Science or Religion...which is the true enemy?

[pkearney06]

I'm not going to pretend to know the answer to this but I will give my opinion.

I say neither Science nor Religion is the enemy nor either are wrong. I say language (or more accurately: vocabulary) is the true enemy. For example:

1. What religion calls "Genesis" or God's creation of the universe, science calls the Big Bang. I'm pretty sure religion never goes into the details of "how" God created the Universe so maybe he did it this way...

2. What religion calls "God" science may call the "Higgs Boson Particle". I don't think any mono-dietal religion dares guess what their "God" would look like so...is it hard to imagine that maybe he/she is some sort of particle?

3. What religion calls angels, science may call Extra-terrestrials. This one was an easy one. Extra-terrestrials do indeed come from another planet (perhaps what religion calls Heaven?). They may have a hierarchical system (perhaps choirs of angels?). And maybe even a king (perhaps...God?), with an adversary (Satan?).

Vocabulary tears apart everyone. It's a failure of communication. It's just my opinion but we should look at "what" we're talking about or arguing about instead of what it's called.

It goes the same for the various religions. One person calls their profit "Muhammad" another "Jesus" another "Abraham". One religion calls their god "God" another "Yahweh" another "He" another...so one and so on...but God by any other name, shape or forum is still God, the creator, right? No matter what state or condition he/she is in...all it takes to be God is to be the creator of all things...

Again, just my opinion. Thoughts? Arguments?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Just three remarks:
1) I would not consider language a problem for a God who knows when and how to reveal himself
2) Have you ever read the scriptures? For it is quite some huuuuuuge gap between extra terrestrials and angels for example.
3) How (using your opinion above) would you differ between a (the) true religion and some jerk who just invents stuff? In my view you can't as you will allways have to accept the claim that your vocabulary is simply not sufficient to understand the message.

 

[pkearney06]

1. Language (I doubt) would be an issue for a/the god, but for imperfect humans it is. I wasn't making the argument for God not being able to describe himself but as we all know, God is written about by man which has to use their vocabulary and often have trouble conveying what they see or witness. We can only describe what we're witnessing with the greatest of technology or experience we have. For example, Noah's ark was described as a ship but could very well have been what we now know as a submarine, or spaceship (long jump but maybe) but Noah would not have known this technology so his best description would have been a ship...yeah?

2. I think you're missing the point of my argument. Of course there will be a HUGE gap between angels and extra-terrestrials, but the comparison can be made. There's a HUGE difference between the God of the old testament and the God of the New Testament, but they are one in the same...it's just how something was described by the person/people that witness it. There are THOUSANDS of descriptions for various aliens...you're saying you can say with 100% accuracy that none of them come close to angels...or would you rather just not believe it? If you were to bring a single engine plane back in time and fly over the ancient egyptians...how do you suppose they would describe the event when you landed and stepped out of the plane? Perhaps a man-like being with wings? Hmmm....

3. How do you define some jerks that just invent stuff? How do you define a "true religion"? One that is widely accepted? One that is 100% reality (can't be proven on ANY case)? Maybe they're right and you're wrong...at one time Christianity, Judaism, Islamic, etc...we're probably considered just some jerks inventing stuff. Please don't say you KNOW for sure that your religion is the true religion because you don't. You BELIEVE your religion is the true religion and until something is proven or disproven, you're just throwing out insults at people that don't believe as you believe....again, my opinion.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

1. Language (I doubt) would be an issue for a/the god, but for imperfect humans it is. I wasn't making the argument for God not being able to describe himself but as we all know, God is written about by man which has to use their vocabulary and often have trouble conveying what they see or witness. We can only describe what we're witnessing with the greatest of technology or experience we have. For example, Noah's ark was described as a ship but could very well have been what we now know as a submarine, or spaceship (long jump but maybe) but Noah would not have known this technology so his best description would have been a ship...yeah?

Sure but if God waited some 200000 years after humans appearance before sending a message he could have waited some 5000 more and we had everything recorded on tape and used a rather stable language (like modern english) that is not changing as fast as old tribe or clan dialects.
Get my point?

2. I think you're missing the point of my argument. Of course there will be a HUGE gap between angels and extra-terrestrials, but the comparison can be made. There's a HUGE difference between the God of the old testament and the God of the New Testament, but they are one in the same...

