Science ‘versus’ God.

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
"People have attacked me because I do only one thing. But that one thing is to try to figure how the world is put together. The world is incredible, just the fact that you and I are here, and that the atoms of your body were once part of stars. They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. Anyway," he laughed,"I’m a nut, you know. Crazy."

The poster of the above message added:
Few agree with Carl Sandage, he admits this with his own words. He attempted to theologize science.

If you are making the point that unanimous agreement does not exist, you are correct but this has been known for some time. Astrophysics is a relative new field and theoretical. Attempts to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE) continue much at the contempt of theists who oppose this.

Intelligent Design will not replace science.
_______________________________

K B Robertson (RascalPuff) wrote:
Your invocation of Carl Sandage and theism launches the endemic rhubarb between theology and science - as though the two issues were stringently antithetical.

Whereas, 'god' is routinely considered as the intelligent designer of the universe since the times preceding and including Pythagoras, to the present; where mathematicians and heuristic scientists daily and openly proclaim to prove the existence of a supreme being. In contrast to your direct implication that it is tantamount to scientific heresy to do so. It is a long and widely known fact that the exemplary Einstein not infrequently - and openly - said that his endeavors included an inquiry as to 'how God thinks'. Due to the nature of what scientists preoccupy themselves with, many are not only non-atheistic, but closer to God than many avid church-goers and pulpit pounders.

The posturing of contemporary practitioners of science is certainly not in league with the 'creationist' schools of thought who glibly speak of a time when an anthropomorphically assembled 'god' snapped 'his' prototypically unimprovable fingers and 'made' a universe and earth, oh, say, several thousand years ago. Thereafter, inhabiting the earth with people, perhaps at a time not long before the Monkey Trials.

Such organized beguilements do not at all parallel the endeavors of men and women in science who are in search of the parameters of the final frontier, aiming to go where no man or woman has gone before. In these circles, the - perhaps inevitable - issue of god emerges only inadvertantly and until further notice in such company, it is regimentally understood that:
God is on sabbatical.
Perhaps after stubbing 'his' irreproachable metatarsal over scientific expeditions in search of a Theory of Everything (TOE).

The debate over the Biblical presentation of the original creation of humanity and Darwin’s Origin of the Species - the adventures of the Bible (many of which continue to prove out as true) and the contrary facts of life - is an argument that may never end. Speaking for myself and no small number of others I find it no less divine or miraculous - no less an ‘act of God’ - that mankind exists and arrived in the here and now (on its way to a future of there and then), by way of an evolutionary process approximately or precisely as Darwinism reveals. The transition from a fertilized mammal egg to embryo to a recognizable human fetus, includes an intermission of the entire process of evolution, not excluding the reptilian feature of gill slits - this is a powerful station for Darwinism, which, in 1950, was pronounced by Pope Pius XII (and other popes since then), as non contrary to Christianity.

Of course these considerations are not unusual in discussions relating to the mystery of human existence and the despair that may accompany an unanswered existential question of whether or not there is a God. A major grist of devout atheism is that ‘believers’ are afraid not to believe in God... That the burden of human consciousness is unbearable without the comfort of a supernatural reason for being.
Whereas, the inescapable fact that inanimate matter organized itself not only to become animate, but to become sentiently self aware is manifest proof of ‘higher power’; a so called ‘intelligent designer’, aka ‘supreme being’. ‘Nature’ by any other name.

Such considerations tend to reverse the question of whether there is or not a God, to a question of how could there not be...

Anti-theism is marooned with the manifest self and others who came into being ‘inadvertently’; without any guidance from a higher power. It would seem in such contemplations that it is much more difficult to be an an atheist, or anti-theist, than to yield to what is apparently the inevitability of intelligent design, so far, beyond the mortal human ability to fully accommodate.
There is the issue of ‘divine intervention’; reasoning that if there is a God, why are terrible events - large and small - allowed to occur in the course of human existence. This question and the disappointment that accompanies it, is based, a priori, on the existence of a ‘personal God’ - a power which insures justice - per individual - in the corporeal world of mortality. Clearly, such expectations of God intersect with superstition.

