Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 11. (Read 6490 times)
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
In this also you are mistaken.
What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Quote from: Tanya Lewis
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.
In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.
"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).
"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.
The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.
"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.
One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.
Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.
In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.
"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).
"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.
The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.
"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.
One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.
Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.
Max Erik Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted. He uses a lot of word salads. As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...
As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths. Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.
Your welcome af_newbie.
I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.
We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.
These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.
I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.
Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself.
Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being.
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers.
The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me.
I see the world as is not as it could be.
Life started thanks to supernovae.
Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids.
PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them. Read it, it might help you.
You are so funny.
Take a look at a raging river. Everything in the river acts logically, according to the physics of the universe. Why would black holes, or the carnage of colliding galaxies be any different? All of it acts logically, according to the physics of the universe.
Overcoming superstitions is done by finding out what works, scientifically. That's why when scientists believe science theories to be fact, they have a superstition going for themselves. They haven't found that the theory is fact. If they had, it wouldn't be a theory any longer.
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted. He uses a lot of word salads. As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...
As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths. Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.
Your welcome af_newbie.
I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.
We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.
These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.
I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.
Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself.
Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being.
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers.
The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me.
I see the world as is not as it could be.
Life started thanks to supernovae.
Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids.
PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them. Read it, it might help you.
Science is build up on observations, experimentation and evidences, in other words driven by the so called scientific method. Religion is based on faith, which by definition is believing without evidences.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
Scientific theories must be falsifiable, religious doctrines cannot.
The Bible is eye witness observations and records of things that God does among people. If you think that Bible eye witness accounts are false, then throw out all the not-known-to-be-fact science theories right along with it... theories that are known to not be known fact.
And when your bible has comments Jesus made to your God with no-one around to observe, these were somehow observed by people who then wrote about them?
Whatever Fucktard!
Can't be eyewitness observations!
The Father was there, and the Holy Spirit. So, there are two or three witness. The Holy Spirit makes known what went on to the people who pen the words by Holy Spirit direction. Witnesses, one and all.
Ghosts and spirits do not exist, they could not have "directed" anybody. People just wrote whatever came to mind. Just like the writers today get inspirations and write good novels. So did the 40+ authors of the Bible. They had previous myths to work with, they just changed few things, added more interesting details, made the story interesting for the intended audience.
Do you think the "night journey" as described in the Quran actually happened? Muhammad traveled at night, by himself, then went on Buraq and flew to heaven. All by himself (forget the fact that the Mosque from which he flew to heaven was not there at the time of his death).
Nobody witnessed it, yet someone wrote about it.
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted. He uses a lot of word salads. As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
...
As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths. Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.
Your welcome af_newbie.
I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion.
We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways.
These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it.
I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation.
@af_newbie
We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.
We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.
We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.
We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.
Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted. He uses a lot of word salads. As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas.
12:37 - rationality divorced from your being is self-destructive?
As a scientist you deal with data, not psychology of yourself! His approach is to over analyze the emotions of his subjects.
Of course, a person would go mad if you second guess your actions, emotions every second of your life. Strong individuals do not do that.
16:20 - the dream was informed by the way we act?
What is he talking about? We act based on our morals, ethical standards, our values. What we feel is right.
If you don't know why you act a certain way, well, you have psychological or mental issues.
21:40 - transcendent psychological entity that inhabits the body?
Sorry he lost me there. I think he studied too many deviants. I lost interest after that.
I have no idea what he is talking about. Listening to him I can say that psychology is not science.
As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew
inspiration from those stories and myths. Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that.
Today, you have to use your reason and conclude that those stories are not applicable to the modern times as they were written by very primitive humans and reflect their primitive nature.
I see no value in the stories written in the Bible, Quran or Talmud. I have disqualified all these books as a source of wisdom based
on the moral code they espouse.
I have better morals than any of the writers (Gods) of these holy scriptures. I do not understand how anyone can believe that these books were inspired by some supernatural God, who I presume had an infinite wisdom.
The scriptures stories reflect the realities of life of the writers. Nothing to do with transcendent beings.
@af_newbie
We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.
We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.
We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses.
We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical.
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w
Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests.
Science is the Study of Truth.
Religion is the Study of Values.
Art is the Study of Membership.
Economics is the Study of Wealth.
Politics is the Study of Power.
All else is a combination of these five.
Religion is the Study of Values.
Art is the Study of Membership.
Economics is the Study of Wealth.
Politics is the Study of Power.
All else is a combination of these five.
every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time.