Well as i tried to adress in my third point already ... How would you know that they are one and the same and not that some jerk just added on top of a successfull businessmodel ?

3. How do you define some jerks that just invent stuff? How do you define a "true religion"? One that is widely accepted? One that is 100% reality (can't be proven on ANY case)? Maybe they're right and you're wrong...at one time Christianity, Judaism, Islamic, etc...we're probably considered just some jerks inventing stuff. Please don't say you KNOW for sure that your religion is the true religion because you don't. You BELIEVE your religion is the true religion and until something is proven or disproven, you're just throwing out insults at people that don't believe as you believe....again, my opinion.

Your relativism is a problem.
If n things state n-m contradicting things then obviously some must be wrong.
Your claim was now that religion and science are ok and that it is just a matter of the language. I would disagree. I would say that obviously some religions have to be wrong or (if they were correct) absolutely not understandable in the light of truth.
And of course there DO exist quite a lot of people that "invent" religions to get some money. my question to you is how you adress this issue. How in other words do you know that some text is right but has to be interpreted in some strange way and another one is simply false and invented?

 

[pkearney06]

1. No matter how stable a language, our description of something is all a reference to something we're familiar with. For example, in the future when archaeologists find documents we wrote down, I'm sure they'll misinterpret alot of what we wrote down even if it is written in an EVEN more stable language than english (I hardly think english is a stable language at all since all it does is change with conversation and slang)...like mathematics. We describe things based on what we know. For humans (or other things) in the future to try and imagine what we're describing would be difficult. Let's say you saw a flying saucer zoom right over your head. How would you describe it? Possibly by saying, "A large, disc-like airplane, or spacecraft flew overhead." You can see how that can dredge up ALL KINDS of various images to different people. But it's a reference that we're familiar with to describe it. In the past, things like modern or future technologies wouldn't make any sense to them so they would describe it in reference to something they were familiar with; i.e. throwing fire instead of explosions (as stated in the bhagavad gita when describing a large fight that took place between three floating cities).

2. Well, my original point is gearing more towards origins and not abstract businessmen of today. Obviously they're full of **** and just trying to capitalize on what's "hot". But, I highly doubt that the originators of religious texts were thinking of how much more profitable angels were than extra-terrestrials...I'm saying that they could very much be the same and you're falling directly into what my original point warned against. Angels are a description....and as far as descriptions go, they're man-like creatures with wings. Well, if I were a primitive Greek, Hebrew, Babylonian or any other originator of religious context, I might see an extra-terrestrial who bares a great resemblance to man in the cockpit of an aircraft flying about and describe him as a man-like creature with wings. It's all in the vocabulary which was my original point (one which you're not being at all objective about and just basically asking me to reassure a point I've made already). You're asking how I know angels and aliens are the same because aliens could just be made up...couldn't they just be the same with different descriptions? They sound pretty similar...there are no eye-witness photographs of angels so you have to go on a written description...you're going on SOLELY a propaganda description of angels look like humans with wings and aliens are large and gray...we lose another victim to poor vocabulary...

3. You're straying VERY far off topic...the debate here isn't which religion is right and which is wrong...just that when pitted against each other science and religion could very well be describing the EXACT same thing but using different terminology. The biggest problem is most religions are a few thousand years old or more. This creates problems when trying to imagine what they're describing. Describe an airplane to me, but imagine you existed during the ancient Greek era. Use only terminology they would use. When you've done that, reread it and imagine how many different visuals you can come up with...now multiply that over a few thousand generations...get my meaning? I don't care which religion is right and which is wrong...to tell you the truth...we'll never know because people will NEVER change their minds...I do think though that everything (or most everything) scientific is comparable to a religious theme or event but described differently and the two communities bicker and argue over the SAME point. Case and point: There are some in the scientific community that say God didn't create the universe, a small, super-hot, super-dense atom called the Higgs boson particle exploded and created the universe. There are some in the religious community that say, a super-hot, super-dense atom called the Higgs boson particle didn't create the universe, God did...couldn't it stand to reason that perhaps what you describe as God (the creator of all things) is the Higgs boson particle? Science calls it this...you call it that...both could be the creator. You ask how I know if one text is right and the other is wrong, but we're comparing science and religion, not religion and religion. I have no idea if some texts are invented and some are the truth...that isn't and was NEVER an issue in this topic...you want to argue which religion is real take it somewhere else. This was only to describe how science and religion could be saying the same thing and still arguing that one is right and the other wrong...The only mention to religion and religion was that the terminology for names and events could be the same....Like Yahweh and God...maybe even Xenu. Obviously if your religion doesn't have an authoritative figure then it's hard to compare...but I won't comment on which is right and which is wrong.