That perspective leads to what is called ‘victimology’. Where it is reasoned that those who suffer - especially extreme - misfortune, are (invariably) slated to do so by ‘the will of God’, who metes out punishments for trespasses committed in this life, or, in cases applying to the suffering of very young children, those who have sinned in a (reincarnated) life preceding this one (Granted that life is inherently a struggle, and that some suffering is inevitable...). In other words, those who suffer severe misfortune are unsympathetically perceived as being pronounced guilty - with a sentence of punishment passed - by God. Such reasoning is commonplace (and a misapplication of the word, ‘karma’) as it is applied to the destitute masses in the country of India, for example.

In Western culture, these and other dilemmas led to the separation of church from state. The schizoid argument continues, with routine stories of religious ritual and regalia being prohibited and removed from government institutions, for example. While the federal government continues to mint certificates of currency bearing the inscription, ‘In God We Trust’.

Vigilant awareness and defense of scientific method and its practitioners does not go without appreciation in this discussion.

What two religions are you comparing?

Comparative Religion does not necessarily mean comparing two or more religions, because modern science shares traits with mythologies, the difference is that the cosmology of the scientific mythology tends to be more accurate.
That's just in response to your post, I don't really get Kaiduorkhon's post.

i got a bit lost,


science VS god cant happen, you can pit science Vs religion and religious books.

but modern science does not conflict with "god" in the slightest, people usualy over look this,

modern science in my opinion does the exact opposite, and actualy backs up the claim of a god in my opinion.

to say the universe and existence as a whole may have just sprung up at some point in time, is like saying god said "let there be light" and the universe just came forth, scientific facts do not collide with the idea of a god, it may be said that scientists "study and try to uncover and explain everything that was created"

peace.

Comparative Religion does not necessarily mean comparing two or more religions, because modern science shares traits with mythologies, the difference is that the cosmology of the scientific mythology tends to be more accurate.
That's just in response to your post, I don't really get Kaiduorkhon's post.

I sort of agree. But I don't think Kaiduorkhon's is comparing anything yet, though I also have trouble understanding the post.
If we are dealing with Science as a mythology or as having one then we should find parts of that mythology lined up in some way with facets of a religion's (or some religions') mythologies. Or epistemologies or areas of reference or assumptions. I don't think that is happening above, but who knows.

If we are dealing with Science as a mythology or as having one then we should find parts of that mythology lined up in some way with facets of a religion's (or some religions') mythologies.
I have just the information for your request, but first I need to get one book I gave to a friend. She already promised to bring it to me tomorrow,
then I will reply to your question.

Khaiduorkhon ,

I find it interesting , that you start a thread about: science versus god ........
It is true, that many religious people see it this way ( because science often shows that some parts of religious texts or beliefs are , should we say "difficult" to be held true ) .........

However science is based on rationally thinking (objective) and religions are often more emotionally based (subjective), and sometimes ( at least to me ) seems irrational , at least untill you go back to the roots , when you find that many religions tries to answer
fundamental questions about origin of man and everything else - and the answers must be seen in context of the knowledge of man in those days .....
I think most of the answers in old days were made by guestimating
( estimate by guessing without certain knowledge)

The only problem is that the knowledge of man is increasing , and answers that seemed rationally in old days are now sometimes considered less rational and more emotional ..... since many religions are static with traditions and texts , there sometimes are dissagreements between religion and science of today ..........it was easier in older days , a scientist could be banned by the church .........

Anyway , I do not see science neither as a religion nor as a myth ......science is based on observations and rationally thinking ....at least it should be - there is allways some bad scientists or even religious people (who wants god to be a part of science ) that tries to rock the boat .........

