james bond
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I appreciate the Rupert Sheldrake vid, too. I'm sure there are more talking points within. Today, science has become dogma.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science vs Faith
- Thread starter Thief
- Start date
Thanks, I appreciate the Rupert Sheldrake vid, too. I'm sure there are more talking points within. Today, science has become dogma.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
to some extent.
gnostic
The Lost One
Based on Job 38 to 41, God is the "source" of fear, ignorance and make-believe, not "source" of verifiable knowledge.
gnostic
The Lost One
Good grief.
Of course, light can slow down, JB.
The speed of light as referred to by Einstein, is that in a vacuum.
Your example about the "index of refraction", light is slowing, because it is moving in a medium, ie in a fibre optic, this is not travelling in a vacuum.
Travelling in a medium will not be the same will not be travelling in a vacuum.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Now you are cooking...so when the sense of 'me' fades away....what and who is fully in the present?
james bond
Well-Known Member
I didn't know who Rupert Sheldrake was except from listening to his Ted Talk. From his background -- "Are minds and memories inside brains? Are the laws of nature fixed? Is nature purposeless and are phenomena like telepathy illusory? -- I can understand why he was banned considering it was Ted Talk. I admit his ideas are out there, but didn't think what he was saying in his talk was that crazy. Where I do agree with him 110% is when he says that current science has core beliefs that they take as gospel. One of the things he mentions is "how people went from believing the whole universe was alive to thinking that everything, including planets and animals, is mechanical and governed by mathematics." Kids today ask how to build or create a human being when we know how to assemble the atoms of a human being. I enjoy science fiction, but being asked things like that makes me wonder what are these kids learning? We do not know how to create a living organism. It isn't a mechanical process and governed by mathematics. They do not know what it takes for amino acids to form into proteins. If it were possible, then we would be seeing it in outer space. The materials are out there. However, when your atheist worldview science will not accept other reasons than it had to happen mechanically and based on mathematics, then that alternative teaching won't be out there.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Yes, just sat in conference; that this world is an illusion like a cpu. ugh. Which is such a flag. It would make me think untrue beyond technology. I don't know what others thought, and if it propelled the opposite thought. I cant say that's what the speaker was actually going for.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
Namaskaram ji
Do you mean that there are many metaphysical veiw points ?
I think I have understood in that you dont want to take a metaphysical veiw point , ..so for this moment you are happy to simply observe the workings of the mind and its reaction to the physical realm , ....
but wouldn,t being in the position of holding the veiw that there is nothing beyond what can be experienced or observed by mind , be equal to holding a religious metaphysical veiw point , in that neither have yet been proven by the beleiver , ......isn't adhereing to the 'Scientificaly proven only ' or scientificaly provable stand point limiting them selves some what , as even science pushes its own boundaries constantly , trying to understand new levels of existance or inteligence ?
returning to the idea of their being different Metaphysical veiw points , ....could this not be because in our un enlightened state we perhaps see these different approaches as contradictory , when they may simply appear differnt due to our limited understannding and habit of conceptualising and compartmentalising , surely this is is a tendancy of the individual mind that you have observed ?
Do you mean that there are many metaphysical veiw points ?
I think I have understood in that you dont want to take a metaphysical veiw point , ..so for this moment you are happy to simply observe the workings of the mind and its reaction to the physical realm , ....
but wouldn,t being in the position of holding the veiw that there is nothing beyond what can be experienced or observed by mind , be equal to holding a religious metaphysical veiw point , in that neither have yet been proven by the beleiver , ......isn't adhereing to the 'Scientificaly proven only ' or scientificaly provable stand point limiting them selves some what , as even science pushes its own boundaries constantly , trying to understand new levels of existance or inteligence ?
returning to the idea of their being different Metaphysical veiw points , ....could this not be because in our un enlightened state we perhaps see these different approaches as contradictory , when they may simply appear differnt due to our limited understannding and habit of conceptualising and compartmentalising , surely this is is a tendancy of the individual mind that you have observed ?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
if you believe (and you don't) that God is a source...of any kind
that source would remain....greater than you
so I lean to greater sources...
gnostic
The Lost One
This "greater source" is nothing more than personal belief and opinion of yours, if you have no way to verify what you have claimed that you think you have.
