[Antti]

C1ay

The effect of the religion on the development of our society, politics, warfare and science has been and will be huge. You may easily make scientific experimental observations of this; for example, open your eyes, how many churches you see ?

I feel the relation between religion, science and society as an extremely important issue which should be discussed more also in the scientific forums. Free science should not close the eyes from the primary causes and driving force of the humans.

The science and religion can not be in disagreement - they study different issues but affect to each others. Therefore science forums should not exclude religion. But ofcourse your are the Editor and Forum Administrator and you make the decisions here.

Antti

[Antti]

UncleAl

Your are right, there is lot of misapprehension in the religious sources.

Antti

[Smokinjoe9]

Originally Posted by Antti

UncleAl

Your are right, there is lot of misapprehension in the religious sources.

Antti

True belief should never be based on religion(specifically). Open debate of belief is an excellent idea and should continue, religion has nothing to do with belief it is a curriculum for doctrine and religious misrepresentation. Don't get me wrong I don't hate Baptists, Catholics, etc...I am just not one to follow a specific religious sect...

[Antti]

Smokinjoe9

I still agree with most of your ideas. Belief and religious doctrines are different issues, still many religious literature sources offer us lot of basic ideas which could help us to survive and be happy.

Antti

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Antti

Science Cannot Replace Religion
[...] If we have the courage to pursue this chain of evidence to the very end and meet the original cause then we will always end up with God, i.e. we will find the primary reason, which has no cause.

How can you be sure of this? How do you know there is a cause, that there must be a cause or that this primary reason does not have a cause?

Atheists try to wriggle out from this logical problem by inventing some name for this primary reason, such as the Big Bang.

Not really.

All matter, energy, life and spirit was compressed into a space smaller than a pinhead 14 billion years ago, according to the current official scientific conception. Scientific facts may, however, change because we still know less than one percent of the existing natural laws and matters. Science changes and improves our understanding of the universe all the time, however, we will always find God at the final end of every scientific footpath, now and forever.

So are you looking for scientific understanding, or religious beliefs?

[...]
Different Domains

Science does not speak out about the questions that are of fundamental importance for the human spirit, namely, right and wrong.

It's not meant to do that, even though people seem to believe it should. Perhaps they think that science is another religion.

Religion finds the answers to these questions. [Regarding right and wrong]

Not necessarily. You don't need religion to see what is right or wrong, or that there are seldom sharp lines in between. Some people seem to need to make up a god as some sort of argument why we should follow a certain set of moral code though. Interesting.

Real science bravely finds out which material issues are true and which are false. Using science, we may improve the welfare of our bodies. Real religion finds out the spiritual issues which are true and which make our soul happy. These positive effects may be used to identify true science and true religion from the false and the fake.

I'm not happy about religion at all, and I would not be happy being religious either. I much prefer not to make up the answers.

A false religion, philosophy or science guides humans and their neighbors to the desperation of suicide and to economical and ethical bankruptcy. Whereas the real religion and science helps humans to face and solve their daily problems.

What religion is not false? How come your religion is right and others are false, and how do you know yours prevent the things you mentioned? Religion is in my eyes rather useless. Science is useful.

[...]
Mercy, justice, love, the flowers in the meadow, the atom or the whole universe are all valid evidence of God for the Hindu or Catholic but the atheist may look at the world from a different perspective.

I see, the argument from things that are aesthetically pleasing? Strong, solid evidence right there... Of course, it's only evidence of flower and atoms, but still.

Atheism and skepticism need much more blind faith than faith in Jesus does, because science cannot prove that God does not exist.

Oh that's a new one... heh. Tell me, can science prove that the IPU does not exist? Or invisible dragons living in the garage?

A Lutheran, Orthodox, Moslem or Jew can be absolutely sure of God, because they do not base their faith on scientific evidence but instead on the God’s Adjuster which lives in our minds. This tiny fraction of God makes our survival possible and wakes up our religiousness.

So you're saying it's better to rely on faith rather than on scientific evidence?

We may find a lot of truth, for example, from the Koran, Bible and also from the Urantia Book, which gives a logical explanation of why we are here, where we come from and where we are going. [...]

No, they really don't. The Bible is completely unfit as a science textbook. It's a book of myths and halftruths.

Philosophy and Ethics

Philosophy and ethics solve similar issues as religion; however, many conclusions may be different due to the different basic assumptions. Materialistic philosophy assumes that we live only some 80 years but religious philosophy conclusions are based on the idea of eternal life. This gives a totally different perspective to our daily life. This religious perspective gives a much more logical explanation for our day-to-day hardship and struggle than a purely philosophical point of view, for example:

I find the idea of eternal life to be a product of wishful thinking and and anthropocentric idea at that. There's no evidence of eternal life, so it's not a good idea to base anything on the assumption that there is evidence.

Our universe, atoms, material and life have been created using such vast wisdom and skill that the creation of a perfect paradise would have been a much easier task. We should be aware that even a tiny virus or small seed contains more sophisticated engineering than any human created device.

Only if we compare to what we have accomplished so far. But why should we assume that we're looking at a creation?

Our world is changing all the time and therefore our God does not need robots but humans who can make their own wise decisions and have faith without material evidence.

So should we abolish science altogether? I do see tendencies toward this... in Kansas for example. That we're expected to believe everything without evidence is a terrible idea. It is convenient for an invisible god though...

I want to change the world into a better place for Christian, Moslem and atheist. The only way towards this target is the idea of one God and Creator, which makes us equal. Otherwise, we tend to consider our own God, philosophy, race, religion, gender and country as superior to the others. This misapprehension will always justify the oppression of your neighbor.

Why not just realise that what people believe are just ancient tribal myths that adds nothing when it comes to our understanding of the universe, and certainly nothing when it comes to create peace and progress in the world.

[Antti]

Smokinjoe9

I agree. Freedom of opinion is one of the most important achievements of the modern society.

Dialogue promotes development.

Antti
================================================== =====

Originally Posted by Smokinjoe9

Lighten up, it is an opinion just like yours. The reading is interesting. An open mind is the only way to learn. No matter how obserd things may seem to you, you will never grow or learn past your own opinion or knowledge if you don't allow alternate thought to enter into your reasoning.

If I have to I would take a beating to keep this country free enough for you to continue your scientific research no matter how futile it is..

[C1ay]

Moved to religion forum...

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Three! Three! Three gods in one! is breath mint theology.
Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo "Poenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum" omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit. Yaweh wants ignorance, suffering, blood, dead babies, and your money. You go squat in mud puddles and lash your back with broken glass-studded whips. The rest of us will stand tall and create the future.

You know, reading only your posts in the Hypography forums one would think you have no clue at all. But you do come off better when viewing your website.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Antti

Science Cannot Replace Religion.
...Science does not speak out about the questions that are of fundamental importance for the human spirit, namely, right and wrong. Religion finds the answers to these questions
...A false ...science guides humans and their neighbors to the desperation of suicide and to ...ethical bankruptcy. Whereas the real religion and science helps humans to face and solve their daily problems.
...Real science and religion support each other. The misleading disagreement always arises from false scientific or religious assumptions and interpretations.
...Our life and world has been designed exactly and accurately just like this, so that we can make a free choice between faith and atheism. We could not make this free choice if we could prove the existence of God or some higher force using some scientific procedure.
...Philosophy without God is like a thermometer with an unlocked calibration point. ...but religious philosophy leads the way to eternal survival like a lighthouse on a granite base.
...I would be glad to get your feedback and comments how to improve this column.

Hello, Antti.
quite an impressive essay. You cover a lot of ground here. And you write very well. This would make a very good sermon in some churches. It IS a sermon. Do you have aspirations to go into the ministry? I will try to give you my reactions and opinions, the opinions of an old man who once had such aspirations and studied to be a preacher, but who made a decision in his late twenties to study science instead. You see, I have been on both sides of this philosophical divide.

The first thing I see is that you describe what "science" IS or claims to be. But what you have given is really a description of what science looks like through the eyes of a "preacher" who neither approves of or understands science.

In the art of rhetoric (persuasive speaking) this is known as the Strawman Fallacy. You describe a thing you call "science" and you describe its shortcomings, and its failures and its faults. But this thing you describe is not <SCIENCE>, the real McCoy, but a characature, a cartoon, a stick-figure. The thing you describe is indeed repulsive philosophically, and certainly sounds like something I should avoid. What you describe as "science" is careless, without divine purpose, stupid, sloppy and shabby. But you do not accurately represent the intentions, the ambitions, the purposes, the driving force of real <SCIENCE> as it is really practiced.

Real <SCIENCE> has no ambition to help people in their daily lives. But that is not a fault. Real <SCIENCE> aims to understand the real World. Period. If it helps somebody invent a better can-opener and improve lives, well, that's nice. But that is not what real <SCIENCE> is after.

Real <SCIENCE> and Religion do NOT support each other. That is the CORE problem here, don't you see? They just don't and this gives a lot of people a bad case of heartburn. The solution offered is to "change" science so it DOES agree with Religion and then everything would be lovely and hunky-dory. The trouble is, if you did that, you would destroy real <SCIENCE>. It would become just a neglected wing of Religion and slowly fade away. This has been tried before, remember? We call it The Dark Ages.

What is the purpose of Religion? To find the Truth? Well, some folks claim it is, but they don't seem to really find much of it. The real purpose of Religion can be seen by observing how Religion works, day in, day out. Religion provides comfort, support and encouragement. These are spiritual needs. And yes, they are very important. Science doesn't address them, but that doesn't make science wrong or mis-directed. Math doesn't address them either. Art and music address them. Chemistry doesn't. Medicine does, to a certain extent (the comfort part) but not the other parts.

Your essay makes for a fine sermon. It comforts. It gives people the encouragement that they are on the right path, and that to "be happy" they just have to understand a few easy spiritual rules. They don't have to worry about that big bad world out there with its atheists and scientists and bugabears. Just circle the wagons and protect the women and kids, and keep the bad thoughts out. That's comforting.

Atheists and scientists aren't out to prove that God doesn't exist. In fact, the two groups aren't related at all. Atheists are often very moral, law-abiding folks. They just can't help but see Religion as, well, "play-pretend". And scientists are just trying to understand the World without resorting to supernatural explanations (which don't really explain anything).

So, your essay would no doubt go over well in some churches. The "pulpit logic" you use is of a high quality, and is just the sort of stuff that many Christians want to hear. It will make sense to them, because they deeply want it to make sense. They will trust your sincerity and your authenticity. They will be comforted.

However, do not expect people who have spent their lives developing the mental discipline of analytical logic, observation and analysis to be persuaded. It's not because they are bad people, or even because they don't understand what you're saying. They have a different calling than you do. And it is not for you to say that their calling is inferior to your own.

Good luck.

[Boerseun]

Excellent post, Pyro!

Religion criticising Science (or vice versa) is as relevant as a heart surgeon criticising an apple farmer. They operate in such vastly different realms, that the one basically has nothing to say about the other.

My personal view regarding religion is that it's a mass delusion, but that's not my scientific take on the matter, if you get what I'm saying. From a scientific point of view, it might be interesting to study the dynamics of large populations buying wholesale into a fairytale - but the fairytale itself could not be subject to scientific probing, therefore rendering it totally outside the realm of science. Science also can't say that there never was talking, fire-breathing, flying dragons. Science can only say that under general scientific rules and laws, a talking dragon is extremely improbable. And the same with Christianity, or the mass-delusion of your choice. Science can only say that based on what we do know, (in the face of a complete lack of relevent evidence) it is extremely improbable that a human could come to life after three days of death without suffering extreme brain damage (at the very least). It is also highly unlikely that a human body is bouyant enough to 'walk on water'. It is extremely unlikely that a human could be swallowed whole by a whale, and be regurgitated intact after a few days.

These incidents are all improbable and unlikely, because there's no evidence. We can, however, take a thousand volunteers and have them swallowed by a thousand whales and figure out the statistical probability (after they've signed comprehensive indemnity forms, of course) of surviving such an ordeal. But beyond that, science can't say much more. Religion can't say anything good about science, because believers are presented with a dogmatic approach to physical reality. Things are the way they are because God made it so. End of story. So, if science presents an alternative viewpoint, this is seen as a fundamental attack on the core values of their physical reality, whilst actually being a true's Bob, honest attempt at understanding the world from a non-dogmatic, reality-driven point of view. If religion falls by the wayside as collateral damage in this war against ignorance, well, so be it.