Science or Religion.

[panicsurvivor]

as something of a Taoist, i prefer to eschew divisive categories, labels, and proclamations of "knowledge."

relying on scientific authority to tell you what to think is the same as relying on religious authority to tell you what to think

information written in a book - whether it's a bible or a physics text - is not reality

a finger pointing at the moon is not the moon

experience the world for yourself

as yourself

That is pretty close to my philosophy as well. Not Identical, but close.
Taoism and Buddhism are closely related. I also noted that you are the only person to point out how dogmatic and inflexible the Scientific Community can be.

Your score on this test was Free thinker by the way. Answering both was not allowed. But answering with neither was on there.

 

[panicsurvivor]

Religion unless science proves that god didn't create the universe. If did start with a big bang, there was obviously "something" that caused it.

Yes!!!!!!!! Good for you. Finally someone else is on my team.

 

[Thelema]

False comparison and misguided question.

It seems common to maintain this confusion between science and logic/reasoning.

Neither science nor logical reasoning contradicts faith. As was just said many scientists are religious. Also just for the sake of example Descartes and Leibniz both reasoned the existence of God (though like most people who didn't rely on authentic religious resources they went astray with many other respects about God himself or the nature of creating.)

Faith is mistaken for believing in the unprovable, while faith does actually refer to believing in the unseen, yet it follows from logical reasoning and is supported by science.

What contradicts both simple common sense and science is failing to answer who created life and/or this visible world and where did it come from. I know one of the posters above who do not care if it came from nothing by nothing, which is an example of common illogical standpoints and nonsense as far as logic is concerned. As to the rest, none does show interest in the answer, they just use science as an excuse for their false approaches of logic and their agnosticism and ignorance of the different religious premises existing, and they probably are ignorant of scientific premises itself.

If you also prefer to talk about Religion rather than Faith in general, you should make a proper distinction, because religions do significantly differ in many aspects, but most people tend to overlook this fact because they usually are ignorant of religions other than Christianity.

Yes 'science' and 'logical reasoning' don't contradict 'faith', but people use these tools to contradict the things people are faithful about and the benefits of having it.

Don't you think phrasing it as 'who created' is a giant presupposition?

 

[panicsurvivor]

Consider the word ignorant withdrawn, panicsurvivor (you have already quoted it otherwise I wouldn't mind modifying the original post.)

Let us just say that: abandoning/disabling human reasoning, we refer to as common sense, and the lack of knowledge, do affect people's right judgment. And that is applied to all different parties and all human beings.

Fair enough.

 

[Thelema]

People even kill in the name of freedom and peace and helping the oppressed and religion. Bad and evil exploits of such great tools and values.

Do you mean 'who' as against 'what'? Then yes He must be Living Wise Being (known by looking into His creatures.)

I don't understand what you're saying.

I mean that asking the question that way is flawed. It would be like looking at the moon and asking "who put the moon there?" When the right question to ask is "how did the moon get there?"

 

[panicsurvivor]

Thelema, I am sorry, it has nothing to do with my thread, but what band is that in your box.

 

[ridicule]

Religion unless science proves that god didn't create the universe. If did start with a big bang, there was obviously "something" that caused it.

This is the most annoying thing in the world. "Prove he doesn't exist". You cannot disprove a negative. If I make a claim that by itself cannot be refuted by any methods we use to prove stuff and then say that was the cause of the universe, you must accept it because you cannot disprove it. Is that where you're going with this?

 

[Thelema]

Thelema, I am sorry, it has nothing to do with my thread, but what band is that in your box.

Judas Priest!

 

[panicsurvivor]

Judas Priest!

LOL. Awesome. They totally looked familiar, but I couldn't place who it was.::

 

[kilojoule]

I choose chocolate.

I believe Science and Religion to be like oil and water. You can't force them together.


From a science point of view:
If you have faith in religion you do so DESPITE the...um....for want of a better word, nonsense.( because it is non-sensical if you weigh it against science)

From a religious point of view:
If you could prove it It wouldn't be faith. Doubting Thomas had faith because he saw the hole in Jesus' side. Blessed is he who believes though he has not seen.


Now if you still want to try mix the two there is a christian scientist I know of called DR. Walt brown you could look him up. Im sure he answers emails

 

[Thelema]

If you put a book on the table before you leave the room and when you return back you find it on the shelf, you ask then who put the book on the shelf, not how did it get there (unless you mean by whom.)

You say that because youve seen people move books and there are no known natural processes that would lead a book to find itself in a shelf.

Tell me which experience leads you to believe a being placed the moon where it is?

 

[kilojoule]

BAAAAA my head hurts! haha I've just read back the entire thread and all of the responses. Talk about over-complicating.


Lets clarify

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment


Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods


Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.



These words all have very different definitions.

1) To 'prove' religion is an impossibility. You can not prove or disprove a belief. Thus science rejects religion.

2) Religion requires faith and faith rejects proof therefor science.

They don't mix, they don't want to mix, people still try and it goes against both science and religion to do so.



I also agree that the question was indeed misguided.

 

[kilojoule]

No, on reflection I have a better question.

Why do so many Christians want so badly to support their beliefs with science?

It seems to me that even Christian doctrine discourages it's followers from seeking proof

 

[BlueDays]

By the book I was referring to the whole nature with all its processes. It is in need to be put there by the One who made and designed it.

