Which religion is most the most scientifically accurate?

[idav]

Ask this question -- to one of the most accurate scientiest of this world.
BTW who is the most accurate scientiest of this scientific world ??????
And to which religion do he/she belong to.. ??????

The greatest of scientists are pantheists of course.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ask this question -- to one of the most accurate scientiest of this world.
BTW who is the most accurate scientiest of this scientific world ??????
And to which religion do he/she belong to.. ??????

I wouldn't trust that method.
One of the smartest math whizzes to come out of the University of Michigan was Ted Kazynski.
He's better known as the Unabomber. His beliefs led him to kill or maim quite a few people.
Can't blindly trust even those smartie pants types.

Revoltifarianism is for us small brained types.
Don't trust facts.
Certainty is the mind killer.
Don't trust people.
People is stupid...especially in groups.
You can still use facts & learn from people, but keep on think'n fer yerself.
Accept that you might need to change your mind about comfortable beliefs.

 

[Caladan]

I think Buddhism is fairly malleable (non dogmatic) with a thirst for knowledge and it began on a good foundation of sound logic and reason which makes Buddhism very compatible with science. Which religions are the most sound when compared to science?

Religions discuss ethics, morals, inspiration and the community. not so much science.
One may find plenty of content in the Bible or the Mahabharata but not much of it would be about the biological life of earth or astronomy from the perspective of science.

 

[Mcshane22]

Here's a paragraph from pg.89 "Philosophy of Spinoza" edited by Joseph Ratner. "The great religious significance of Spinoza's doctrine of the intellectual love of God is that it establishes religion upon knowledge and not upon ignorance. The virtue of the mind is clearly and distinctly to understand, not ignorantly to believe. There is no conflict between science and religion; religion is based upon science. There is a conflict only between science and superstition."

 

[waterbear]

Here's a paragraph from pg.89 "Philosophy of Spinoza" edited by Joseph Ratner. "The great religious significance of Spinoza's doctrine of the intellectual love of God is that it establishes religion upon knowledge and not upon ignorance. The virtue of the mind is clearly and distinctly to understand, not ignorantly to believe. There is no conflict between science and religion; religion is based upon science. There is a conflict only between science and superstition."

Spinoza's philosophy of God leaves out God and substitutes the material universe in process as God. It's a totally man-made ideology that also leaves out all the religious experiences that have produced our ideas about God. The supernatural experience is not addressed at all when it's condemned by those who have never experienced it and carry on as if it was only "superstition" yet these "superstitions" have run our world for the past 2500 years and are still going strong, perhaps because atheists and atheism, even atheistic theism, cannot ever replace God and spiritual phenomena.

 

[Viker]

The Mototronic Church, it thinks science is sexy.

 

[idav]

Spinoza's philosophy of God leaves out God and substitutes the material universe in process as God. It's a totally man-made ideology that also leaves out all the religious experiences that have produced our ideas about God. The supernatural experience is not addressed at all when it's condemned by those who have never experienced it and carry on as if it was only "superstition" yet these "superstitions" have run our world for the past 2500 years and are still going strong, perhaps because atheists and atheism, even atheistic theism, cannot ever replace God and spiritual phenomena.

With going by the material universe and avoiding supernatural claims I would say it sound pretty scientific. Attaching theistic or atheistic belief to it isn't exactly scientific but compatible until someone answers the creation question.

 

[terryboy]

Pastafarianism of course! it was created by a science student

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I tend to think that due to the total lack of anything proving or disproving God or any other religious concepts, and that accepting an answer can ward off future investigations, agnosticism is best suited for science.

 

[Mcshane22]

With going by the material universe and avoiding supernatural claims I would say it sound pretty scientific. Attaching theistic or atheistic belief to it isn't exactly scientific but compatible until someone answers the creation question.

Much agreed. My only hangup with Spinoza's philosophy is his logic proving a non personal god a non self aware diety. "I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that the divine nature is eminently circular; and thus would every one ascribe his own attributes to God."
(Baruch Spinoza / 1632-1677 / Epistles)
My understanding of this qoute is his logic is that a divine substance cannot be a circle or a triangle then therefore it must be neither therefore it is indifferent.

My hang up is why a substance containg such divine attributes could not be both a triangle and a circle. So to the Jews he is the god of Abraham to a tribe in Papua New Guinea god is a Devine crocodile in the lake. To man he is anthropomorphic , to a dolphin if they are self aware he is a dolphin. I believe the substance that Spinoza speaks of, is universal in nature to all that exist in nature.

I do follow Spinoza's belief that the best way to show adoration to this divine substance is through understanding him by way of scientific exploration

There's no reason why one person can hold the view that God is a external creator, and to another His creation is contained with in God and God is in his creation
"God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things."
(Baruch Spinoza / 1632-1677 / Ethics / 1677)

 

[idav]

Much agreed. My only hangup with Spinoza's philosophy is his logic proving a non personal god a non self aware diety. "I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that the divine nature is eminently circular; and thus would every one ascribe his own attributes to God."
(Baruch Spinoza / 1632-1677 / Epistles)
My understanding of this qoute is his logic is that a divine substance cannot be a circle or a triangle then therefore it must be neither therefore it is indifferent.

My hang up is why a substance containg such divine attributes could not be both a triangle and a circle. So to the Jews he is the god of Abraham to a tribe in Papua New Guinea god is a Devine crocodile in the lake. To man he is anthropomorphic , to a dolphin if they are self aware he is a dolphin. I believe the substance that Spinoza speaks of, is universal in nature to all that exist in nature.

I think so. This reminds me of something I heard recently. When you tell a child that they and the couch are both made of atoms. When asked what that made them think of the couch they said "I am the couch". A simple yet profound truth. When bringing god into it, you can ask and they might say "i am god" but more accurately "all is god".

I do follow Spinoza's belief that the best way to show adoration to this divine substance is through understanding him by way of scientific exploration

It is often the way many scientists talk when it comes down to it they use spiritual language.

There's no reason why one person can hold the view that God is a external creator, and to another His creation is contained with in God and God is in his creation
"God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things."
(Baruch Spinoza / 1632-1677 / Ethics / 1677)

Lots of cool quotes you've been coming up with. yeah I agree, an outside agent complicates things without a need to.

 

[Mcshane22]

Lots of cool quotes you've been coming up with. yeah I agree, an outside agent complicates things without a need to.

Thanks, Quotes are a passion of mine. When I find one that sums an idea up in a short but profound way, I mentally store it like a second language. Ideas can be conveyed a thousand ways, but sometimes one way stands above the rest in it's profound beauty.


"Most anthologists of quotations are like those who eat cherries or oysters:* first picking the best ones and winding up by eating everything.*" ~Sebastien Roch Nicolas Chamfort, Maxims, 1825

 

[Tathagata]

Scientifically accurate, I don't know.

Compatible with science?

Taoism, Sikhism, Religious Confucianism, and some forms of Buddhism.
Buddhism has quite a rich cosmology. If taken literally - and some did (and maybe some do), especially regular laypeople, it's not that scientific.

Hinduism, too. Hinduism has a rich cosmology and plenty of stories, which many take literally; take them literally instead of metaphorical, you've got problems.

Same for any religion. Any religion can accept science. Literalism can't.

My view, anyway.

Absurd. Buddhist cosmology is the most scientific religious cosmology. It posits a Cyclical Multiverse. Cyclical universe was posited by Einstein and most modern scientists accept Multiverse as the most profound and likely theory of the Universe's structure.


.

 

[Tathagata]

I think Buddhism is fairly malleable (non dogmatic) with a thirst for knowledge and it began on a good foundation of sound logic and reason which makes Buddhism very compatible with science. Which religions are the most sound when compared to science?

I dont believe Buddhism is malleable. The Buddha was very clear in his statements. Sometimes he's satiracle, but he never says "this truth about reality im about to present to you is possibly false and subject to change." That would be absurd.

I dont think Buddhism is most compatible with science because of its scientific, knowledge seeking nature, but rather because the actual Dharma description of reality is closest to modern scientific understanding.

.

 

[waterbear]

With going by the material universe and avoiding supernatural claims I would say it sound pretty scientific. Attaching theistic or atheistic belief to it isn't exactly scientific but compatible until someone answers the creation question.

My Christian theology answers it. And answers it logically.

 

[idav]

My Christian theology answers it. And answers it logically.

Logic isn't necessarily scientific and neither is theism for the most part.

 

[idav]

I dont believe Buddhism is malleable. The Buddha was very clear in his statements. Sometimes he's satiracle, but he never says "this truth about reality im about to present to you is possibly false and subject to change." That would be absurd.

I dont think Buddhism is most compatible with science because of its scientific, knowledge seeking nature, but rather because the actual Dharma description of reality is closest to modern scientific understanding.

.

I knew that malleable wasn't a good word but I was referencing Buddha saying to test things against reason. Dharma is bit deeper but I see what your saying. Is it any more scientific than other eastern versions of Dharma?

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

~Buddha

 

[Tathagata]

I knew that malleable wasn't a good word but I was referencing Buddha saying to test things against reason. Dharma is bit deeper but I see what your saying. Is it any more scientific than other eastern versions of Dharma?

Yes, certainly. This article excerpt confirms it:

"The Buddha's teaching is rationalistic, scientific and empirical. Though he uses parables and similes in common with other religious teachers he is somewhat unique in bringing a highly logical and analytical approach to questions of ultimate significance for human beings. In this breaking down into constituent elements, the Buddha was heir to earlier element philosophies which had sought to characterize existing things as made up of a set of basic elements. The Buddha, however, eliminated mythological rhetoric, systematized world components into five groups, and used this approach not to characterize a substantial object, but to explain a delusion. He coordinated material components with psychological ones. The Buddha criticized the Brahmins' theories of anAbsolute
*as yet another*reification, instead giving a*path
*to self-perfection as a means of transcending the world of*name and form."
-- Buddhist philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



.

 

[Mcshane22]

From a letter to Murray W. Gross, Apr. 26, 1947, Einstein Archive, reel 33-324, Jammer, p. 138 - 139:

When question about God and religion on behalf of an aged Talmudic scholar, Einstein replied:
"it seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems."

From what I get from Einstein, it seems that until we can cleary comprehend Gods nature, we should not be concerned with the issue of what God is and focus on our human problems, and to do this we should learn everything we can using science to better understand our role

 

[Alceste]

That's like asking which Spice Girl is the best singer when compared with Arethra Franklin.

Arethra Franklin? lol.