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time.
But it is the religious beliefs of people that cause them to look for things that work, whether or not these things fall into the realm of science. So, religion is the greater foundation of science.
every people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time
I will use an example from medical science. Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye. After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times
People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually. Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.
Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost. Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel. It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations. All the science would return one step at a time.
Physics would return the same if lost. The force of gravity would be the same. We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity. All this would return exactly the same as before.
Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form. Religions today are nothing like ancient time
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.
No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...
And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL. You base this on what? The bloody history of the Christian church?
Those beliefs were imposed with quite a bit of fire and sword handiwork.
If I were you, I would worry about education and science to eradicate all the superstition and beliefs in the supernatural in few generations.
Science will be here in few hundred years, religions will not.
If you want to know where religions are going, check out the participation rates in younger generations.
http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/
The trend will accelerate as people become more educated and science fills gaps in our knowledge (that is where the God of the Gaps lives).
At the time of the Great Flood, there were only 8 people who still accepted God... Noah and hs family. When you consider the potential for reproduction back then, there were probably easily over a billion other people who didn't accept God. Who won?
I would recommend you study genetics. Never mind the other nonsense in this story.
Fuck off you cunt. That's not what science says. You obviously lack any scientific insight. You're just a troll that needs to kill themselves.
I advise anger management courses meditation or perhaps formal counselling.
They're just trolls who get paid to mouth off. Anger management doesn't work on cold, political science trolling.
Children... please stay on topic
This thread is about the differences between science and religion, not who is the bigger cunt
Thanks
Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...
Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?
Actually, science simply has shown that chemical processes are part of the body connection to spirit, mind and soul. That's why there are continual scientific investigations into how the connection works.
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.
There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.
They do not exist.
The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.
Science has investigated emotions, mind, etc... Science has concluded that these are chemical reactions taking place in the body...
Can you precisely explain how is God is an explanation for any of this?
Are you sure? I thought he loves people. Why is he purposely killing us?
...
He does. That is why he is saving us inspite of ourselves.
Everybody dies. That is inevitable. The only variable is exactly how that death occurs.
The only offer of immortality on the table is through God and it requires an act of faith.
That is dumb. No intelligent being would design a system this way.
All the killing and torture is unnecessary. He is like a small child, unsure of himself because he needs people to worship him?
Why would he create life in the first place? What would be the purpose? To worship him? He could have created some fans where ever he resides and be done with it.
Why going through the trouble of the big bang, billions years of evolution, star formation, expanding universe, supernovas, evolution from simple bacteria to humans etc. That just does not add up. It is just too complicated story for the creation of an obedient, one specie of primates, on an insignificant planet, in billions of solar systems, in a galaxy, among billions of other galaxies.
You do know that the Earth is spinning on its axis, as it goes around the Sun, as do other planets. You do understand that the solar system itself is travelling at 230 km/s through space, around the center of our galaxy. Our Milky Way is also moving through space at about 580 km/s.
The whole system is just overly complicated if the primary purpose of the creation was a specific member of the Ape family to worship and believe in the creator. You would have to be an idiot to design something like this if you just wanted obedient primates who would believe in you.
If I was God, I would just create everything all at once, 6000 years ago, on flat Earth, with glass dome over it, place it in the center of the universe and be done with it.
BTW, you know that immortality is physically impossible, don't you?
So the question to you is: Is your God an idiot or a deranged psychopath who would go to extra length to satisfy his emotional needs?
PS.
He definitely does not know much about Physics or Biology to create such a mess.
Why do you keep on asking for destruction? You know He loves you, and will, out of love, give you what you ask for. But, I guess that's okay. After all, nobody, especially God, would take your freedom to self-destruct away from you.
And Coincube. Don't feel so bad about af_newbie. This life is short. We'll be out of here in relatively short order. We won't even remember af_newbie in Heaven. Just be patient a little while longer, and we will be in joy forevermore.
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.
There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.
They do not exist.
The data starts with a person's emotions, his mind, and his drive. These are in great evidence all over the place all the time.
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.
No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time.
...
And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL. You base this on what? The bloody history of the Christian church?
Those beliefs were imposed with quite a bit of fire and sword handiwork.
If I were you, I would worry about education and science to eradicate all the superstition and beliefs in the supernatural in few generations.
Science will be here in few hundred years, religions will not.
If you want to know where religions are going, check out the participation rates in younger generations.
http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/
The trend will accelerate as people become more educated and science fills gaps in our knowledge (that is where the God of the Gaps lives).
Jump to: