| 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: |
| Science and Religion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 27 2005, 05:43 AM (841 Views) | |
| who | May 27 2005, 01:39 PM Post #31 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
I do not believe the earth is "round". I believe based on my and other's perceptions that the earth consists of a combination of variations that are solid, liquid, and gas that is roughly a spheroid in shape. I also do not see the earth as separate from the rest of reality. There is no place where it begins and ends. The word is used to represent a concept to attempt to separate it from the rest of reality. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 27 2005, 01:40 PM Post #32 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Ah, but here's the rub. Science requires proof where religion does not. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| WayneSTOSfan | May 27 2005, 03:07 PM Post #33 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I thought I added a comment aaaand now I can't find it...... To recap.. As someone who works in science I find the following to be true.. Science deals with the measure-able, what can be seen.. Religion says what can be seen is un-important.. I also believe it is logical for a person to follow both as 2 sides of the same coin.... BUT DON"T tell ANYONE in either camp or all hell will break loose!! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | May 27 2005, 03:09 PM Post #34 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
You did, this is broken off from that thread in the politics forum. Again, well said Wayne. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 28 2005, 02:17 AM Post #35 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
There are some fundamental misconceptions about both science and religion on this thread. Here's the straight and skinny. Statement: Neither science nor religion explain anything. In the case of religion, it is only impossible for ONE religion to have an explanation for everything. Another religion will have differences and will therefore not be an explanation. In any case, it is quite probably that no religion actually EXPLAINS everything perfectly. As for science, science does not explain anything at all. That is because to explain something, you must be a master of it. But science is not the master of nature, it is the captive audience of it. The way science will be in the future has nothing to do with science itself, but with the facts that come from nature. Conclusion: Both religion and science are not systems that explain nature, but they are instead systems that interpret nature. To state otherwise indicates a false humanocentric view. In the case of science, new discoveries do not wait in oblivion for humans to figure them out so that they can suddenly spring into existance. But science acts as if this is the case. Similarly, God's opinion on things is not dependant on what the preacher says. The preacher can preach anything that he wants, but God will act as God will act. So what do you have then? You have two systems that both have innate flaws due to human failings. Science cannot accept the existance of something unless it is right in its face. Religion is open to a great deal of speculation on its beliefs. Science tries to counter the flaws of humanity by making it so that many people must see it so that the chances of error drops to ~0. But if only one man sees a Yeti, and that Yeti is never seen again, then that Yeti does not exist in the eyes of science even though one man saw it in flesh and blood. Religion counters the flaws of humanity by trying to control them. You will always have some sort of code that tells how humanity should behave. This is true for any religion from Atheism to Taoism. But this can lead to blind faith, which precludes religion's ability to explain anything, as the ears are deaf. So, at their basic levels, science and religion are indeed the same thing. Both science and religion are flawed systems put in place to help a flawed man interpret what is happening around him in nature. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| who | May 28 2005, 07:25 AM Post #36 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
I do not know what stimulus has to do with it. As I said before, science has a self-defined very limited scope. In terms of experience, I think that we all experience awareness, love, fear, hatred, guilt, and many others. If we strip away the circumstances, I suspect, but do not know. that awareness and love, in particular, are the same experience. It is my belief that the awareness that we all experience is the same awareness. This has nothing to do with science. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| who | May 28 2005, 07:30 AM Post #37 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
Science does not provide "proof". It simply has ongoing models of its view of reality. There have been many things "proven" by science that turned out to be incorrect. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | May 28 2005, 08:10 AM Post #38 |
|
psyfi
|
Wow. This is really good. Makes infinite sense to me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | May 28 2005, 08:49 PM Post #39 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
Another classic from the Doc |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 29 2005, 09:26 AM Post #40 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Yes, I too appreciate the posts of Doctortobe. Very reasonable and well-informed.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| who | May 29 2005, 09:30 AM Post #41 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
I think these ideas need to be expanded. We usually use words in an attempt to separate reality into separate pieces. Using the earth as an example, we consider the tides, the sunlight, and the seasons (and everything that comes from these) to be part of the earth. The tides are a result of the moon, the sunlight comes from the sun, and the seasons result from our rotation around it. It is my belief that reality is one interconnected whole. Nothing is separate. This is where science and religion often differ. First, science only includes a limited part of reality. It excludes the rest. Further, science attempts to divide reality into smaller and smaller separate pieces. I think science cannot describe reality when it is based on exclusion and division. Religion, to me, is about restoring the unity of reality to our awareness. The same can be seen with emotions (which, by definition, are excluded from science). Love unites. Fear and hatred divide. This does not mean I am in opposition to science. It is a useful tool. I just think we need to be aware of its limitations and not expect it to define reality or worship it as a god. who |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 29 2005, 10:16 AM Post #42 |
|
Admiral
|
I had a professor tell me that the earth was not round as well. He mentioned that since it is nearly impossible to construct a perfect circle, that the earth therefore could not be such since it is not perfect. It was an odd discussion, for sure. It was borderline metaphysical. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| who | May 29 2005, 11:55 AM Post #43 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
I was just using this as a launching point into language, concepts, and the topic title. These geometric shapes are mathimatical as you say. A circle is two dimentional, a sphere 3D. The earth can be described as a spheroid because it is close to a sphere. The diameter is greater across the equater than across the poles. The surface of the earth is not clearly defined and is not smooth due to many things including mountains. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 29 2005, 11:55 AM Post #44 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
It is indeed possible to construct a perfect circle. Merely make anything and label it "perfect circle". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 29 2005, 01:26 PM Post #45 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Doc, But if that is true, then words can mean anything we want them to any time we want. I don't accept that as a premise in everyday conversation. Language is already very imprecise--and I do try to be precise.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Spiritual Journeys · Next Topic » |


1:53 PM Jul 11