Also, on my relativism...you're just saying that because you believe your religion is the one and only true religion and your God is the one and only true God. I think my relativism is well placed in that argument. You're throwing in terms like "jerks" and "true religion" without even telling me what you mean. What you believe to be the "true religion" I may not and couldn't POSSIBLY answer your question with any kind of accuracy. What you keep calling a jerk is obviously some sort of built up aggression to the men and women that your religion once was...the Christians were persecuted by the Jews for being a "made-up" religion...they were the jerks of their age. The Hebrews during the Egyptian age were probably the jerks...don't come here and try to argue a point without an argument. The only thing you've done is try to get me to say which religion I think is correct and which are invented which was NEVER a topic of discussion here.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

1. No matter how stable a language, our description of something is all a reference to something we're familiar with. For example, in the future when archaeologists find documents we wrote down, I'm sure they'll misinterpret alot of what we wrote down even if it is written in an EVEN more stable language than english (I hardly think english is a stable language at all since all it does is change with conversation and slang)...like mathematics.

You are a bit to relativistic for me.
Sure NOTHING is absolutely stable.
Yet still i see a difference between telling mankind something today in a generally understandable language (like if you want maths or logical constructs) and telling a tribe within a prehistoric area of ancient times something in a dialect that less than 10000 people spoke.

2. Well, my original point is gearing more towards origins and not abstract businessmen of today. Obviously they're full of **** and just trying to capitalize on what's "hot". But, I highly doubt that the originators of religious texts were thinking of how much more profitable angels were than extra-terrestrials...I'm saying that they could very much be the same and you're falling directly into what my original point warned against.

Evereything "could be". that doesnt help.
While you say they could be i say "i have no evidence to suggest they were".

3. You're straying VERY far off topic...the debate here isn't which religion is right and which is wrong...just that when pitted against each other science and religion could very well be describing the EXACT same thing but using different terminology.

Again ... sure that could somehow be the case if you are willing to widen your interpretations to the infinite.
But i see no reason why i should do so AND i also think that you do need some criteria in order to sort those out that are not the exact same thing.
And i asked you for that criteria.

 

[pkearney06]

1. Well, the religions were created by those people (who weren't prehistoric obviously) but still had an underdeveloped language...so the fact that we can better describe something today proves my point. What we describe as aliens, they may have described as angels...

2. I have no evidence to say "God exists" but millions and even billions believe so. It's best guess or belief...if I had evidence to disprove the belief of God as religion sees it and prove God as science sees it I would probably be out writing a book. However, an argument is for the speculation of a belief and the willingness to open one's mind to that to somehow find evidence...you want proof...I want proof in a Christians belief in God...not going to happen...it just doesn't exist.

3. I don't need criteria to sort these out because they are two separate issues. It is just a comparison. Angels to aliens. God to the Higgs boson particle. The creation to the Big Bang. There are so many infinite comparisons that to lay down a criteria would be pointless because people so devout in their beliefs (like I'm guessing you are) refuse to accept or even open their mind to the possibility that this argument could be right...again, if I had proof I would probably be a leading scientific authority...but I sure as hell don't want to be the man that robbed billions of their beliefs...it was just a thought to stir an argument to get people thinking...not a, "I have definitive proof that God isn't what you think he is."

 

[jml03]

I'm not going to pretend to know the answer to this but I will give my opinion.

I say neither Science nor Religion is the enemy nor either are wrong. I say language (or more accurately: vocabulary) is the true enemy. For example:

1. What religion calls "Genesis" or God's creation of the universe, science calls the Big Bang. I'm pretty sure religion never goes into the details of "how" God created the Universe so maybe he did it this way...

