What contributes more - science or religion???

[Orias]

Please elaborate -- are you saying that it is literally obvious that technology is better than happiness, etc.?

Yes.

Frankly your message is too brief and I can't make sure what you are trying to say. Do you use "observation" as a synonym for "science?" What has that to do with it?

Yes. It has everything to do with it. You don't gain knowledge by not observing, that should be common sense.

 

[Vendetta]

There are unanswered questions, sure, but nothing can answer those questions reliably if science can't.

True.

 

[Vendetta]

@waitasec....

Since science cannot observe emotion we can credit religion at least providing the psychological foundation of self-help as one acheivement. Since prayer or forms of meditation is founded to be beneficial we can credit this cultural phenomena.to religion and/or monastic culture.

 

[waitasec]

@waitasec....

Since science cannot observe emotion we can credit religion at least providing the psychological foundation of self-help as one acheivement. Since prayer or forms of meditation is founded to be beneficial we can credit this cultural phenomena.to religion and/or monastic culture.

i disagree because psychology is a science...
that deals with mental processes and the emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual.

i would agree meditation allows for healing...that has nothing to do with religion, imo.

 

[Vendetta]

i disagree because psychology is a science...
that deals with mental processes and the emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual.

i would agree meditation allows for healing...that has nothing to do with religion, imo.

LOL apparently you didn't go to the university I went to. Indeed in SOME circles.psychology is a science because it uses the scientific method. However when I graduated (summa cum laude mind you) from undergrad I receive a B.A. which in arts its mostly associated with general studies not a science. My advisor now says some scientist call psychology a "soft science" because it doesn't scrutinize the immeasurable like physics or genetics or biology. Because psychoanalysis in the beginning dep't with immeasurable feelings such as unconsciousness the scrutiny continued.

So yes you are wrong in that psychology is not universally accepted as a science even though we have APA. We have paranormal psychology which is relatively new but popular yet not widely accepted among the sciences even psychology. If you must know paranormal psychology does did with "spiritual energy" both psychic and by death. It also deals with meditation and prayer so before ypu disregard make sure you do your homework donut lol

 

[waitasec]

LOL apparently you didn't go to the university I went to. Indeed in SOME circles.psychology is a science because it uses the scientific method. However when I graduated (summa cum laude mind you) from undergrad I receive a B.A. which in arts its mostly associated with general studies not a science.
My advisor now says some scientist call psychology a "soft science" because it doesn't scrutinize the immeasurable like physics or genetics or biology. Because psychoanalysis in the beginning dep't with immeasurable feelings such as unconsciousness the scrutiny continued.

isn't it true one cannot study psychology without learning about biology and chemistry?
there is the study of psychophysics which is a branch of psychology that studies the relationship between the physical properties of stimuli and our psychological perceptions of them, so i don't know what you mean...
did you find out which scientists believe this? would it be considered to be a general consensus that psychology is not considered a hard science or is it just a few scientists do not agree?

you said:

science cannot observe emotion we can credit religion at least providing the psychological foundation of self-help as one acheivement

what IS the psychological foundation you give religion credit for?

 

[The Wizard]

first i'd like to say i like where this is going

i just want to know why people are better off believing god is watching over them? for me it gives people an undue sense of importance.
we are all in the same boat. i think that if we concentrated on each other rather than what a supernatural being expects of us we would be far better off.

.

It's based an alot of things I suppose. Including the progression of many other cultures and religions who existed beforehand since...

I think it will depend on the practices, person and their circumstances in life. I thought it worked quite well for smaller tribes and communities. Then population rises an intrusions occur from other cultures and disaster/problems/chaos begins. It seems to become obvious when looking at things nationally. Such just doesn't mix well.

Religions and beliefs can override, cancell out or prevent various unwanted events from taking place. Such things occur in a few ways. Such as alterations of someone's relationship and time/space syncronicity with their own envirement and lifestyle. When things are practiced the right way it usually adds a posative effect and influence on many circumstances with which the person will experience. However, I cannot say that all faiths and beliefs can override all events and processes... like for instance a no way out scenerio or falling off a cliff, etc. Processes have gotten to the point that it cannot be overridden through that person's level of belief or faith. I just don't think things work that way for most people- sounds more like wishful thinking..

To add, it is a scientific fact that hyptotism works. Such dynamics of the sub-conscious are still somewhat unknown. When practiced correctly, beliefs affect the subconscious among other things (i.e. accepting things as true), which will motivate it to express/reflect various beliefs as more true in the outside world. This is just another reason for it. There is an actual science about it. Our inside world affects our outside experience and circumstances- through practiced beliefs, etc.

but how long did that take?
my own mother, who is 74, is now finally asking for a divorce because she thought god would change my dad and that divorce was a sin......

