Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Science and Religion
Topic Started: May 27 2005, 05:43 AM (837 Views)
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
In the political forum I stated that science is a religion. I have moved that part of the discussion here. This is one definition of "religion" from the dictionary:

": a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

First, science is based on the belief (faith) that the underlying basis of the universe is matter/energy. The universe is independent of our minds and could exist without mind. It also is based on the belief that if something cannot be observed or measured then it does not exist (or at least is not important). Consciousness is explained as an epiphenomia of electrical activity in the brain. The mind, thought, emotions, perceptions cannot even be addressed by science.

Gravity and light are sometimes described as particles, as waves, as matter, as energy, as force, or perhaps strings (whatever they are). Science cannot yet even explain what light or gravity are.

In the view of science we are born into the world to pass on our genes and then die. That is that. Science leaves out a big part of reality that we know including our minds, thoughts, emotions, and perceptions as we experience them. Everything is just chemical-electrical activity in the brain.

Another contrasting belief is that everything is thought in our mind. This includes all of our perceptions including all of science. Perhaps the best analogy is the world created by the machine in the movie "The Matrix". The difference is that our mind creates our interwoven worlds of perception rather than a machine. Science works because we believe it does. Since we believe it we can use it. One may scoff at this view of reality if one's faith in science as religion keeps one's mind closed to other possibilities.

who
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
What you are discussing is the classic mind/body problem. Is everything mind or is everything body (physical)? This question has been discussed for centuries with no really satisfying answer. What I am wondering is whether this is a question that matters. Let us suppose that as you say (and I actually believe) everything is mind. The fact is that the human experience on earth is an experience of both mind and matter, leaving us to struggle with how to attain a perspective and sort out priorities in a way that best facilitates our sense of satisfaction and peace and joy as we go about living a life that seems to be dualistic in nature. I would assert that it is to the attainment of this perspective and this sorting of priorities that spirituality in every form, even those that say "it is all mind" is directed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Let me ask you something,

Can religion tell you the distance and composition of the nearest star?

Can religion tell you the age of a fossil?

Can religion cure epidemics?

If you answered no to all of the above questions, you would be correct. Science and religion are both the search for truth. One external, one internal.

Science is based on observed phenomena and careful experimentation.

Relgion is based on ancient teachings and inner "soul searching".

They are very very different things and cannot be compared.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
May 27 2005, 09:03 AM
Let me ask you something,

Can religion tell you the distance and composition of the nearest star?

Can religion tell you the age of a fossil?

Can religion cure epidemics?

If you answered no to all of the above questions, you would be correct. Science and religion are both the search for truth. One external, one internal.

Science is based on observed phenomena and careful experimentation.

Relgion is based on ancient teachings and inner "soul searching".

They are very very different things and cannot be compared.

I agree that both science and religion are methods of searching but they most certainly can be compared. Science also has a decidedly subjective element once it moves from the data to explanations of said. Also, theoretical physics is looking more metaphysical by the second.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I agree that theoretical physics, especially quantum mechanics is going toward metaphysics, but there is a big difference between believing something without a shred of evidence and believing in something based on years of experimentation.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
May 27 2005, 09:14 AM
I agree that theoretical physics, especially quantum mechanics is going toward metaphysics, but there is a big difference between believing something without a shred of evidence and believing in something based on years of experimentation.

Religion is hardly "believing something without a shred of evidence." People have transformative, and visionary, and miraculous experiences that provide them with evidence that the "supernatural" exists. They have moments in which they know that they know a certain event is going to happen in the future. They have visitations by angels or Jesus or others. They have OBEs and NDEs. They have epiphanies and "Road to Damascus" experiences. They have miracles for incurable physical illnesses. They have revelatory experiences. They have moments of seeing loved ones who have passed on and/or moments of being in a haunted house and seeing somebody who passed on that they really don't want to know. They have "answered prayer" experiences and many, many other similar experiences. Evidence abounds.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
All of that said evidence exists only for the person experienceing it directly. Science can recreate phenomena for anyone to experience.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
who
May 27 2005, 05:43 AM
In the political forum I stated that science is a religion. I have moved that part of the discussion here. This is one definition of "religion" from the dictionary:

": a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

First, science is based on the belief (faith) that the underlying basis of the universe is matter/energy.

There is a difference between belief and faith....faith is a type of belief...one that does not need logic.

But you could say that scientific theories are examples of faith, but mostly theories are the best educated guesses. But, Real Science, and someone who does science properly...would not require faith.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
"Science" can seem a lot like religion at times. People can be so dedicated to believing in it that they come across as seeming as devout as any religious fundamentalist. However, that is people for you.

Science, it might be best stated, is based on questions. A question is asked and answer is sought. Religion also answers questions, it might even be fair to suppose that it was questions that spawned religion.

Still, science differs from religion in one very significant way. It must be proven before it can legitimately be accepted as fact. Scientific theories come along, there is factual evidence that points to supporting new theories but the is also peer review and dispute. Attempts are made to refute and/or disprove some theories. Science, by its very nature, can be "wrong" sometimes. Though when that is discovered it usually helps point one in the direction of the right answer by having ruled one out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
May 27 2005, 10:15 AM
All of that said evidence exists only for the person experienceing it directly. Science can recreate phenomena for anyone to experience.

Not true. These people "witness" to those who have not yet had this experience and that is, even in a court of law, considered a form of evidence. Plus, most everybody has had one such experience. They may have explained it away, but most have had something of a supernatural nature happen to them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
From someone who works in the legal field, believe me when I say that testimony does not equate fact.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
psyfi
May 27 2005, 08:50 AM
Dr. Noah
May 27 2005, 10:15 AM
All of that said evidence exists only for the person experienceing it directly.  Science can recreate phenomena for anyone to experience.

Not true. These people "witness" to those who have not yet had this experience and that is, even in a court of law, considered a form of evidence. Plus, most everybody has had one such experience. They may have explained it away, but most have had something of a supernatural nature happen to them.

Witnessing an event (supernatural or otherwise) can itself be a fact. However unless something is there to measure or record the instance for further study determining the nature of the event is subjective to the person(s) witnessing it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Swidden
May 27 2005, 10:44 AM
Still, science differs from religion in one very significant way. It must be proven before it can legitimately be accepted as fact. Scientific theories come along, there is factual evidence that points to supporting new theories but the is also peer review and dispute. Attempts are made to refute and/or disprove some theories. Science, by its very nature, can be "wrong" sometimes. Though when that is discovered it usually helps point one in the direction of the right answer by having ruled one out.

Not according to Max Planck who said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Further, regarding scientific evidence, it is difficult to find even one theory that does not have some sort of problem, some sort of contradictory evidence which most often is explained away by some idea that goes tested and often isn't even all that reasonable, the goal being not scientific but rather that of simply abandoning the small amount of refutation quickly because the overall explanation works so well.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
May 27 2005, 10:54 AM
From someone who works in the legal field, believe me when I say that testimony does not equate fact.

So no jury has ever found anybody guilty when the primary evidence was that one or more witnesses saw him or her commit the crime?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
That's not what I said.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Spiritual Journeys · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus