Does Science have a better explanation on things compared to divine inspiration and revelation?

[savethedreams]

Why do people believe in divine revelation/ inspiration?

I was a Christian so called for 20 something year, until I began questioning. I read and studied almost every religion I can come across, and those 'religious' 'spiritual' beliefs that are more "I find my own path" make lots of sense, because we can only learn from our own experience, therefore allowing room for growth.

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, paul, matthew, moses compared to Science?

 

[Storm]

Does Science have a better explanation on things compared to divine inspiration and revelation?

Depends on the "things."

Why do people believe in divine revelation/ inspiration?

Gee, maybe because it's happened to them?

I was a Christian so called for 20 something year, until I began questioning. I read and studied almost every religion I can come across, and those 'religious' 'spiritual' beliefs that are more "I find my own path" make lots of sense, because we can only learn from our own experience, therefore allowing room for growth.

What does that have to do with it?

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, paul, matthew, moses compared to Science?

Second-hand revelation is another matter entirely. And for the record, science and religion are COMPLETELY different fields. You don't have to choose between them.

 

[Madhuri]

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, paul, matthew, moses compared to Science?

You should only trust your own intelligence and experiences, imo. What I don't like about religious institutions is that it involves following someone's individual interpretation of life. I believe it's important to be an individual, make us your own mind based on what you observe in the world around you and what you want out of life.

Science is fantastic for so many things, but it leaves other aspects of life a mystery. A lot of people desire something more than our mundane lives. Religion can give a person a purpose, a community, a sense of identity, happiness or security etc. I think that for many, when we lose faith in something beyond this temporary life of illusions, then our mundane activities and things like work and responsibilities start to seem pointless. What are we wasting our time for working all our lives when soon we will be dead?

This is not satisfactory to many, including myself.

 

[Orias]

Why do people believe in divine revelation/ inspiration?

I was a Christian so called for 20 something year, until I began questioning. I read and studied almost every religion I can come across, and those 'religious' 'spiritual' beliefs that are more "I find my own path" make lots of sense, because we can only learn from our own experience, therefore allowing room for growth.

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, paul, matthew, moses compared to Science?

They are merely gateways, they provide people with the option to look within themselves. The rest of religions are merely that of those who have been more "successful" in spreading their ideas/ideals. Of course religions that teach open mindedness and looking within the self are only being honest in terms of where these things came from.

Science doesn't eliminate "divine and spiritual", it just compresses it to people with less experience and understanding of the human psyche.

 

[Photonic]

You should only trust your own intelligence and experiences, imo. What I don't like about religious institutions is that it involves following someone's individual interpretation of life. I believe it's important to be an individual, make us your own mind based on what you observe in the world around you and what you want out of life.

Science is fantastic for so many things, but it leaves other aspects of life a mystery. A lot of people desire something more than our mundane lives. Religion can give a person a purpose, a community, a sense of identity, happiness or security etc. I think that for many, when we lose faith in something beyond this temporary life of illusions, then our mundane activities and things like work and responsibilities start to seem pointless. What are we wasting our time for working all our lives when soon we will be dead?

This is not satisfactory to many, including myself.

On the contrary, when I finally broke free of my spoon fed childish beliefs, I found my mind overwhelmed by the mystery and possibility in life, and the grandness of our universe is more than enough to satiate even the greatest.

It's hard to explain, but it gave me a purpose, when before I felt like it was someone else's purpose. I have dedicated my life to advancing humanity by being on the forefront of human knowledge in the field of physics. I find that there is plenty of fulfillment in scouting the path of humanity through the future, so that generations after mine have a much greater chance of becoming that which humanity as a whole is meant to be. A glorious civilization spanning the universe.

Nothing in my research (or anyone else's research for that matter) has pointed at the necessity of a theist viewpoint to advance our understanding. In fact theistic points of view act more like a placeholder in the gaps of knowledge in the minds of those unfortunate enough to keep their mind closed to the glory of our natural reality.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein, 1954

 

[Willamena]

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, paul, matthew, moses compared to Science?

The best of those people will teach you that it isn't a divine inspiration/revelation unless it's yours, not someone else's.

 

[Madhuri]

On the contrary, when I finally broke free of my spoon fed childish beliefs, I found my mind overwhelmed by the mystery and possibility in life, and the grandness of our universe is more than enough to satiate even the greatest.

