens, Cultists, Philistines etc. The measurable effect that the all seem to have in common is that they attract like minded people and all encourage growth through the perpetuation of their practise. Basicly, they all change people and people change the world. So why does it happen?
As for science, the question is even easier. We invest our lives in finding out how things work. Then we figure out how to change it and make it work better. Or at the very least, what what differnt groups of like minded people think is better. So why are we so interested?
Thanks for the questions quiet. I dont think i've tried to structure my thoughts around my faith before. It now seems i have three different kinds. I guess the odds are better
after spending two hours writing a reply and losing it entirley, it all came down to this for me.
Both Religion and Science were invented by mankind.
Why do we have either?
It occured to me that you dont need god to have a religion. The ones that dont go by differnt names. Philosphies, Pagans, Hedonists, Heathens, Cultists, Philistines etc. The measurable effect that the all seem to have in common is that they attract like minded people and all encourage growth through the perpetuation of their practise. Basicly, they all change people and people change the world. So why does it happen?
As for science, the question is even easier. We invest our lives in finding out how things work. Then we figure out how to change it and make it work better. Or at the very least, what what differnt groups of like minded people think is better. So why are we so interested?
Thanks for the questions quiet. I dont think i've tried to structure my thoughts around my faith before. It now seems i have three different kinds. I guess the odds are better
Love is the law.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Take a read of "Descartes Baby" Ado-p. It deals with a few ideas about why humans naturally believe some of the things they do about reality from a Darwinist perspective... its interesting.
If reality for us is in fact determined by mass approval or acceptance, the view of psychology pathology, then we can explain psychotic symptoms being "weird". Third party perspective is one of the large diagnostical methods in determining if someone is having non-real experiences. What is real? This is why I hold to my material realist perspective, because the term implies certain things, such as "real objects" from which my view of it follows.
Science is a system that describes our perceptions of reality. It doesn't say anything about how reality actually is, although that would be the goal.
Religious claims ARE verifiable... your just limiting yourself to a Judeo-Christian definition of religion. Buddhism is a religion, cause Huston Smith says so darn it... and just because it doesnt PERSONIFY the God force doesnt mean it is not present. Zen Buddhism. Taoism. Hindu and Brahmin / Atman. These are all religions that prescribe practices from which you can verify their Ultimate Reality claims. So do western religions, in the ways already described (prescriptions for a better life), but what you fail to realize is that the practices of morality, etc. have an EFFECT on the person, it literally changes them if they are practiced correctly. It is a method for instilling will and the clearer perception needed to actually experience the Ultimate Reality claims. In Eastern religions, which do not personify deity, in general, the practices actually lead one to the experience. There are thousands of different techniques for acheiving the same state. Some are better or worse for different people based laregely on personality and individual areas in need of work.
Bhakti Hindus prescribe a lot of the same devotional and loving practices that Christianity does, for the EFFECT of reaching the relization of Brahmin. I, and several other religious integrationalists, argue that the practices are as much a part of the religious claims as the doctrine itself. Practice teaches the flesh and the mind in an indirect way. These essoteric elements are the goal of every religious practice... the designated experience from which you can then know for yourself what the spiritual ford crossers discovered. Take meditation... if you meditate in the correct ways, you will notice and have experiences of very weird things. Very weird.... Anyway.... there ya go.
Take a read of "Descartes Baby" Ado-p. It deals with a few ideas about why humans naturally believe some of the things they do about reality from a Darwinist perspective... its interesting.
If reality for us is in fact determined by mass approval or acceptance, the view of psychology pathology, then we can explain psychotic symptoms being "weird". Third party perspective is one of the large diagnostical methods in determining if someone is having non-real experiences. What is real? This is why I hold to my material realist perspective, because the term implies certain things, such as "real objects" from which my view of it follows.
Science is a system that describes our perceptions of reality. It doesn't say anything about how reality actually is, although that would be the goal.
Religious claims ARE verifiable... your just limiting yourself to a Judeo-Christian definition of religion. Buddhism is a religion, cause Huston Smith says so darn it... and just because it doesnt PERSONIFY the God force doesnt mean it is not present. Zen Buddhism. Taoism. Hindu and Brahmin / Atman. These are all religions that prescribe practices from which you can verify their Ultimate Reality claims. So do western religions, in the ways already described (prescriptions for a better life), but what you fail to realize is that the practices of morality, etc. have an EFFECT on the person, it literally changes them if they are practiced correctly. It is a method for instilling will and the clearer perception needed to actually experience the Ultimate Reality claims. In Eastern religions, which do not personify deity, in general, the practices actually lead one to the experience. There are thousands of different techniques for acheiving the same state. Some are better or worse for different people based laregely on personality and individual areas in need of work.
Bhakti Hindus prescribe a lot of the same devotional and loving practices that Christianity does, for the EFFECT of reaching the relization of Brahmin. I, and several other religious integrationalists, argue that the practices are as much a part of the religious claims as the doctrine itself. Practice teaches the flesh and the mind in an indirect way. These essoteric elements are the goal of every religious practice... the designated experience from which you can then know for yourself what the spiritual ford crossers discovered. Take meditation... if you meditate in the correct ways, you will notice and have experiences of very weird things. Very weird.... Anyway.... there ya go.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [religion science] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > SCIENCE ENDS WHERE RELIGIONSTARTS [14 replies]
- Forums > Morning-After Pill [41 replies]
- Forums > Religion and Science...... [128 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com