2. What religion calls "God" science may call the "Higgs Boson Particle". I don't think any mono-dietal religion dares guess what their "God" would look like so...is it hard to imagine that maybe he/she is some sort of particle?

3. What religion calls angels, science may call Extra-terrestrials. This one was an easy one. Extra-terrestrials do indeed come from another planet (perhaps what religion calls Heaven?). They may have a hierarchical system (perhaps choirs of angels?). And maybe even a king (perhaps...God?), with an adversary (Satan?).

Vocabulary tears apart everyone. It's a failure of communication. It's just my opinion but we should look at "what" we're talking about or arguing about instead of what it's called.

It goes the same for the various religions. One person calls their profit "Muhammad" another "Jesus" another "Abraham". One religion calls their god "God" another "Yahweh" another "He" another...so one and so on...but God by any other name, shape or forum is still God, the creator, right? No matter what state or condition he/she is in...all it takes to be God is to be the creator of all things...

Again, just my opinion. Thoughts? Arguments?

I believe there is a link between all the major religions, they each acknowledge a power greater than themselves (to quote some NA literature). There is a common thread which ties us altogether. I love that I'm not the only one who can see this, and respect the way we talk has built walls up between each of us.

 

[pkearney06]

VERY well said, jml03. I'm not one to say which (or if any) religion is right or if science is right but I think it's safe to say that the majority of all religions and science is connected in multiple ways and language is building a barrier between everyone...again, well said.

 

[gnostic]

3. What religion calls angels, science may call Extra-terrestrials. This one was an easy one. Extra-terrestrials do indeed come from another planet (perhaps what religion calls Heaven?). They may have a hierarchical system (perhaps choirs of angels?). And maybe even a king (perhaps...God?), with an adversary (Satan?).

Excuse me???!!!

When did SCIENCE ever say that some extra-terrestrial beings visited this earth?

In this vast galaxy or in this universe, science do think that the probability of life existing in other planets are quite possible, however no scientists have said that extra-terrestrial beings had visited earth, like UFO, flying saucers or star-ships. There have been no evidences of such aliens visiting us in the past or present.

I don't think any respectable scientists believe in pop-culture of UFO sightings, alien abductions, alien invasions, until there are definite and testable evidences.

Do not confuse science with science fiction.

 

[painted wolf]

1. What religion calls "Genesis" or God's creation of the universe, science calls the Big Bang. I'm pretty sure religion never goes into the details of "how" God created the Universe so maybe he did it this way...

Meh... no specific argument on this one.

2. What religion calls "God" science may call the "Higgs Boson Particle". I don't think any mono-dietal religion dares guess what their "God" would look like so...is it hard to imagine that maybe he/she is some sort of particle?

Sorry but no... the Higgs is just called the "God particle" as poetic license. It's like calling one of the Basiliscus a "Jesus lizard"... No one really thinks they are the messiah.

3. What religion calls angels, science may call Extra-terrestrials. This one was an easy one. Extra-terrestrials do indeed come from another planet (perhaps what religion calls Heaven?). They may have a hierarchical system (perhaps choirs of angels?). And maybe even a king (perhaps...God?), with an adversary (Satan?).

Science fiction maybe... but not science. There is no scientific evidence that we were ever visited by aliens.

But as for the unity of the creator, I agree.

wa:do

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

1. Well, the religions were created by those people (who weren't prehistoric obviously) but still had an underdeveloped language...so the fact that we can better describe something today proves my point. What we describe as aliens, they may have described as angels...

No it doesn proove any point. Actually all you say (or even admitted) is that people "created" religions.
Now i could have told you that already before.
That however doesn't mean that they are true.
By the way ... why are you so "insistent" on "aliens" ?

2. I have no evidence to say "God exists" but millions and even billions believe so. It's best guess or belief...if I had evidence to disprove the belief of God as religion sees it and prove God as science sees it I would probably be out writing a book. However, an argument is for the speculation of a belief and the willingness to open one's mind to that to somehow find evidence...you want proof...I want proof in a Christians belief in God...not going to happen...it just doesn't exist.

-Science doesn't see God.
-The burdon of proof is on religions, not on the others
-it is not really an "opening" of ones mind to take all religions into account just because millions or billions supposedly believe in something.
- Actually the millions or billions you speak about dont even believe in the same God.