My condolences.. everyone seems to use religion in their own way. Some people believe in demons. That is about as dark age as I have seen. And, the person who used such beliefs was quite disturbed psychologically. But, I'm not sure what played what in the senerio of course. I refuse such things. To believe IN something means to bring it INTO one's own experience more and more. Therefore, I am quite picky on my beliefs and would not ever accept anything negative of the sort.

to be fair it was the religious left that helped out on many of these issues.
this stance is far more humanistic than the right who seem to be pulling their weight around because of the innate characteristic of being religious, being morally superior than non believers just for having a personal relationship with the almighty....

religion is just a word that hasn't found a meaning because of it's diametrically opposing values, do you know what i mean?...

I agree. Alot of people I think are using the wrong approach towards religion to understand it more or why it exists. I have used simple observation to understand religion and beliefs more (i.e. the cause and effect processes of belief. Changes in synchronicity due to beliefs. Harnessing the powerful aspects of the sub-conscious, etc) I have stopped applying the sci-mind approach at belief itself because it is a different area of human application and practice. It is another ability. Beliefs are a way of affecting one's world or life by using no knowledge or reasoning at all (towards the belief itself)- by not even needing it. And that is the beauty of it. And, that is what most people do not get. So, all they do is go nowhere.

science is on a course for good or bad, it's up to us to decide it has no morality.
so i would have to say the question to this thread is an impossible question to answer because religion and science are 2 completely different things...
if we were to compare which religion has contributed more that would be doable....

I agree... we can speculate though with our favorite wedges (biased or not).

ultimately we are dealing with human nature
i would say science is neutral by nature. it is merely a tool to use.
religion would decide how to use it...

I don't know. I would say authority mostly decides how to use it (i.e. whether religious reasons or not)... IMO.

 

[Frank Merton]

If you aren't referring to spirits, exactly what are you referring to?

I was making a joke--the spirits I mention are of a liquid sort.

The West is captivated by the idea of a base physical world and a pure spiritual world, the one inhabited by people and the other by angels. Even those who reject this concept still think in its terms--via actively rejecting the idea of spirit rather than transforming the idea into something part of the world and not separate from it.

Modern psychologists sometimes tell us happiness is more of a personality trait than something one gets (some people are naturally happy, even in the worst of circumstances). It is a matter of brain chemistry. What religions can do is put us in moods (rearrange the chemicals), and surely other things (music, family, success, praise, money, friendship, insight) can do as much.

I say "bully" for whatever works. In my case I find the inward life of meditation, of introspective contemplation, of mindful observation of existence -- attach whatever cliche you want -- a great source of happiness (and, of course, much else).

The difference between spiritual approaches and physicalist (aka materialist) approaches is the realization that there are aspects to existence that science does not deal with -- that there do seem to be limits to the ability of the human mind to put everything into its categories and theories.

 

[Vendetta]

Hey waitasec forgive me for my mispellings....kind of hard typing long paragraphs on a Droid X....I am also tired so I will give you my response in the morning

 

[Orias]

The difference between spiritual approaches and physicalist (aka materialist) approaches is the realization that there are aspects to existence that science does not deal with -- that there do seem to be limits to the ability of the human mind to put everything into its categories and theories.

Exactly.

This is one of the biggest reasons that I don't get along with "scientific" atheists.

It's almost as if they see science like it were truly objective.

That's why I say science and religion are one and have contributed equally to what we perceive as now, what was, and what is to come.

 

[PolyHedral]

The difference between spiritual approaches and physicalist (aka materialist) approaches is the realization that there are aspects to existence that science does not deal with -- that there do seem to be limits to the ability of the human mind to put everything into its categories and theories.

This is not only not true, it's not even possible to back it up.

 

[Vendetta]

isn't it true one cannot study psychology without learning about biology and chemistry?
there is the study of psychophysics which is a branch of psychology that studies the relationship between the physical properties of stimuli and our psychological perceptions of them, so i don't know what you mean...
did you find out which scientists believe this? would it be considered to be a general consensus that psychology is not considered a hard science or is it just a few scientists do not agree?

you said:


what IS the psychological foundation you give religion credit for?

Well in "essence" psychology is a science since we deal with the scientific method when it comes to research. However historically during Freuds time, most scientist (e.g. physicists, biologist) had come to believe that one cannot measure emotion because emotion whether evaluated by the psychologist or self-report (that is when the person interviewed tells the psychologist how he or she feels), can lead to a subjective and erroneous conclusion. However times have changed. Psychology today as it was back then is about replicating previous work, that is, if an idea about a disorder is true, other psychologist who use similar or alternative methods can come to the same conclusion as the previous one.

Psychophysics is interesting study especially in my area (Neuroscience) since in learning about brain plasticity (how the brain changes from experience). This particular area psychophysics is within the umbrella of neuropsychology and/or neuroscience so yes this particular area of psychology is scientific.

As far as how religion contributes to the mental well vein of humans.it is what I have always said the "placebo effect" or whatever you want to call it, changes the mental status of the person. For instance, if I call upon God to help me financially and in the following week my life turns foe the better instead of attributing my luck (or in this case blessing) to being just financially responsible, I would attribute it to God or some other reason this I would believe God acted on my behalf because I prayed. All the which would increase my desire to pray and be more positive because of previous experiences with prayer.

