Why not God AND Science?

[Thief]

if you had a clue how genesis was written and by what kind of ancient hebrews and their culture at this time you would be able to put the words into better context

from what I see you have a sever lack of historical biblical education and pretty much your statements are in fantasy land no one else follows.

the two different versions of genesis are from two books being compiled from two different authors very early on.

there are 5 different types or groups of authors in the first 5 books and its so fragmented its hard to make heads from tales. it has caused great confusion and can be misinterpreted easily by a literal reading.

it was written as allegory and thus the editors had no problem in the compilation

Not historical text?...I would agree
Not a science paper?...I would agree

An opportunity for you to deny God?....nay

 

[outhouse]

you can dodge questions all you like and ignore everything.

its all you have

 

[Thief]

you can dodge questions all you like and ignore everything.

its all you have

I see you dodge faith, ignoring your spirit.

 

[outhouse]

I see you dodge faith, ignoring your spirit.

I have no faith in something ive found to be created by ancient primitive people.

a so called spirit has never made it out of the realm of human imagination.

keep dreaming hopefully you find what your loking for

 

[Vichar]

I think this term "science" has several meanings:

Science as a method. People feel that through repeated observation under controlled conditions, a pattern emerges that can be used to predict outcomes unders similar conditions in the future. By itself, this method does nothing to contradict religion or God. In fact, clear thinking (something scientific method encourages), is in my opinion a very useful tool for learning about God.

Science as a religion. Science has gained a certain critical mass, and amongst some of the more popular beliefs are nuggets like concrete realism and the idea that consciousness is a by-product of the physical brain, emergent or not. I don't agree with many of these basic assumptions, just like I don't buy many tenets of the world's major religions. Rather than say this brand of science is at odds with God, I'll simply say that this kind of science worships a different God, and his name is Intellectual Ego (aka Academic Snootiness).

 

[gnostic]

I think this term "science" has several meanings:

Science as a method. People feel that through repeated observation under controlled conditions, a pattern emerges that can be used to predict outcomes unders similar conditions in the future. By itself, this method does nothing to contradict religion or God. In fact, clear thinking (something scientific method encourages), is in my opinion a very useful tool for learning about God.

Science as a religion. Science has gained a certain critical mass, and amongst some of the more popular beliefs are nuggets like concrete realism and the idea that consciousness is a by-product of the physical brain, emergent or not. I don't agree with many of these basic assumptions, just like I don't buy many tenets of the world's major religions. Rather than say this brand of science is at odds with God, I'll simply say that this kind of science worships a different God, and his name is Intellectual Ego (aka Academic Snootiness).

Please don't confuse science with "pop science" or "popular science" or with "science fiction".

My question is "how do scientific method relate to God?", because you have written:

In fact, clear thinking (something scientific method encourages), is in my opinion a very useful tool for learning about God.

 

[Vichar]

My question is "how do scientific method relate to God?", because you have written:

In order to answer the question, I have provide just a little bit of more of my beliefs. There is only one, seamless reality, and it is not divided up into individual belief systems. Existence is whole, and it is our (imperfect) perception of that reality that leads to debates and such.

Since we were chucking spears and living in caves (assuming we aren't right now), we've known that we're having experiences but we haven't been able to understand those experiences. We've been imbued with survival instinct and at the same time we've been given the divine spark of consciousness that drives us to do more than merely survive in the physical sense. The spiritual journey is just a transition from the former to the latter.

This is where scientific method comes into play. I feel I am on a journey back to God, and on the way there are lots of illusion and traps for the unwary. Scientific method is a nice technique to try and pierce the illusions. Luckily, if it is a game, it has rules and these appear constant. Scientific method can help us stand up temporary understanding that is in its turn, in time, replaced by superior understanding that encompasses more and more of the conscious experience. We proceed with clear thinking, not allowing ourselves to remain satisfied with our previous explanations. Our compass simply shifts from one pointing towards intellectual ego-boosting to one that seeks out greater fulfillment.

This is what I encountered in my time as an academic: lots of intellectual ego-boosting which derives its source from quiet desperation and a lack of self-confidence. The world really is a scary, lonely place without direct contact God. It's not that he's not right there with us right now, it's merely that we've fooled ourselves into believing we are not god-realized right now (we break off contact). When the round and round of intellectual discussion loses its appeal, we start to make real progress. Such an individual transcends all forms of religion, and yes, I count pop-culture science as just another religion among the many many religions of the world.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Hi all! I'm new here and I just wanted to know if most of you think that it's either God or science that has the most truth? I personally believe that true science proves God not disproves God. What do you think?

I think there is no need for a god.