3. I don't need criteria to sort these out because they are two separate issues.

If they are seperate then they are seperatable. For seperation you need criteria.

It is just a comparison. Angels to aliens. God to the Higgs boson particle. The creation to the Big Bang. There are so many infinite comparisons that to lay down a criteria would be pointless because people so devout in their beliefs (like I'm guessing you are) refuse to accept or even open their mind to the possibility that this argument could be right...again, if I had proof I would probably be a leading scientific authority...but I sure as hell don't want to be the man that robbed billions of their beliefs...it was just a thought to stir an argument to get people thinking...not a, "I have definitive proof that God isn't what you think he is."

Ok ... so we end up with your statement that there are infinite amounts of possible interpretations that believers can/could/should make when confronted with reality in order not to accept that their religion is nonsense.
So what?

What is your point now?

 

[pkearney06]

I never said extra-terrestrials visited this planet but it's just about as possible as winged humanoids (angels) visiting man.

My point about the Higgs Boson particle is that it is (theoretically) the creator of our known universe (the single atom in the Big Bang theory). God is branded "The Creator" thus it stands to reason that the Higgs could be swapped for God, creator of all things...

Thereisnospoon, I don't even know why you keep asking me to give criteria about something that wasn't even in the argument. Granted, various religions have various rituals, beliefs, texts, etc...some are probably crap and some may be true but that's not the argument. The argument is that whether true or not the stories behind these religions may have come from some other possibility and have been misconstrued through problematic vocabulary, speech and language. If you're asking which religion I think is right, I won't answer. I have no criteria to separate ******** religions with "real" religions...it isn't even an issue in this argument. Take it somewhere else.

Also, how do you know they're not all the same god? All the gods in major religions created all things and watch over man kind...what authority EVER said, "No, they're not the same God."

The point was...that there stands a good reason that what science believe may also be what religion believes...they're just called two different things because modern science is just that, "modern" where as most religions are very old and subject to undeveloped language and of course undeveloped minds of those who witnessed these events. I feel like you're just trying to trip me up because you feel like I'm attacking whatever religion you are. If there is a God as religion sees it, then I'm wrong and I'm sorry, but it could very well be the "God" that science sees. A single atom that in a fraction of a second exploded to create the known universe...that's about as Godlike as something could get. Extra-terrestrials (which have the same likelyhood as visiting this planet in the past as "angels" do) could very easily be described as the angels we think of today especially by someone who couldn't rationalize what he/she was seeing.

And yes, of course I'm pointing out a possibility...if I was stating fact why would I bring it to an arguments board? You're not making any sense. There are going to be an infinite amount of EVERY possibility in an argument including this one...so yes, there could be thousands of interpretations on what these things mean, I'm just offering up one that COULD possibly be true. Unfortunately when arguing with religion, there are no facts to support evidence. If you want to prove me wrong, bring me an angel and I'll bow before your brilliance.

I'm not saying that ANY religion is nonsense...of course when someone says the word science, religion assumes it's being attacked. Muslims, Christians, or Jews could all be right. There could be a God. There could be angels. There could be a Heaven. By why can't these things be things that we can familiarize today? Why can't God be the Higgs Boson particle? It wouldn't make any religion wrong...Not a single religion says, "God is not the Higgs Boson particle because he looks like this." Why can't "angels" be extra-terrestrials? Just because they don't fit a description in scriptures perfectly? If you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that these could be true, I say that's ignorance...because there is NO proof to the contrary...just as I acknowledge that they could be wrong for the same reason.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe ThereIsNoSpoon is wondering that the point is. As am I, certainly.

So far, your argument is basically that by some extremely lenient interpretations of religious concepts and allowing a fair bit of wishful thinking we might perhaps build a reasonable claim that some religious cosmology is not all that different from scientific fact.

Perhaps so, but why even try? By that point we don't even have much of a claim even, just a loose resemblance of one.

 

[painted wolf]

I never said extra-terrestrials visited this planet but it's just about as possible as winged humanoids (angels) visiting man.

Angels are not simply friendly
winged humanoids... this is simply how modern people tend to see them. Much like a Firecracker looks and functions vastly differently from a Space Shuttle.

