Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 20. (Read 6507 times)

It has come to my attention that the story in the bible about Moses and the burning bush has a scientific explanation...

According to the bible, Moses comes across an acacia bush which is on fire at the base of Mount Horeb (commonly believed to be Mt Sinai, Egypt).  Moses then hears God talking to him, and has a short conversation with God.


Now, I'd like to get into the science of what happened that day...

85% of all acacia species tested contain psychoactive chemicals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Acacia_species_known_to_contain_psychoactive_alkaloids

The most likely candidate species for Moses' acacia bush would be Vachellia Nilotica, the "Egyptian Acacia", aka gum arabic tree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica

This species of acacia has been found to contain DMT & 5-MeO-DMT, 2 of the most powerful psychedelic/hallucinogens known to man.  DMT is known to cause hallucinations similar to a near death experience, where people often have conversations with "entities" (call them gods if you want, Moses did)

If this bush was burning, it would emit more than enough DMT in the smoke to make anyone downwind have hallucinations



To sum up, I'll give the religious vs scientific explanations:
Religious: Moses spoke with God
Science: Moses was high on DMT and hallucinated that he spoke with God

However, the above is totally wrong.

1+1 never equals 2.

Why not? Because there are no two things in the universe that are the same. Mathematics and language are completely abstract.

For example. Stand a huge male elephant next to a tiny baby elephant. You might say 1 elephant + another elephant equals two elephants. You would also be correct, but only in an abstract way. Why? Because in reality, the elephant's can't be added together, because they are different. They will always be one-huge-male-elephant plus one-tiny-baby-elephant, because they will always be different... even if the tiny baby elephant grows up.

It's like trying to add apples and oranges. You can't add apples and oranges. If you call them both fruit, you have made the whole thing into an abstraction.

Because of this, mathematics will always be flawed regarding reality. The flaw is not so important when considering something as simple as 1+1. But when you get into complex math like E=mc², the complexity starts to break down regarding its relationship with reality.

This is why relativity and many other complex mathematical theories remain as theories. They can't match reality enough to say that they are facts rather than theories. The reason is, because math is abstract. 1+1=2 doesn't exist, because there are no two things in the whole universe that are exactly the same. Even two electrons are different regarding their locations in space, if nothing else. So, they are always 1+1, never 2, except in the abstract.

Science is entirely abstract. It is a "picture" of reality that we use to get an idea of what is going on in reality. But since the picture is flawed, when we try to twist reality to match the picture, we start to destroy reality... or at least the perfect balance reality operates in.

Traditional religion, not having more than simple math involved within it, doesn't destroy reality. Rather, it enhances peoples' lives within reality.

Religion can also be always new only if we are keen to explore it. You will see by yourself, discovering so many new things everyday. And even in thousand years it is somehow going to be the same with God's will.

That said; civilization will continue to develop things and that in science there will be new approaches to objects about the world and new mindsets that is different from the current like it will be viewed with different aspects and dimensions while religion's difference is that people will continue to believe in different things and that in return would have different impact about human behavior because of new beliefs.

Religions vs math/science really have huge difference in terms of basis, proofs and the way how people thinks. Science contradicts religions which always finds a way to prove that what we believe in our religion is actually the opposite on what they believe. Knowledge is broad and always evolves while faith only sticks on what they believe and how they feel depending on the teaching of their religion. In science/math, they always have a solid basis or equations which makes their curiosity rises to discover new things. Religions vs math/science are in different levels my friends.

You can read it in the following article
 https://athikacandra.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/perboritas-dan-persamaan-agama-dan-sains/

The difference between science and religion summed up in a single question:

Question: What would change your mind about your beliefs?

Catholic:     Nothing
Protestant:  Nothing
Muslim:       Nothing
Scientist:    Evidence
Atheist:      Evidence

Nuff said?

The interesting thing is that all people have religion (by the complete definition of religion). And in their religion, all of them use science, even if it is only some crude form of engineering - like the wheel.

The practical, in-practice, divisions between science and religion fade away as these two things blend together in the lives of all people.

Hi, I see it in the following way. Religion bases its postulates on faith and science on facts. So it is true that if you destroy all science, it will always resurface in the future, which if it is not certain is whether it is the same, whether gravity exists or not. Religion depends on who initiates it and how to guide its followers and give them faith and hope.