I wouldn't assume you're suggesting its eternity because that would go firstly and directly against science who put limits to it with proving its beginning, and it also goes against simple logic by ending up assigning Godly attributes of creating, sustaining, wisdom, all awareness, giving of life, nourishing, self sufficiency, and the qualities of the all able, all determiner, ever enduring and immutable - to an ever changing and composed creature, which is also none of the above.

Who says that only "one" thing made and designed it?

Who says that all of those things you listed are "Godly attributes"?

And please don't say because it is "written" in a book. That does not prove anything.

 

[panicsurvivor]

BAAAAA my head hurts! haha I've just read back the entire thread and all of the responses. Talk about over-complicating.


Lets clarify

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment


Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods


Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.



These words all have very different definitions.

1) To 'prove' religion is an impossibility. You can not prove or disprove a belief. Thus science rejects religion.

2) Religion requires faith and faith rejects proof therefor science.

They don't mix, they don't want to mix, people still try and it goes against both science and religion to do so.



I also agree that the question was indeed misguided.

That's funny, because you didn't answer it. Your first post went on to say these two concepts could not mix like oil in water. Your second defines this. The question was, what type of person are you? Are you somebody who believes in god or a higher power, and look to this higher power for guidance and understanding and so on? Or are you somebody who is science minded, who believes that there is a logical scientific answer to all the questions. It is not a misguided question, there are no misguided questions, only misguided answers. Science versus Religion has been a battle that has raged throughout history. There are plenty of people who are fans of both. The question is harder for them because it asks them to choose. It's as I said before, the question is designed to show the intellectual disposition of the person answering it. How you answer it, is what is important, not your answer.

 

[kilojoule]

What is religion being based on?

Normally religion is based on a Holy Scripture, the fact that makes it possible to be scientifically tested. This could be done by running the following scientific falsification tests:
- prove the text is authentic;
- prove it is free of any discrepancy;
- prove it cannot be reproduced.

Yes science can test the physical. There are Christian Scientists out there as I mentioned in my earlier post. Religion however is defined as: the BELIEF in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods. So I conclude you can not use science to prove religion because you can not prove a belief.

 

[kilojoule]

That's funny, because you didn't answer it. Your first post went on to say these two concepts could not mix like oil in water. Your second defines this. The question was, what type of person are you? Are you somebody who believes in god or a higher power, and look to this higher power for guidance and understanding and so on? Or are you somebody who is science minded, who believes that there is a logical scientific answer to all the questions. It is not a misguided question, there are no misguided questions, only misguided answers. Science versus Religion has been a battle that has raged throughout history. There are plenty of people who are fans of both. The question is harder for them because it asks them to choose. It's as I said before, the question is designed to show the intellectual disposition of the person answering it. How you answer it, is what is important, not your answer.

Yes, I see what you mean. I was clarifying because I read back over all the posts and felt that there was a lot of confusion over the meaning of these words.


I felt and feel that the question is misguided. Sorry but it's one hell of a question. First of all just because they are like oil and water(in that they do not mix) does not make them the antithesis of each other. They are not. The opposite of Religion is Atheism and surely you'll agree of Science it's art.

In order for me to answer your question, I have to break it down into a minimum two questions.
1) Do you accept science?
2)Do you have religion?

Well Science isn't a question of belief, it is indisputable proof. Yes I accept indisputable proof.

Religion is a belief that is not based on proof but rather conviction. I don't know what I believe so I would consider myself agnostic.



I wouldn't choose one over the other as they are completely separate entities and one does not need to choose one of the other. However, they should always be kept separate, once people try to support one with the other, it just gets silly.

 

[WeirdyMcGee]

I still say ponies.

 

[coyote]

On a second thought, I should have chosen a computer or cell phone, something with some complex design, instead of a book, and said that it was found in an empty room.

what you're still missing is that to ask "WHO put it there?" is an a priori argument which assumes that a sentient being was responsible

whereas, "how did it get there?" leaves it open to either sentient design OR natural occurrence through chance, etc.

To cut the chase, this is where people stand: It is either the true believers (those with the true belief/religion) or disbelievers, are on right guidance or in manifest error.

All that matters is that everyone becomes aware of his free will that was given to him, thus the responsibility of his own judgement - not of anyone else's - whether he thinks the life that was given to him as an embryo in a womb; something he knows he doesn't own, or create, or later on have the control over, until it is being eventually taken by its original giver - all had no use and all is made in vain. Since, in the end, whichever is the true promise, it will be determined.

again, your statement assumes there is something promised or pre-determined - which assumes an intelligence at work capable of promising or determining - and excludes the possibility of chance occurrence or natural selection

so for someone to derive any meaning from your statement, your audience must already hold such beliefs

 

[kilojoule]

To: Basil

Once again aaaaagh if you reject the logical explanation I wrote before as to why science can not support religion. Then please consider a religious explanation as to why it doesn't work that way.

From a Christian point of view,(which presumably is the religion in question nobody corrected me last time) it's irrelevant 'HOW' it got there
John 20v24-29 teaches FAITH which as established is a strong BELIEF based on CONVICTION rather than PROOF.

and I quote:

Now Thomas one of the twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later the disciples were in the house again, and thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas "Put your finger here, see my hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and believed"


And so I conclude that it is discouraged from a Christian point of view to go looking for proof also. And as stated before science can not prove religion because religion is a belief and a belief has nothing to do with proof. The one thing science and religion agree on is that they do not support each other and yet you try to force them together.