• 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!

Which religion is most the most scientifically accurate?

idav

Being
Premium Member
I could also argue, that over the years religions have held science back from progressing even further.
It did especially when the religion was sleeping with the state. Sometimes religious cultures flourished in science but it didn't usually last long.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I used to have a commodore 64
Me too. There was a game I loved called Ultimate Wizard. I'm not a big gamer, but I do have an xbox360 and I do occasionally play Modern Warfare or similar games, but I often find myself wishing I could play Ultimate Wizard. Pixels so large you could count them without squinting, but it was still a whole lot of fun,


There is also Ray Kurzweil the law of Accelerating Returns.

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view.
According to Kuhnian and post-Kuhnian critiques, it is neither linear nor exponential, but a series of paradigm shifts.

Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history.

A few decades?



I agree with need more scientists to sift through the data and be able to interpret it the best they can, until others look at it and at some point we get a concenses.
Consensus often hurts more than it helps. It doesn't take kindly to views or research which challenge the reigning orthodoxy. Researchers often have a choice between publishing something they don't really believe, or have watered down, or not getting published. Or funded.


We already know global warming is happening though
Who's we? A majority of scientists working in areas relating to climate change believe the evidence supports the theory, but 1) there are still some very well-renowned experts do don't agree and 2) we're back at the consensus problem.

, because things are complex and hard to figure out, means we need to work on them longer. But that is just why there is research. I don't think the world would be great if everyone knew everything really.

A question, though is whether the research is done correctly. The classical scientific method was designed for a mechanistic era before the days of relativity, QM, and chaotic systems. Yet for the most part we are still using the same analytical tools.


What paleoclimatologists haven't consulted with statisticians?
It's an ongoing controversy over the work of two publications by Mann, Hughs, and Bradley. They used a statistical technique called principal component analysis. It's a multivariate statistical method of reducing the dimensions of a data set, similar to the way picture files are condensed. The issue is whether or not they used it correctly. Specifically, the issue is whether the code used tends to return the type of data they want given any "meaningful" set of data.



Besides this is how science works in the first place.
Not really. The point of the peer-review process is for these things to be checked. Nobody did. The issue was brought to light by a retiree who hadn't done math in years but had a gift for it. Eventually his work was published and the problem was finally brought to the attention of others. Only it still isn't settled. Some claim that the analysis was "mainly accurate" and the problems small, others disagree. The problem is complicated because of missing original data.


Although religion can teach somethings, most of our modern advancements on reality and truth come from scientific advancement. Science doesn't use the word "truth" really. There is basic science and research science.

Science assumes truth. It's built into the scientific philosophy. It has to ignore, at least to a certent extent, the conundrums posed from Kant and Hume to Feyeraband about the nature of reality and our ability to perceive it as is.


To me this could be a plus to science. Because we can learn more, not everyone should be on the same page or use the exact same means of discovery depending on the specific field of the science they are working with.
There's two problems to this disunity and diversity. One is methodological. The other, and more important problem, is that as specialization increases, total knowledge doesn't necessarily increase with it. When my grandfather went to college, he took a math class taught by Alfred North Whitehead. He was one of the mathematicians of his day. But he, like Russell, Freud, most "intellectualls" all had studied philosophy, greek, latin, history, etc. There's a reason PhD stands for doctorate of philosophy. Philosophy WAS learning. Math, science, logic, linguistics, etc., were all philosophy, and the basis behind education was reasoning, deduction, and intellectualism.