 

[outhouse]

I think this term "science" has several meanings:


Science as a religion. Science has gained a certain critical mass, and amongst some of the more popular beliefs are nuggets like concrete realism and the idea that consciousness is a by-product of the physical brain, emergent or not. I don't agree with many of these basic assumptions, just like I don't buy many tenets of the world's major religions. Rather than say this brand of science is at odds with God, I'll simply say that this kind of science worships a different God, and his name is Intellectual Ego (aka Academic Snootiness).

science is not a religion.

I find your assumption wrong.

Do you think evolution is wrong to???

 

[gnostic]

This is where scientific method comes into play. I feel I am on a journey back to God, and on the way there are lots of illusion and traps for the unwary. Scientific method is a nice technique to try and pierce the illusions. Luckily, if it is a game, it has rules and these appear constant. Scientific method can help us stand up temporary understanding that is in its turn, in time, replaced by superior understanding that encompasses more and more of the conscious experience. We proceed with clear thinking, not allowing ourselves to remain satisfied with our previous explanations. Our compass simply shifts from one pointing towards intellectual ego-boosting to one that seeks out greater fulfillment.

This is what I encountered in my time as an academic: lots of intellectual ego-boosting which derives its source from quiet desperation and a lack of self-confidence. The world really is a scary, lonely place without direct contact God. It's not that he's not right there with us right now, it's merely that we've fooled ourselves into believing we are not god-realized right now (we break off contact). When the round and round of intellectual discussion loses its appeal, we start to make real progress. Such an individual transcends all forms of religion, and yes, I count pop-culture science as just another religion among the many many religions of the world.

You've still not explain how God factor into the scientific method.

You speak of greater understanding, but even then, it doesn't how this understanding is related to both scientific method and God.

You say that scientists is involved in intellectual ego-boosting out of desperation and lack of self-confidence, which showed clearly that you don't understand what involves with science (and the scientific method).

Basically your post or explanation is simply "blowing smokes" as one would say, or as you say "intellectual ego-boosting" exercise. You've given me nothing but what you called "round and round intellectual" mumbo-jumbo, but from religious perspective, which is equally unappealing.

Again, I would ask you to please explain how God fit in with science rather than give me why you are disillusion with science.

Such an individual transcends all forms of religion, and yes, I count pop-culture science as just another religion among the many many religions of the world.

And I repeat, please don't confuse SCIENCE with POP SCIENCE. They are not the same thing.

I have no interest in POP SCIENCE. Often media (books or articles) that write about some pop science are not written by scientists, but someone who try to make money by loosely using science for whatever agenda they have.

You can be carpenter or journalist with absolutely no science background whatsoever, and they would write something that supposedly science.

Do you what some examples of pop science?

Here are couple of famous pop science authors: Erich von Däniken (Chariot of the Gods), Graham Hancock (Fingerprints of the Gods) and Robert Bauval (The Orion Mystery).

All of them wrote something which they have no scientific qualifications. And what they have written may be interesting, but have been largely criticised as well as discredited. Bauval is simply a journalist interested in esoterical knowledge, while Hancock is neither a scientist nor archaeologist. And Daniken is simply a nutcase interested in extraterrestial aliens building the Pyramids of Giza or other man-made structures or human cultures. They are all pseudo-science works.

It is insulting that you would compare the two as one-and-the-same. It would be like me comparing Christianity with Wicca Christianity.

 

[Vichar]

I meant no offense, I think that I have been misunderstood. I"m trying to say that words are merely that: words. They can have multiple meanings to different people. I gave those two definitions mere to act as a starting point for conversation.

I basically said, "Scientific method and the naive belief in science as truth are two different things."

You then turned around and said, "Science and pop science are two different things. And I'm really offended, too."

What? I wonder if you read something other than what I wrote. I'm not talking about psuedo science or L Ron Hubbard or anything like that. First of all, I am myself a scientist, or what most people would consider such. I work with computers for a living. I have a formal education in scientific method, logic, mathematics, and natural sciences. I am well aware of the prevailing major scientific theories that most of western culture (and indeed the world) hold to be true. So you needn't worry that I'm making some sort of attack on science.

I think I will avoid the term "popular culture" because it seems to be setting you off. Rather I will simply say that our society believes, more or less, in concrete realism. Regardless of whether a person is Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or any other major religion, if we observed their behavior we would see a number of different things:
1) They believe in the concrete reality of an "outside world".
2) They believe that consciousness is a by-product of the mind.
3) Generally speaking, if they cannot explain it using modern science, or perceive it through the senses or scientific instruments, it's not real.
4) They do not know if there is any conscious awareness after the death of the body.

I could go on, but I hope you understand what I'm saying. These four things are just examples, but I believe they are all false, with the possible exception of the first point since it's merely a point of view, and points of view aren't actually true or false.