 

[waitasec]

thank you for taking the time to explain

As far as how religion contributes to the mental well vein of humans.it is what I have always said the "placebo effect" or whatever you want to call it, changes the mental status of the person. For instance, if I call upon God to help me financially and in the following week my life turns foe the better instead of attributing my luck (or in this case blessing) to being just financially responsible, I would attribute it to God or some other reason this I would believe God acted on my behalf because I prayed. All the which would increase my desire to pray and be more positive because of previous experiences with prayer.

but if you were to pray to god to help you financially and do nothing to change your behavior and for some unforeseeable reason your luck turns around, isn't that giving the placebo effect to much power? meaning you don't get to the core of what is causing your financial problems. isn't being financially responsible about budgeting and living within your means ? so how does that help if the behavior doesn't change because it only perpetuates what the believer ultimately does; relying on luck to change their circumstances.

see what i mean...

 

[Orias]

This is not only not true, it's not even possible to back it up.

Science seems to be an accessory to the conceptual mind.

It's much like a hard drive for an Xbox 360, it's not needed but makes things more convenient (most of the time).

As for science not touching down on some areas, I tend to agree.

I've already tried explaining my perspective to you and Meow Mix, and I'm not entirely sure if you are capable of understanding (no offense of course) it. It's not incompetence, that's for sure, it's perspective and it will always be subjected to perception, which leads me to see science just as fallible as religion.

I mean, how can a scientist explain faith, when all he knows is the meaning of the word, and the meaning of the perception? How can a scientist explain spirituality, when he assumes that it has to be supernatural or even consistant with science for him to even consider it?

Sure words and labels exist, used to define and describe aspects of life, but knowing these things is different than understanding or even experiencing them.

It's not a matter of rushing into an understanding, it's easing yourself into a pool of discomfort, where the knowledge can conform around you instead of being stirred up into disharmony.

The basis of this argument is, we perceive differently, which is obvious. This seems to relate to the aspect that religion seems to cherish the emotion of man, where science attempts to break down things intellectually.

And I tell you this, without one the other could not exist.

 

[Vendetta]

thank you for taking the time to explain



but if you were to pray to god to help you financially and do nothing to change your behavior and for some unforeseeable reason your luck turns around, isn't that giving the placebo effect to much power? meaning you don't get to the core of what is causing your financial problems. isn't being financially responsible about budgeting and living within your means ? so how does that help if the behavior doesn't change because it only perpetuates what the believer ultimately does; relying on luck to change their circumstances.

see what i mean...

I see your point and yes you're right! But religionist would say "God helps those who help themselves" to avoid that loop hole. But here is where it gets tricky without using a money example what if a persons pancreatic cancer recedes without a medical explanation after a person prays?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

My advisor now says some scientist call psychology a "soft science" because it doesn't scrutinize the immeasurable like physics or genetics or biology.

It is also an Art form. Working with many different Therapists over 20 years, some get much better results then others. It is much more then their ability to relate. I can tell you that some of the worst interns go on pass their state boards on their first try. While some of the best it took a few tries before they pass.

The system modality seems to matter less then the skill of the Therapist from my personal experience.

 

[Vendetta]

It is also an Art form. Working with many different Therapists over 20 years, some get much better results then others. It is much more then their ability to relate. I can tell you that some of the worst interns go on pass their state boards on their first try. While some of the best it took a few tries before they pass.

The system modality seems to matter less then the skill of the Therapist from my personal experience.

Yea an unfortunate thing indeed.

 

[waitasec]

I see your point and yes you're right! But religionist would say "God helps those who help themselves" to avoid that loop hole. But here is where it gets tricky without using a money example what if a persons pancreatic cancer recedes without a medical explanation after a person prays?

well then that person's reality is based on a presumption that god is concerned with their health. odds are if your someone of faith praying is to be expected...how about all those that do pray and die of it any way...? that happens everyday.

and what if a persons pancreatic cancer recedes and they don't pray?
that happens too.

imo, this is not logical reasoning and it gives people an undue sense of importance.

 

[Frank Merton]

This is not only not true, it's not even possible to back it up.

With that attitude you will never learn anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see your point and yes you're right! But religionist would say "God helps those who help themselves" to avoid that loop hole. But here is where it gets tricky without using a money example what if a persons pancreatic cancer recedes without a medical explanation after a person prays?

Then it means that we don't know what the cause of the remission was.

And nobody just prays. Even if the person does pray, they're doing other things as well.

How do you know it was the prayer that did it and not, say, a change in diet? Or environment? Or sleeping position?

Or maybe the cause of the remission was something the person did 10 years ago, and the effects just took a while to kick in.

Now... I freely admit that we would have no good reason to assume that any of these were the cause of the remission. We may even have good reason to assume that some of them weren't the cause. But doesn't prayer have this same problem?