Fast forward to today. Forget greek and latin, most math professors have only a passing familiarity with other areas of math. An old neighbor of mine is a professor of math at Brown. His specialty is number theory. A lot of the topics I wanted to discuss with him he simply didn't know about, because graph theory, genetic algorithms, advanced statistical techniques, are all areas with too little relation to his field. The situation is much worse elsewhere. Psychologists and sociologists to often lack a background in philosophy, history, and math, as well as the ability to read german and french, which creates a serious problem when they are working with concepts which originated in german or french intellectual circles and they don't really understand them because they aren't familiar with the intellectual movement in which the concepts developed. Nor can they even read the papers and texts of the time, because many were never translated into English. The more specialized academia becomes, the harder it is to solve the problems researchers are faced with. If I'm working on an Artificial Intelligence project, and one member has a strong background in neurobiology, another in computer science, another in linguistics, another in math, and another in engineering, often enough communication is difficult. And that's when they are already working as a team. Too often, people work in a particular field will work with other people in the same field and as a result they loose the chance to gain insight from those whose area of study is quite different. Studies of chaotic/dynamical systems were well underway three decades ago, and earlier, but because only particular groups were working developing techniques to analyze these systems, it wasn't until recently that people whose field in some way related to the brain (a compex system if there ever was one) realized that just maybe using classical logic from computer science wasn't the right way to approach the brain.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Science assumes truth. It's built into the scientific philosophy. It has to ignore, at least to a certent extent, the conundrums posed from Kant and Hume to Feyeraband about the nature of reality and our ability to perceive it as is.
I don't think science has to ignore it, I agree with you that the problems aren't really an issue for what is trying to be achieved. Also I think in many ways science pulls a lot of the layers away and in fields like physics especially in quantum physics we are finding that reality is still very strange and there are still many possibilities for us to face about the nature of reality.
 

Akhilesh

Member
Most scientific religion is hinduism.hinduism has no prophet like jesus nanak .invention of zero and infinity ayurveda medicine atom have done by hinduism before christ.temple of lord vishnu in angkorwat cambodia we can search in wikipedia is the best example of scientific hinduism.law of karma and reincarnation is given by hinduism .it gives three another religion jain sikh and buddhism derived from hinduism.thanks
 

willmyster

New Member
I think most religions began like science, with observations. Primitive religions began by ordinary people observing nature and asking themselves, "How did we come to be?" Plants seem to come from earth. Life seems to come from the Earth. In fact the Bible says in NIV, Gen 2.7 "Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2.9 "The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."

The author of Genesis observed that all life comes from Earth. Dictionary.com's first definition of God is "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." In the absence of science, the first Jews knew that all living things, including mankind, were created from Earth. Ancient religions of the world also believe that Earth created all living things. Why is it so hard to believe that Earth is our "God." It is universally accepted by every scientific study that all living things are a product of the Earth. It's even stated in the Bible, and yet Christians and Jews alike widely dispute this fact. Buddhist, Native Americans, and Hindu religions tell about an Earth God.

Every element in our body is present in Earth. There can be no doubt that Earth is our creator. I choose to call that creator God. Why is that so hard to believe? Isn't Earth - void of all things man has done to destroy it - the most beautiful thing in the universe. Doesn't Earth provide us with everything we need to live, oxygen to breathe, places to enjoy (i.e., beaches, mountains, lakes and rivers), experiences beyond your wildest imagination? I'd much rather worship Earth, than an imagined alien God. Earth I can touch, I can breathe, I can see, I can enjoy, I can love, I can worship and I can respect. I can't do any of that with an Alien God I can't see or touch.

Earth is not a thing, but a living God that creates life. Let's take care of our Earth.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Have touch this thread since I last posted in it. And forgotten all about my post. Didn't realize you idav had replied.

I'm :sorry:, idav. Please excuse my tardiness.

idav said:
No worries I do see a bit of bias in this thread. Is the agnosticism just saying we don't know or can't know? I was thinking science is more about gnosis, what do you think gnostic?:)

:yes: science can be about gnosis...

...but I was thinking in more in the line that agnosticism is not simply just "I don't know", but the skepticism in agnosticism. We can not know unless evidences are present.

Me, I'm an empirical agnostic (or weak agnostic).

Agnosticism said:
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

Science is knowledge (hence it has theory or theories), but it is also have the procedure of verification (scientific method), and that by acquiring evidences (empiricism), to either prove or debunk that knowledge.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Having read almost 90 or so posts, I have to say that none of the religions suggested, are scientific accurate.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
I think most religions began like science, with observations. Primitive religions began by ordinary people observing nature and asking themselves, "How did we come to be?" Plants seem to come from earth. Life seems to come from the Earth. In fact the Bible says in NIV, Gen 2.7 "Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2.9 "The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."