It's hard to explain, but it gave me a purpose, when before I felt like it was someone else's purpose. I have dedicated my life to advancing humanity by being on the forefront of human knowledge in the field of physics. I find that there is plenty of fulfillment in scouting the path of humanity through the future, so that generations after mine have a much greater chance of becoming that which humanity as a whole is meant to be. A glorious civilization spanning the universe.

Nothing in my research (or anyone else's research for that matter) has pointed at the necessity of a theist viewpoint to advance our understanding. In fact theistic points of view act more like a placeholder in the gaps of knowledge in the minds of those unfortunate enough to keep their mind closed to the glory of our natural reality.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein, 1954

I guess this is where 'to each his own' becomes relevant. Everyone is unique even in terms of what inspires us. This lifestyle you have found inspires you, gives you freedom of thought and expression.

My religion does that for me. And luckily, my religion allows plenty of room to discover the natural world through science, to think critically and to nurture my individuality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Second-hand revelation is another matter entirely. And for the record, science and religion are COMPLETELY different fields. You don't have to choose between them.

You don't?

I know you're not the first person to advocate the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, but historically, religion and science have often come into conflict. And I think it would be a lame sort of religion that makes no testable claims.

 

[Me Myself]

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, (...)

About Buddha Sidharta Gautama he explicitly told people not to trust him until after you have examined carefully what he said with your own mind, logic and sense, after you aplied it to your life and found it useful.

Only then, Gautama says, you should beleive his (or anyone´s) words.

 

[Madhuri]

You don't?

I know you're not the first person to advocate the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, but historically, religion and science have often come into conflict. And I think it would be a lame sort of religion that makes no testable claims.

I agree with Storm. You don't have to choose between the two. For instance, I believe in most scientific theories, such as evolution for example, and it does not conflict with my religion.

This is because science is the study of the material universe, but religion is the practice of realising the spiritual universe. They are different topics of study.

Also, it helps that a lot of claims about the universe in Sanatan Dharma coincide with scientific discovery

 

[gnostic]

If you're referring to about the natural world or natural phenomena, then definitely yes. Science does explain it better.

If you're referring to anything made by man, then yes, science explain it better.

 

[Storm]

You don't?

Nope.

I know you're not the first person to advocate the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, but historically, religion and science have often come into conflict.

A false conflict manufactured by proselytizing fools.

And I think it would be a lame sort of religion that makes no testable claims.

Gee, thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A false conflict manufactured by proselytizing fools.

So all the religions throughout history that have made concrete claims about how the world works were wrong to do so? Why do you get to say what's a legitimate part of someone else's religion and what isn't?

The Exodus, reincarnation, afterlives, the power of prayer, the effect of karma... if they're not testable now (and some of them are) they're conceivably testable in future. If that happens, can we really say that religion isn't allowed to talk about these things any more?

Gee, thanks.

I wasn't trying to say that your religion or anyone else's is lame; I'm trying to say that people's religious beliefs tend to be more testable than they think they are.

If an idea has practical application, then we can examine how well it agrees with how things actually are.

 

[Storm]

So all the religions throughout history that have made concrete claims about how the world works were wrong to do so? Why do you get to say what's a legitimate part of someone else's religion and what isn't?

The Exodus, reincarnation, afterlives, the power of prayer, the effect of karma... if they're not testable now (and some of them are) they're conceivably testable in future. If that happens, can we really say that religion isn't allowed to talk about these things any more?


I wasn't trying to say that your religion or anyone else's is lame; I'm trying to say that people's religious beliefs tend to be more testable than they think they are.

If an idea has practical application, then we can examine how well it agrees with how things actually are.

1) I think I misunderstood. I thought you meant YECs, for instance. Also, my characterization was not limited to the religious instigators.
2) "Conceivably testable in the future" is not the same as "testable."
3) I think we agree more than it would seem at first glance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1) I think I misunderstood. I thought you meant YECs, for instance. Also, my characterization was not limited to the religious instigators.

Well, creationism is one example of a testable religious claim, but I wasn't limiting myself to that.

2) "Conceivably testable in the future" is not the same as "testable."

Sure, but if we're setting up a dividing line between science and religion so that they'll never interfere with each other, it needs to take into account whatever science (and religion) might grow to become. Scientific discovery tends to be very hard to predict, so I don't really see how we can say that it's not going to conflict with religion. You're trying to predict the unknowable.

The only way to make sure that science and religion never, ever come into conflict is to put religion into a tiny box where no potentially testable claims are allowed. This would be that "lame" religion that I mentioned before, and it's one that I don't think anyone actually believes.

In reality, I think most people's versions of NOMA amount to drawing a line around their sacred beliefs and saying "hey, science, don't look over here, even if you can."

3) I think we agree more than it would seem at first glance.

Could be.

 

[PolyHedral]

2) "Conceivably testable in the future" is not the same as "testable."

In the scientific sense, it is. "Testable" means exactly that, with no limitation on apparatus, method, or resources. If you can imagine an experiment to test a specific hypothesis, it is testable, even if the experiment requires materials we do not have (so long as the material is physically possible), structures we cannot currently build, or timescales we cannot manage.

 

[Storm]

Well, creationism is one example of a testable religious claim, but I wasn't limiting myself to that.

Nor was I, it was just an example.

What I'm talking about is when people on either side, with no clue what they're talking about, claim the other is wrong and stupid. YEC is a religious example. Persinger's "God helmet" is a scientific one. The vast majority of believers accept science, and the vast majority of the scientifically-inclined at least admit there's no proof.

Which leads to my conclusion: given that the two fields are so easily reconciled, and many embrace both fully... the perceived conflict is unnecessary. It only happens when one side pees on the other's turf. (Which happens with depressing regularity. )

Sure, but if we're setting up a dividing line between science and religion so that they'll never interfere with each other, it needs to take into account whatever science (and religion) might grow to become. Scientific discovery tends to be very hard to predict, so I don't really see how we can say that it's not going to conflict with religion. You're trying to predict the unknowable.

The only way to make sure that science and religion never, ever come into conflict is to put religion into a tiny box where no potentially testable claims are allowed. This would be that "lame" religion that I mentioned before, and it's one that I don't think anyone actually believes.

In reality, I think most people's versions of NOMA amount to drawing a line around their sacred beliefs and saying "hey, science, don't look over here, even if you can."

Ah, I was more nuanced than that. I don't believe they never overlap. Hell science originated as a religious pursuit, and I've spoken to you before of how I long for the day when scientific precision and clarity can be applied to matters of faith.

Anyway, what I was trying to say was a reiteration of my stance that they explore different questions. Science is concerned with how things happen. Religion is concerned with larger, vaguer questions like humanity's place in the world, and what SHOULD happen. The (currently ) testable claims of religion are relatively trivial side effects of the real pursuit. To use YEC as an example again, HOW God made the world doesn't really matter to any but the desperate. ETA: Creationism is to faith what Twitter is to science!

Make more sense now? Sorry I wasn't more clear initially, it was like 4 am! :sad4: :sad4:

 

[Photonic]

About Buddha Sidharta Gautama he explicitly told people not to trust him until after you have examined carefully what he said with your own mind, logic and sense, after you aplied it to your life and found it useful.

Only then, Gautama says, you should beleive his (or anyone´s) words.

Yea but Buddhism is more philosophy than religion. I'm not sure it really counts.

 

[bobhikes]

Why do people believe in divine revelation/ inspiration?

I was a Christian so called for 20 something year, until I began questioning. I read and studied almost every religion I can come across, and those 'religious' 'spiritual' beliefs that are more "I find my own path" make lots of sense, because we can only learn from our own experience, therefore allowing room for growth.

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, paul, matthew, moses compared to Science?

You shouldn't trust any one else but if you research some more you will find that all science is based on human beliefs.

 

[idav]

Anyway, what I was trying to say was a reiteration of my stance that they explore different questions. Science is concerned with how things happen. Religion is concerned with larger, vaguer questions like humanity's place in the world, and what SHOULD happen. The (currently ) testable claims of religion are relatively trivial side effects of the real pursuit. To use YEC as an example again, HOW God made the world doesn't really matter to any but the desperate. ETA: Creationism is to faith what Twitter is to science!

I would agree a bit here since science is concerned about what happens and religion is concerned with what ought happen but that's what philosophy is for.