 

Not at all. How did you come to the conclusion that my feelings were hurt by what I just said? I thought I made a pretty rational argument.


There is no proof there. Just assumptions. You can't really fully prove that something made up doesn't exist, just like you can't with Russell's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster.


Isn't god a machine? If the universe needs a designer then so does god. If he creates then he needs a creator himself. God cannot exist with your logic.


What sort of unholy twisted logic is this? It's mind-blowing the way you play mental gymnastics and twist logic to suit your argument. Not believing in a god doesn't make you a god yourself, and I'm not sure how you can even twist such logic to come to a conclusion.


I'm not sure you understand what clear thinking is. You've just claimed to prove the existence of god because atheists exist which means therefore god exists.


No. It's like unicorns not existing and some idiot trying to prove that they do just by saying "unicorns exists because you don't believe in them".


Nature doesn't prove there's a creator. Nature exists because it finds a way to by adapting to its surroundings. In fact, it's nature that leads me to believe there is no god. Nature is a beast and if it had a designer it would almost certainly work much differently and kinder with likely no basis in science but just magic. If there's a god that can and does do magic with no basis is reality then why do we need to work within the confines of reality? Humans and animals wouldn't need lungs to breathe air or blood vessels to transport blood and nutrients. We wouldn't need to eat. We wouldn't need internal organs. We do because we evolved them to utilize the things we need to use as energy to function. If there's a god then we wouldn't need to eat or breathe. People wouldn't starve to death or die of cancer. People get cancer because genes mutate. Bad design, but that's evolution for you... far from perfect, because it didn't have an intelligent creator behind it.

BTW, if you're going to start worshiping nature it sounds more like you might be actually a pagan  .


I just can't even....

Science exists, whether you believe it or not

Science is for the people who are curious with something and they want to proof that something to be truth , science is knowledge of the people who wants to know the possibility and availability of a certain kind of things. While religion is for the people who believes in god and praises god. Religion is important to the people who are seeking some help through religious act like praying.

http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/eyewitness-misidentification

71% of wrongful convictions in the US that have since been overturned by DNA evidence were due to eyewitnesses being wrong.


Further, there would be absolutely no reason that people would lie, right? Right!?



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

Science believe only when they have a tangible proof and religion are base on faith and facts that are backed-up by the bible.

Science is humankind's effort in trying to understand our environment. We came up with many methods of thought and data processing to be able to define and understand the world. Religion is not supposed to be man made. It claims to be from a higher source and is meant to be guidance. It tries to teach us of things that are intangible. Then we look at most of the Religions today, and see that we have imposed our own superstitions, strange traditions, rituals and beliefs.

Let me tell you something about eyewitness reports, though I don't expect you to listen. I once served on a jury in an assault case with many eyewitnesses, all of whom disagreed on various details about what happened, and who were all completely contradicted by CCTV footage of the incident, which showed it happened completely differently to how everyone thought it did, and which completely exonerated the accused. We returned a verdict of "not guilty" based primarily on the CCTV footage. If we had to rely on eyewitness testimony, we would have convicted an innocent man.

Eyewitness testimony is worthless. People misremember things, misinterpret things they do remember, and even outright lie. It is foolish and dangerous to rely on eyewitnesses.

You don't understand both, religion and science.  

Frankly, I am not surprised you are religious.  You have no choice.  You were born this way.

Oh, oh. You goofed.

Religion provides answers based on eye witness reports.

Science provides answers in theory form, when believed as fact, are really just a form of religion.

This topic is one of my favs to talk/think about. IMHO I think religion is the precursor to science without religion, without wondering where we came from why we came here etc. etc. there would be no science. Religion and science both try to explain our lives religion in my opinion is outdated and is no longer needed because we have science to prove without a doubt what is really going on. Now if you take religious practices (such as meditation, trance states, psychedelic ceremony) and apply science to them then you can really get a firm grasp on what is going on. Religion without science is like grasping at straws and just making unprovable assumptions about life where as religion with science is taking those concepts and philosophies and really proving them through the scientific method, I believe that is where we are heading a science based philosophy instead of faith base philosophies (i say philosophy because the religion word conveys a sense of organized cult behavior)