The author of Genesis observed that all life comes from Earth. Dictionary.com's first definition of God is "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." In the absence of science, the first Jews knew that all living things, including mankind, were created from Earth. Ancient religions of the world also believe that Earth created all living things. Why is it so hard to believe that Earth is our "God." It is universally accepted by every scientific study that all living things are a product of the Earth. It's even stated in the Bible, and yet Christians and Jews alike widely dispute this fact. Buddhist, Native Americans, and Hindu religions tell about an Earth God.
I do see a lot of religions hinting at the same aspects. We are stardust.
Every element in our body is present in Earth. There can be no doubt that Earth is our creator. I choose to call that creator God. Why is that so hard to believe? Isn't Earth - void of all things man has done to destroy it - the most beautiful thing in the universe. Doesn't Earth provide us with everything we need to live, oxygen to breathe, places to enjoy (i.e., beaches, mountains, lakes and rivers), experiences beyond your wildest imagination? I'd much rather worship Earth, than an imagined alien God. Earth I can touch, I can breathe, I can see, I can enjoy, I can love, I can worship and I can respect. I can't do any of that with an Alien God I can't see or touch.

Earth is not a thing, but a living God that creates life. Let's take care of our Earth.
Similarly the sun can be looked at in the same way, as a giver of life.

Cool post.:)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Have touch this thread since I last posted in it. And forgotten all about my post. Didn't realize you idav had replied.

I'm :sorry:, idav. Please excuse my tardiness.



:yes: science can be about gnosis...

...but I was thinking in more in the line that agnosticism is not simply just "I don't know", but the skepticism in agnosticism. We can not know unless evidences are present.

Me, I'm an empirical agnostic (or weak agnostic).



Science is knowledge (hence it has theory or theories), but it is also have the procedure of verification (scientific method), and that by acquiring evidences (empiricism), to either prove or debunk that knowledge.
Facts are facts even without verification. Knowledge is already an interpretation of truth but the truth is still factual.
 

Gurtej

Member
Religion and science have different motives , any religion that claims to be scientific accurate is just kidding itself ..religion is for oneness with god not to prove facts. I can only talk about my religion and one thing for sure is there is nothing is Sikhism texts that contradicts with science as of yet and it's
Not its purpose anyway.
 

Gurtej

Member
Which, ironically, is very unscientific by making presumptuous conclusions based on no evidence.

I think is most.. At least science explains and give conclusion ... Eg when Muslims literally takes day and night explanation in Quran in a scientific view, when its was nothing new at that time...eg
If Prophet Mohammad knew everything he cud have easily explained it by saving it rotates around its axis.. Plain and simple.. Why confuse people for 1000 years or may be ppl trying to justify words wherever
Possible::))

But then again the end point if Quran is oneness with
God and not science
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
I think most religions began like science, with observations. Primitive religions began by ordinary people observing nature and asking themselves, "How did we come to be?" Plants seem to come from earth. Life seems to come from the Earth. In fact the Bible says in NIV, Gen 2.7 "Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2.9 "The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."

The author of Genesis observed that all life comes from Earth. Dictionary.com's first definition of God is "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." In the absence of science, the first Jews knew that all living things, including mankind, were created from Earth. Ancient religions of the world also believe that Earth created all living things. Why is it so hard to believe that Earth is our "God." It is universally accepted by every scientific study that all living things are a product of the Earth. It's even stated in the Bible, and yet Christians and Jews alike widely dispute this fact. Buddhist, Native Americans, and Hindu religions tell about an Earth God.

Every element in our body is present in Earth. There can be no doubt that Earth is our creator. I choose to call that creator God. Why is that so hard to believe? Isn't Earth - void of all things man has done to destroy it - the most beautiful thing in the universe. Doesn't Earth provide us with everything we need to live, oxygen to breathe, places to enjoy (i.e., beaches, mountains, lakes and rivers), experiences beyond your wildest imagination? I'd much rather worship Earth, than an imagined alien God. Earth I can touch, I can breathe, I can see, I can enjoy, I can love, I can worship and I can respect. I can't do any of that with an Alien God I can't see or touch.

Earth is not a thing, but a living God that creates life. Let's take care of our Earth.

"Every element in our body is present in Earth." But that is NOT where the elements came from in th first place. They came from supernova star explosions and the solar system and earth are at least second generation.


"Isn't Earth - void of all things man has done to destroy it - the most beautiful thing in the universe."

The Earth is certainly beautiful, but there are a lot of places in the universe to see still, so this might be biased based on the fact we live on this planet.

There are things out there "beyond your wildest imagination" for sure, you couldn't imagine in the universe or at the QM level either in anyone's wildest dreams.

We were born from space and will go back to space.
 
Top