My point about the Higgs Boson particle is that it is (theoretically) the creator of our known universe (the single atom in the Big Bang theory). God is branded "The Creator" thus it stands to reason that the Higgs could be swapped for God, creator of all things...

This is not what the Higgs is... this is not remotely what the Higgs is.
The Higgs is simply a particle that is predicted by current physics that has yet to be found... nothing more. It is not "the single atom in the Big Bang" or anything like it. It can not be swapped for God any more than a quark or an electron could.

wa:do

 

[ZooGirl02]

Well, I don't know. I mean, both have their things that can be dangerous. For example, science produced the nuclear bomb but religion produced the crusades, the inquisition, and the terrorists who claim to be Muslim.

 

[RomCat]

I believe that true religion and science have
the same source - God!

 

[pkearney06]

Sorry it took so long to respond.

Painted_wolf, comparing God to the Higgs is much more precise than comparing him to a quark or electron. The Higgs (while simply theory) is a particle that is thought to give mass to all things. Since mass is the known universe (ie all things we interact with or can measure) it is a safe comparison that a Higgs could be replaced by God (creator of all things). (Citation of wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson).

LuisDantas, again of course these are all loose interpretations. Had they been more precise or accurate, this wouldn't be a theoretical argument. It would be fact and I have a feeling that would be of major importance if it were. There not EXTREMELY loose interpretations either as many cultures (including Pueblo Indians, Pawnee Indians Mayan and even Egyptians) describe "Star People" in much the same way modern monotheistic religions describe angels. It's not a jump at all to consider a particle that can give mass as being interchangeable with God (as I said before, all if takes to be God is to be creator of all things, everything else in books of religions are merely interactions). So, not they're not wild leaps of ridiculous interpretations, but yes they are based on opinion, which is why there is no point, just a humble opinion of mine to see what the two communities think.

RomCat...agreed.

ZooGirl02, nothing could be closer to the truth. Both are unbelievably dangerous and I couldn't even begin to guess which one is more so. They make it even more dangerous by quarreling with each other. Religion has a history of persecuting science for their innovations and science has a history of tossing aside religion for theory. It's a NEVER ending cycle that will never come to an end. Even if proof is found one way or another...it won't end. If there is definitive proof of a God, science will want to know where He came from. If there is definitive proof of no God, religion will simply say, "He doesn't want to be found." NEVER ending battle.

 

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas, again of course these are all loose interpretations. Had they been more precise or accurate, this wouldn't be a theoretical argument.

I beg to differ. At least, let me point out that you are using the popular definition of "theory". A definition that, I suspect, came to be out of massive abuse of the Creationist claim that "Evolution is only a Theory". The masses understand that statement to be some sort of serious refutation, but it is in fact a desperate grasping at straws.

In serious scientific use, a theory is very much worthless if it is not precise and accurate, for it would not be testable and falsifiable. What you are presenting is not a theory, only wild speculation.

It would be fact and I have a feeling that would be of major importance if it were. There not EXTREMELY loose interpretations either as many cultures (including Pueblo Indians, Pawnee Indians Mayan and even Egyptians) describe "Star People" in much the same way modern monotheistic religions describe angels.

Sorry to differ again, but yes, they are indeed very loose.

It's not a jump at all to consider a particle that can give mass as being interchangeable with God (as I said before, all if takes to be God is to be creator of all things, everything else in books of religions are merely interactions).

Funny. Before reading this reply of yours, I have just contested this very point in the thread "What is God?". It is a jump, and a jumbo-sized one at that, because a God is supposed to have some sort of Will, even if it is beyond human understanding. No subatomic particle has ever been shown to have hints of will.

Nor do I agree that creation of all things is much of significant religious concept, really. It is WAY over-rated. Even conceding that point, it is still a wild jump to say that all other religious scripture is "merely interactions".

I'm afraid that you and I simply don't have much of a common ground about the significance of the hypothetical creator God.

 

[painted wolf]

Painted_wolf, comparing God to the Higgs is much more precise than comparing him to a quark or electron. The Higgs (while simply theory) is a particle that is thought to give mass to all things. Since mass is the known universe (ie all things we interact with or can measure) it is a safe comparison that a Higgs could be replaced by God (creator of all things).

So.. God is just the particle that makes thing heavy?
Why is that more precise than saying God is the particle that causes changes in active states?

wa:do