You wrote earlier that...
But you keep forgetting that for science to be true, it required verifiable evidences...
You seem incapable to learn "evidences" are something more than mere logic, more than just faith and belief. Without evidences, any claim about the "source" or "cause" are just merely your opinion.
As you have stated yourself, you can't put God on the petri-dish, then how do you really reconcile God with science since they are incompatible with one another.
Meaning, faith and evidence are incompatible. If you have evidence, then faith is not needed, making faith irrelevant, but the whole business of religion and theism are based exactly on that - faith.
gnostic
The Lost One
I know that you are addressing me, but to answer your question, yeah.
Although you use metaphysics to search for the "being" and "existence" in nature, but metaphysics can draw you into the state of "existence" or "being" in the supernatural, like religions.
Metaphysics can swing in many different directions.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
Namaskaram gnostic ji
thank you, but it was a question for Mr O'shez by way of discussion as to what he meant by a coment , ...not so much a question of my needing an answer , ......
personaly I vere to the acceptance of God as being knowable through loving admiration , not something that can be searched for , rather something that can be found , ...or something that reveals it self when the mind searches for more than a material cause , .......
religious faith surely is based upon the higer knowledge of revered others in that approaching God or Knowledge of God is a science of the heart not of matter , .....
when @Thief ji says ''I believe in God because of science''perhaps he means that Science , the examination of matter and material existance, can only take you so far , many Scientists are also belivers that there is somthing which contains and motivates all matter , ....many faiths are an ongoing search for Knowledge of that vastness which lay beyond and within all being , ....
personaly I dont find religion and science to be incompattable it is simply that we need to accept that one seeks to identify different aspects of existance the Mundane and the Supramundane , ....
thank you, but it was a question for Mr O'shez by way of discussion as to what he meant by a coment , ...not so much a question of my needing an answer , ......
personaly I vere to the acceptance of God as being knowable through loving admiration , not something that can be searched for , rather something that can be found , ...or something that reveals it self when the mind searches for more than a material cause , .......
religious faith surely is based upon the higer knowledge of revered others in that approaching God or Knowledge of God is a science of the heart not of matter , .....
when @Thief ji says ''I believe in God because of science''perhaps he means that Science , the examination of matter and material existance, can only take you so far , many Scientists are also belivers that there is somthing which contains and motivates all matter , ....many faiths are an ongoing search for Knowledge of that vastness which lay beyond and within all being , ....
personaly I dont find religion and science to be incompattable it is simply that we need to accept that one seeks to identify different aspects of existance the Mundane and the Supramundane , ....
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I would say there is just knowing. What is your opinion?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, and many of them are contradictory and incompatible, there is no point pretending otherwise. People tend to believe in the ones they favour, and that is often connected to their upbringing and religious background.
From my point of view everything is experienced "in" the mind, it is then a matter of belief and interpretation. But it is inherently subjective. For example, a theist and non-theist could have the same meditative experience, the theist might call it an experience of God, the non-theist might call it meditative stillness ( whatever ).
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Indeed it can, and much of it is speculative.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Yes....I sort of agree...but I wonder what others, of all cultures of all ages, perhaps mistakenly, may have called the imagined knower behind the knowing? Bodhisattvas for example....Buddhas even? In other cultures...perhaps other labels?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I think there are experiences, and then the interpretation of those experiences.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.....what is the difference between the experience and that who interprets the experience?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
science has a few items we should not deny
an object at rest will remain at rest
science also claims all of this universe was held in one location....a singularity
so the universe was set in motion.....
and substance is NOT self starting
Spirit first
McBell
Unbound
You start with science, move to conjecture, then bold empty conclusion.