Now, some people become scientists because to them it's a kind of search for truth. In some ways it's a marvelous adventure. That's why I became interested in it. So I went to school to study science. I did very very well, thank you very much. So it's not like I don't understand. However, I also encountered a lot of ignorance. Some people wanted professional degrees because they wanted to feel smart, as in "look at me, I have a doctorate in such and such, it must mean I am smart." That's all I meant by Ego. I could replace it with any other endeavor and we could say the same thing. It's a way people go about trying to garner respect (because they cannot find it within themselves).

Does that mean there aren't many, many scientists that love the pursuit of study? Does that mean that science hasn't given us many wonderful things? Of course not. I find it interesting that you take offense so quickly and with no provocation at all.

I'm going to stop there and see if there is any point in going further in the conversation, or if you're going to be even more offended by what I've written. Because in truth, I have no desire to offend anybody, and if reading this is making you upset then I should stop right away.

 

[Vichar]

science is not a religion.

I find your assumption wrong.

Do you think evolution is wrong to???

From the dictionary, a definition of "religion": noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

In this context, of course science is a kind of religion. We study the universe trying to understand its cause, nature and purpose. That is a perfect description of the great majority of current scientific endeavor.

Back in older times, people tried to explain thunder with references to the Thunder god. That didn't bring people any closer to what electricity really was, or the essence of it.

Look at science. We know that lightning is caused by a differential in the charge up in the clouds and the ground. The electrons want to jump across this differential, and the moisture in the air facilitates an arc of electricity--it is conductive enough that the electricity will jump through the air. The heat caused by this creates a rapid expansion of air outwards, which is what we perceive as the sound of thunder.

OK, fine explanation. Now what IS electricity? You might go on to say, it's the movement of electrons. OK, but what IS it? See what I mean? Science is largely deconstruction. It attempts to explain by breaking things down into other pieces, gives those other pieces names, but just naming things ("electrons") doesn't bring us any closer to understanding what they are. All we are doing is trying to predict future events based upon what we saw in the past.

Your reaction is odd. Of course I believe in evolution--there is evidence for it right before our eyes; we can see it happening in many species in a time frame convenient to us (bacteria, for example). I also believe in intelligent design. The two are not mutually exclusive. What has this got to do with what I'm trying to say when I classify science, an English word, as describing one of the world's religions?

The fact of the matter is, everyone has a default view of what the universe is about. They live their lives believing in some kind of purpose. For most people, it is little more than the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This default position, what most people believe is real, what most people accept... many of them are based upon scientific conclusions. It's a way for them to explain to themselves why things are the way they are, and what their place in that reality is, and how they should behavior within that structured framework. What is that, if not a religion?

Before you get too excited, that wasn't even the point of what I wrote. I was just trying to establish some definitions so that, for the purposes of this conversation, we could clarify what we meant by the word "science." Are we talking about the method, or are we talking about the religion?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

From the dictionary, a definition of "religion": noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

In this context, of course science is a kind of religion. We study the universe trying to understand its cause, nature and purpose. That is a perfect description of the great majority of current scientific endeavor.

it is not, even according to the definition you yourself provided. Science does not deal with superhuman agencies, nor does it engage in devotional and ritual observances. Science certainly does not give a moral code to conduct human affairs. Also, science is not a set of beliefs, it is a set of empirically provable laws. I don't see how you can compare science to religion.

 

[heretic]

(God has sent a religion , God has created universe => this religion should not contradict with science)

this is a very important point which can be used to build a trustiness of a religion .if such a religion exists , then this religion can be trusted in supernatural and out of human control or knowledge .

God will not send a religion with scientific contradictions , and ask us to believe in things
which man cannot be sure of through science , like heaven , hell , judgment day ..

 

[Vichar]

it is not, even according to the definition you yourself provided. Science does not deal with superhuman agencies, nor does it engage in devotional and ritual observances. Science certainly does not give a moral code to conduct human affairs. Also, science is not a set of beliefs, it is a set of empirically provable laws. I don't see how you can compare science to religion.

Fair enough. I made sure to include that latter part of the definition so we could have this very discussion.

Recall that I said I wanted to work out common definitions between us for discussion, and I said that Science(1) was a method (proceeding from empirical observations to determine laws), and Science(2) is a religion.

Let's take a look at what role religion plays in people's lives. Just about everyone I've ever had a serious conversation with about the subject has wondered what the purpose of creation is, what is its nature, and why we are here. Religion, in my opinion, attempts to address this very fundamental need within people. The fact of the matter is, everone has a "world view", whether they openly acknowledge it, give name to it, or can even loosely describe it.


In this sense, religion is a form of personal philosophy, which differs from other philosophies perhaps in its reliance upon "superhuman agencies" to explain many of its related concepts. I'm making the case that science in our culture has become another de facto philosophy that bears many similiarities to the major religions of the world.

I'm going to ask Ann Rand to help me out a minute here with a handy quote:

A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

Science tries to do better. Science(1) as the method tries to proceed carefully from recorded observations, attempting to isolate conditions when possible to extrapolate from repeatable behavior. But what influence has this had over our own culture and society? Children grow up today in a technological society. Computers are everywhere. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I think even "religious" people have allowed the prevailing scientific conclusions to dominate their "philosophic system". My point is that we have allowed "science" to exist in our minds and our culture as a form of "default philosophy".

Empirically proven? I almost think that is an oxymoron. All you know is that you made a series of observations, and drew some conclusions hoping that, yes, on the 1001 trial you will get a similar result. But we all know that's not necessarily the case. Look at Newtonian mechanics. It looks great until you start getting into relativistic speeds. Science relies upon a number of "fundamental principles", each of which is itself merely an assumption.

These are religious forums, right? They aren't science forums. I'm a trained scientist myself, and I love trying to figure things out and understand how things work. I posted in this thread because I'm trying to lead up to making a case--that many of the assumptions in our default philosophy are incorrect, and that science has ingrained itself so much in our culture that it is pretty much a religion now. So much so that I can't even have a conversation with some people without them thinking I'm challenging their beliefs (I don't mean you--you seem quite reasonable). What does that sound like to you? I get the same thing when I want to discuss the validity of some point in religion with someone.

Devotional and ritual observances? What about blogging, Facebook, computer games, yes, even online forums ? If aliens landed and saw how much time we spend in front of computers (to say nothing of television) every day, they would think that we were engaged in devotional and ritual observances. Also, look at our school textbooks. We indoctrinate our children right from youth to believe in concrete realism. That's a philosophy, and it's the one that science (2) most strongly supports.

Edit:
I forgot to talk about moral code. The fact is, when people on the street start talking about things that contradict our current popular understanding of science, people start thinking that person is crazy or stupid. Science very much regulates our conduct--we are even afraid to think about things that are not "proven" or phenomena in our consciousness that contradicts what scientists of our time think. This part is a much longer discussion, and I've already written a wall of text (sorry!).

So, strictly speaking, you are right. Science(2) doesn't fit the definition of a religion in its literal definition. From a practical, day to day perspective, science has become the de facto religion of the western world.

(Keep in mind I separated Science(1) as a method as something different than the point I'm trying to make. If we want to talk about science the method, I agree that occupies a different space in our conceptual world.)

 

[Lahunken]

Do you believe in light? You couldn't read this without light. In 1John1:5 it says, "God is light". Science knows that light is energy. God is energy. There are two things in the universe: energy and "information". and information is the conformation of energy.
We got consciousness in finite time. In our brains, consciousness was caused by the capacitance and ectropy of the arising reticular formation of the medulla oblongata, which is simply the interference of information by virtue of the inevitability of orthogonality.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Energy is eternal. Certainly, in eternity it is inevitable that information would cause energy (God) to be conscious. Would you think that God doens't want boredom. That is why He doesn't interfere with free will. If we were energy, God, we would never sleep. We are only information.
To answer another question, information can be created and destroyed. That is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says when it says, "In the universe, entropy always increases". The entropy of the universe, at any one time, is the proportion of photons to nucleons, that is, entropy is the extent of polarity cancellation.
Information, the conformation of energy? Take a cloth sheet. It represents energy. Wrinkle the sheet. The wrinkles represent information. Pull the sheet out straight, and, "fump", the wrinkles become nonexistent. They "perish". Look in "Roget's Thesaurus", perishing is synonymous with becoming nonexistent.
Such a universal sheet exists on the eighth, ninth, and tenth dimensions; and, it is called the Ricci Curvature. Where there is no Ricci Curvature there is no matter. It says in the Bible, "Only He (God) is immortal"; and, "The soul that sinneth shall die". Crooks have profited on the fear of Plato's immortality of the soul.
There is the "aioniu amartematos", the "aeon of failure", mistranslated into English, "eternal damnation". A Greek professor told me that an "aeon" is only a hundred years. Spirit is matter in bent timespace, and, matter is spirit in flat timespace. Our soul is that portion of our being in the fifth dimensional spheres of bent timespace. Theoretically, -n+n=0, the soul is still perishable information.
A Jehovah's Witness told me, "Eternal punishment is infinite injustice. God in not unjust". By the way, if Jehovah's Witnesses get on your case, just tell them that you want to become nonexistent; and then, they will immediately go away. I am only 99.9990 % sure I can someday become nonexistent.

 

[gnomon]

I don't believe in light.

 

[gnomon]

I don't believe in light, Part the Second.

 

[PolyHedral]

In order to say, "God is light," you have to say, "God is electromagnetism." You don't want to say that, because then we'd be able to explain God, and pin Him down into a set of equations.

 

[painted wolf]

More than that, God is a very limited band on the electromagnetic spectrum. One that most animals are better at perceiving than we are.

wa:do