Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 13. (Read 6610 times)

Both are parts of our life. No matter what we think about them, they regulate our daily life. Science and religions are together actually. Science is for the physical body and religion for the spiritual one. As you know, we are made of flesh and spirit. Nobody has ever proved that we are made of spirits. We can see our flesh. We cannot see our spirit. We can feel it. When we dream, we know what we can see and we understand that we are not only flesh and bones. It is thus obvious that science and religion must work together to discover and solve the mysteries of our civilizations. They must not fight but cooperate.

Ah the Epicurean paradox.

The argument that God should all prevent evil from existing is not well founded. Biblical scripture in fact explicitly states the opposite.

1) If God created the universe, and everything in it... that includes evil

2) If God created evil, God cannot be omnibenevolent

If your god is defeated by simple logic, it probably doesn't exist

So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.

If I had a son and I would disappear when my son was born, then I would tell him (in his dream) to worship me, kill other animals including humans in my name, and I would send all imaginable diseases so that he suffers pretty much all his life, send all imaginable natural disasters so that his family is killed and he suffers, and yet I would tell him to trust me, because I love him and I have prepared hell for him when he dies if he does not do what I tell him to do, would I be a good father?

Someone needs to call the Child Protective Services on this God of yours. LOL.

This idea that God created evil to test us is as ridiculous as the idea of the God itself.  This whole notion is unnatural.  No sane human being would want to harm his/her children, yet God somehow finds it entertaining to do just that.  Is your God mentally unstable?

Think about before you regurgitate someone else's ideas.

PS. Never mind God's commands to own slaves, subjugate women, kill gays and nonbelievers or even people who work on Sabbath.  

 

So I guess his 1755 earthquake in Lisbon (on All Saints day when all people were in church, the tallest buildings in the city) was a practical joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Nice going God...

Need I go on?  AIDS in newborns, flesh eating bacteria, cancer, birth defects...The list is endless of "his" creations.

The sooner you realize that there are natural forces at work, not the supernatural the better, for your own sanity.  Continue to ignore the obvious, it does not matter what you folks believe, the nature will continue to evolve, regardless of your belief in the Jewish Zombie myth.

There are three kinds of evil in the world. The first is based on the fact that man is a physical and temporal being. Because of this, we are subject to physical ailments, whether based on weaknesses in our own constitutions or exposure to harmful agents in our environments. But creation and destruction go hand in hand; the same temporal nature that requires us to ultimately perish is also what enables us to come into existence. We therefore see that our physical nature, with all its limitations, is the result of God’s kindness. And, despite our limited natures, evils of this type are relatively rare. Most people are in fairly good health and physical defects are rather uncommon.

The second type of evil is the kind that people inflict on one another, such as by physically abusing others. These are greater in number than the first kind of evil but they are still not ubiquitous. It’s pretty uncommon for a person to scheme to rob or kill his neighbor. Large numbers of people can be affected by this kind of evil in wars but, again, these are relatively infrequent in the big picture of all inhabited countries.

The third kind of evil is the type that a person inflicts upon himself. This is the largest category of evils, far greater in number than those in the second class. Only a few people are not guilty of this kind of self-inflicted harm. This type of evil is spoken of by such prophets as Malachi (1:9 – “this has been of your doing”). King Solomon also wrote of it in Proverbs. For example, in 6:32 it says, “one who does this destroys his own soul,” while 19:3 tells us that “the foolishness of man perverts his way.” Solomon also discussed this topic in Koheles (Ecclesiastes). In 7:29 he tells us, “God has made man upright but they have come up with many thoughts.” These thoughts bring evil upon man.
The evils that a person brings upon himself are because of his vices, such as a desire for more food, drink and sex than is actually necessary. People engage in too much of these things, or they enjoy them inappropriately, and it causes them both physical and spiritual injury. Since the soul resides in the body, if one accustoms himself to superfluous amenities, he simultaneously conditions his soul to crave unnecessary things. This is especially bad when you consider that actual necessities are relatively few in both number and required quantities, while superfluous things are potentially without number.

People’s thoughts can become so twisted that they’re in constant agony over their inability to acquire as much silver or gold as someone else. They will expose themselves to great danger in order to acquire things they don’t really need. When they come to ruin through their own decisions, they blame God. They curse the circumstances they blame for their inability to acquire as much wine, women and song as money could buy as if the world exists solely for their gratification. Some go so far as to disparage God, saying the if He were able, He surely would have created a world more fair than this one.

Wise people, on the other hand, live their lives consistent with the words of King David in Psalms 25:10, “All the paths of God are mercy and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies.” Those who keep their own role in the universe in context see God’s mercy and truth in everything. Rather than railing against God’s judgment, they seek to better understand His ways. Their needs are modest – food and clothing in limited quantities – and they are happy with their lot. In truth, all the self-inflicted injuries stem from a desire for that which is unnecessary, so that man cannot be satisfied that his actual needs have been met.

Even a great scientist like Einstein believes in the "pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza."

Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

Have you been living under a rock? Or you are just pretending to be an innocent, ignorant, religious buffoon?

To answer your question, it was during inquisition, there was an open hunting season on all scientists.

What they did to Giordano Bruno is mind boggling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Just google it if you want the names. 

They tried to silence science back then, now they are trying to push their narrative in science classrooms with their "biblical science" curriculum.

Science will advance forward and push religions out to become footprints in the history books. 

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."

Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I have been reading and thinking about the nature of science, and its definitions, for a long time - probably since I saw Bronowski's TV programme The Ascent of Man in 1972.

Any comprehensive definition must be minimal - in particular there is no characteristic scientific method, nor mode (i.e. Popper was wrong, although interesting and useful) - nor does science have any essential attribute of being self-correcting, nor is science necessarily observational or empirical.

And so on.

So what made the difference between science and what went before?

*

This is the idea: Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.

Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.

Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.

*

So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.

But what is special about being a social system?

Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).

So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.

*

Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.

Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.

How did this perception arise?

1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).

Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.

(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)

2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.

*

And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.

Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.

A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.

*

NOTE ADDED: in sum, to put it another way, progress in science was essentially a consequence of the quality and quantity of man-hours dedicated to the aim of discovering truth about the world using reason and excluding religious explanations.

When the most able truth-seeking people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from theology into philosophy (from, say, the twelfth century onwards in the West) and then from philosophy into science (from, say, the seventeenth century) - this shifted achievement in the same direction.

And when the most able people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from truth-seeking and into other things (especially careers) (from, say, the early-middle twentieth century) this shifted achievement into... well, bureaucracy and media distractions.

Exactly. Did you not read Genesis where it says:

He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And then He said "Let's hide amino acids on meteorites, that'll be a laugh". And His scribe asked "What are amino acids and meteorites, my Lord?" And God said "Shut up and just write it down".

All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research - just as the Bible, Koran and even Greek mythology have been suggesting for thousands of years.

The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'.

The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports.

Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'.

....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

Historically, it evolved from privative shamanistic gods-of-the-trees and rivers, to pantheism, and from there to monotheism. That in turn has obvious evolution, old to New Testament, those to Mormon stuff, or Muslim.

Indeed, the emergence of Martin Luther and protestant sects was a reaction to and an obvious evolution of the prior Catholicism. From there, you have the evangelical Christian stuff, which is a very recent development.

Religion also evolves in terms of how it adapts to and accepts science. In the past, religions were opposed to many medical and scientific practices, which today for the most part they are not opposed.

Religion also seems to adapt to local cultural practices in a number of ways.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.