Anyway to answer your question : science versus god ....... I will simply give you a link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

Dear Sputnik:
Please take note of the quotation marks around 'versus' in the title at the beginning of this thread. I should have included a question mark (?), because many of the questions being asked about my post here are also my questions. No. I don't think there really is such a thing as science versus God. I suppose it's a 'man made' conceptual context.
One could say 'Science versus Religion' - but that wouldn't be exactly the same thing as the chosen title. It could be called 'Science versus Theology', and again, that imparts a different nuance - a different spin, on what a title says or implies. I am learning a lot about this thread from the people who are responding to - and often clarifying - it, furthermore. Thank you for your contributions; which readers are certainly invited to offer.

Here's the text I promised, It's from a book by Simon Danser "The Myths of Reality",
Chapter 7 - Myths of Science (sorry for the bad quality).

page 80 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth1.jpg)
page 81 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth2.jpg)
page 82 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth3.jpg)
page 83 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth4.jpg)
page 84 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth5.jpg)
page 85 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth6.jpg)
page 86 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth7.jpg)
page 87 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth8.jpg)
page 88 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth9.jpg)
page 89 (http://www.piparmetra.net/pagrabs/scimyth10.jpg)

p.s. Just as additional information, I don't completely agree everywhere with this author, but he has some good points.

Perhaps better stated, the conflict referenced above seems to be something like this:

Virulent Antitheistic Dogmatists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) vs Evangelical Religious Nitwits

As is so often the case, media trains its attention on the extremes, ignoring almost entirely the (admitedly rather boring, but) ultimately more influential and important middle.

This is the case with regards to the "War on Terror" - Muslims are so often portrayed as backwards super-theists, some kind of modern-day medievel transplant of what might be called a Barbarian, whose core belief is basically to declare Jihad on everyone he doesn't like, screaming "ALALALALALALALA" in characteristically incoherent Arabic (because they are all Arabs, too) before detonating a suicide bomb among the innocent Christians or Jews, who happen to own the networks.

Hmm..

Well, in our current debate, regarding "religion 'vs' science" we have been handed the same kind of polarized portrayal of this "battleground," on one side you have backwoods zealots - just a hair's-breadth from believing in witches and that adulteresses should be stoned - versus self-righteous, overly pompous blowhards like Richard Dawkins, who do little to advance actually scientific thinking and much to make the rest of us start to feel we are very, very alone in being somewhat moderate.

And as is always the case with extremists, the greatest sin of all is moderation.

See, an outright sinner like an atheist is just misguided, and with just an ounce of good, old-fashioned Alabama preaching they can be converted to good christians, too.

Halelujah!

But a moderate, oh, the blind scum! They will never see the error of their ways for they attempt to do the unthinkable - go about their lives with a healthy dose of scientific reason while also making some attempt to give it meaning by attending a local church, perhaps.

*GASP!!*


...well in reality this kind of thinking is quite rare and (excuse me) rather retarded. I'm sorry if I have insulted actual retarded people, but I could not think of a better description of this type of thinking.

Let's take science first...

The accepted model works exceedingly well for us today in this world and will continue to work indefinitely. That is to say that superstring theories and biological investigations at the brink of the unthinkable are controversial "big ideas" that also get a lot of press, but what's really important?

In Physics it is appropriately producing and rationing out energy to the consumer.

In Biology it is tempering the almost hapless (even ecologically dangerous) advances in medicine with a social and environmental commitment to sustainablity.

Hence the two scientific communities have the same goal, and it's all very possible - indeed absolutely necessary for our survival - and it won't cost us our comfort or our freedom, in fact it can all proceed very much without the average consumer noticing a difference.

A car running on batteries (assuming that's possible) vs a car running on fossil fuel - what's the difference?

It's a car.

So science itself is advancing in all of these areas CONSTANTLY, and there is no threat to our morals or even religion. Building a better car, a more efficient power plant, an effective plan for sustainably feeding the human population are not only possible given perhaps another 5 to 10 years of development of CURRENT technology, but they are also in line with virtually every religious moral conceivable...


On Religion...

As with science, what gets the press is the controversial stuff - blasting gays, banning abortion (even for rape victims) and the like.

Nobody (including the vast majority of Christians) likes this stuff, it's baloney. It's just crazy talk from a select group of nuts but because it is controversial people like to talk about it.

What really needs to happen (indeed is happening) is that the Big Three - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism - need to sit down and figure out how to actually live with and respect one another.

We interact more and more with different cultures, the more globalized we become and the more influential countries like China become, the more we are going to have to accept that not everybody believes in a Messiah who died for our sins on a Cross.

And that's okay.

But what do we hear on TBN, on Bible talk radio and so on? The end is near because the gays are getting the rights they deserve, and our embrace of a once-isolated community of people whose genders are in ambiguous to whatever degree means that we are falling into the pit of hell and darkness from which there is no return.

Conclusion? We need to get down to business and accept the fact that we have our differences. But we do share these common and increasingly pressing problems: energy and resource allocation in a world whose human populatoin is expanding exponentially. The US and Japan and China and a host of other "modernized" countries are wealthy enough to do it.

If our scientists can be allowed to work, and actually get some attention for the good work they have been doing (instead of hot topics like sheep cloning, which is neat and creepy and interesting and USELESS) then we can get down to solving this energy crisis before it wipes us out of existence.

And our religious leaders need to state publicly "you know what? These (Muslims or Jews or Zoroastrians or Buddhists) over here are not going to Hell. In fact, I just killed a six pack with my freind Achmed over here and we both think all this fighting is kind of stupid."

What really needs to happen (indeed is happening) is that the Big Three - Christianity, Islam and Buddhism - need to sit down and figure out not how to incorporate all their religions into one that works and is fuzzy and wonderful for everyone, but how to actually live with and respect one another.
I don't really agree that Buddhism is a religion, it's more akin to philosophy and very different from nowaday Christianity or Islam,
but that's besides the point.

I don't really agree that Buddhism is a religion, it's more akin to philosophy and very different from nowaday Christianity or Islam,
but that's besides the point.

I agree. I was referring to efforts of Risho Kosei Kai (a Japanese Buddhist sect) to get prominent members of various religions in a room all talking about resolving these long-standing conflicts.

Bottom line, it's got to happen. The days of launching Crusades/Jihads (or whatever you choose to call them) have got to be laid to rest.

Respect, that's all I'm saying.

There are various degrees of religiosity in Buddhism, however, and popular Buddhism often appears very much like any other religious faith - that is to say there is a centralized building, a temple, in which followers gather to practice a ritual. There are altars, offerings, prayers, etc.

But you're right, Buddhism is not fundamentally religious. It's just that certain groups of people have made a religion out of it...

Perhaps this could be said of Christianity, though too. :shrug:

However science is based on rationally thinking (objective) and religions are often more emotionally based (subjective), and sometimes ( at least to me ) seems irrational , at least untill you go back to the roots , when you find that many religions tries to answer
fundamental questions about origin of man and everything else - and the answers must be seen in context of the knowledge of man in those days .....


Could it be that religion's limited understanding of fact is the real problem? It is not "emotive" or "irrational" to make conclusions on the information you have at the time. It's totally possible to be rational, and come up with the wrong answer.

I don't think that it's a problem of religion only. You can not know for sure that your understanding is limited, until you know better.
Any way, one of religion's functions is to teach cosmology. But it's only one of the functions.

I'd argue that our understanding of the objective reality will always be limited because our mind is subjective.
What was that phrase by the Greek philosopher: "I know that I know nothing".

The only thing fundamentally different about the two camps is that the Scientific Method assumes everything is false - it basically throws all notions and assumptions out the window and starts from scratch.

It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result.

Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom."

Here lies the fundamental rift.

The same was true when Galileo made the absolutely preposterous claim that a grape and an apple dropped from precisely the same height would strike a table at precisely the same time.

That can't possibly be true, that preposterous, for Aristotle said...

It doesn't matter what Aristotle said, the two fruits struck the table at the same time and probably hundreds of astounded dinner guests learned a valuable lesson -

Learning through observation and experience is more valuable than automatically accepting prevailing wisdom.

But over time science has consistently fallen short of answering "everything," so there is always a realm of undrestanding in which religion provides the only answer - science simple says "we don't know...yet."

Not being satisfied with the scientific non-answer the public at large often accepts the religious answer, because at least it's an answer.

But the more science discovers, the less ground religion has to claim exclusive rights to its "truths."

Ultimately there will probably always be some gap to which religious answers can be applied, as the scientific method is limited:

It can't tell you, for instance, if you are in a capsule being accelerated or if you are at rest on a planetary body exerting gravitational force on you.

Traditional religious type thinking says, well of course, stupid, you're on Earth.

Science says "we don't know that."

But the gaps close and religion loses ground. Of course they battle against this loss of territory! Evolution represents the single greatest loss for the religious establishment - here is a mechanism by which new species emerge simply by virtue of being subjected to the environment.

But of course science can't tell us where the "first cell" came from. It only proves quite conclusively that every cell that we have ever observed absolutely had to have come from another cell.

Religion says God created the first cell.

Science says "we don't know...yet."

...but if you are facing a question like "should I sleep with my neighbor's wife?" then go with the religious answer.

;)

I think the problem with many religions is that they stick to their outdated understanding of cosmology. As Joseph Campbell once said: "There is no conflict between science and mysticism, but there is aconflict between the science of 2000AD and 2000BC".

And because they stick to it, they become ineffective, because it's harder for anyone to believe in them. Of course many religions can't part with their cosmology, because it forms such a crucial part of them. An error in design. :D

Any way, I don't see that religion is always as negative as many think because of too much religious moronity in the world. Religion can hold a culture together, and when religion diminishes, the culture disintegrates, thus adding to the overall chaos and instability of the world.

Any way, to end my rant, I think that the most suitable candidates for world views that can hold our societies together, educate young people on how to become good members of their communities, promote peace and development, and keep up with the advances of science are Buddhism and to a lesser degree Upanishadic (if I may say so) Hinduism.

Hello, this looks an interesting debate....

The only thing fundamentally different about the two camps is that the Scientific Method assumes everything is false - it basically throws all notions and assumptions out the window and starts from scratch.

That's the rather triumphalist version of progress scientists tell themselves! Kuhn showed us otherwise in "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". Scientists are very resistant to throwing out their existing beliefs. They will always prefer to invent auxilliary hypotheses to account for anomalies/counterevidence.

It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result. Again, scientists often fall victim to their own propaganda. Feyerabend showed the "scientific method" is nowhere like as methodical a process as scientists make out. "Anything goes!" was his famous quote.

Don't get me wrong... I too believe in science as a good way to model our universe. However, it's not as squeaky clean as it's often made out!

Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom." So does science! It takes a genius (e.g. Einstein, Newton, Copernicus or even Gallileo) to challenge the accepted assumptions of the day and think about a scientific problem differently.

Learning through observation and experience is more valuable than automatically accepting prevailing wisdom.

I agree, however, religion suffers from the difficulty that each person must make the journey of discovery about "God" individually for themselves. There is no archive of objective evidence to draw on - only the 'accepted wisdom' compiled from previous people's experiences. In this, religion is much more an art than a science.

However, progressive theology is all about challenging old assumptions, in the light of experience and current knowledge. There is progress. Perhaps it is akin to philosophy.

But the more science discovers, the less ground religion has to claim exclusive rights to its "truths."

They address different questions. Religion is about discovering depth of meaning in our lives. Science is about discovering the nature of the physical universe. There is some overlap but generally NOMA.

Religion says God created the first cell.Only bad religion. It's a scientific question.

...but if you are facing a question like "should I sleep with my neighbor's wife?" then go with the religious answer.

;) Ah, but why... if you can get away with it? :shrug:

That's the rather triumphalist version of progress scientists tell themselves! Kuhn showed us otherwise in "The Nature of Scientific Revolutions". Scientists are very resistant to throwing out their existing beliefs. They will always prefer to invent auxilliary hypotheses to account for anomalies/counterevidence.

Hence science tends to flounder around for decades at a time - or centuries as it was in the past - and suddenly lurch forward when some virtual unknown, and Einstein is a perfect example, steps forward with proof that some of the fringe ideas established thinkers were afraid to explore actually have merit.

Then there is this period of tremendous progress until the potential of whatever idea it was that started the revolution is exhausted, and then it becomes dogma that must one day be rejected by a better theory and so on.

Scientists like to keep their jobs. Also they are generally paid to do rather specific research - financed by the government (military) or corporate interests. So it's not that science is directly biased by its financial basis to any great extent (to a certain degree sure,) but the types of questions being seriously investigated are limited to what there is funding for.

Hey, Gently Passing and Diogenes...
Can I use your (Bravo) quotes in a note I'm publishing?

Hey, Gently Passing and Diogenes...
Can I use your (Bravo) quotes in a note I'm publishing?
You'd be very welcome Kaiduorkhon! :)

Hence science tends to flounder around for decades at a time - or centuries as it was in the past - and suddenly lurch forward when some virtual unknown, and Einstein is a perfect example, steps forward with proof that some of the fringe ideas established thinkers were afraid to explore actually have merit.

Then there is this period of tremendous progress until the potential of whatever idea it was that started the revolution is exhausted, and then it becomes dogma that must one day be rejected by a better theory and so on.

Scientists like to keep their jobs. Also they are generally paid to do rather specific research - financed by the government (military) or corporate interests. So it's not that science is directly biased by its financial basis to any great extent (to a certain degree sure,) but the types of questions being seriously investigated are limited to what there is funding for.

"Blasphemy is what an old dogma screams at a new truth."
:splat: (Robert Ingersoll)

Science ‘versus’ God.

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
"People have attacked me because I do only one thing. But that one thing is to try to figure how the world is put together. The world is incredible, just the fact that you and I are here, and that the atoms of your body were once part of stars. They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. Anyway," he laughed,"I’m a nut, you know. Crazy."

The above statement is enough to describe how humans feel about LIFE. In fact, it is true that every scientist who believes firmly in his own theory, wonders all the time, about the origins of LIFE. Just an accident or some probability could not explain the complex nature of life. There is definitely more to it. I would not ascribe the unknown to GOD, but defintiely our scientific explanation is very limited to explain this complex nature of GOD.
Think about it and you will understand what i mean here..

It's an excersise, if you will, in solving specific problems in a highly controlled manner. That is to say Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Analysis, Publication is the only means of arriving at a result.

Religion, on the other hand, assumes that a host of conclusions and assumptions are true based upon accepted "wisdom."

Here lies the fundamental rift.



If by religion you are referring to one of those big organizations with attendant unquestionable texts, I agree with you.

But there are many of us out here who base our not (yet) scientifically verified beliefs on experience.

There are the extremes and there is the boring middle and then there are people who are actually learning and who from this know that scientists confidence about assuming the unliklihood of a whole host of phenomena is based on hubris.

Science vs God DEBATE

Science has a body of H2o that is not excited by electromagnetic waves inferred as Ice as per in your face evidence..


God in Genesis has a body of H2o inferred as water even with out Light and or electromagnetic waves exciting it and despite the above in your face evidence..

Does anyone understand the above post?

Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - neither science nor "faith" are able to explain world around us.

Does anyone understand the above post?

That's all that's left after I deleted two posts by LaidBack and asked him not to repeat stuff that was against CR and Sciforums guidelines.

Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - neither science nor "faith" are able to explain world around us.

I think you should make that kind of reversed: Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - both science and "faith" try to explain world around us.

I think you should make that kind of reversed: Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - both science and "faith" try to explain world around us.

Today, I've tried to lift a tractor-trailer with my bare hands:) You may guess the height.

I think you should make that kind of reversed: Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - both science and "faith" try to explain world around us.

They both have ideas about the 'only' ways to achieve knowledge. Both traditional religions and science are extremely critical and afraid of intuition and emotions.

Does anyone understand the above post?

The differences between science and religion are clear..

Science consists with explanations that comply strictly to truth and or facts..
Religion consists with explanations that don't strictly conform to truth and or facts..

And an excellent example is the following..

Scientific "in ones face" Facts..
.
During winter via less sunlight and or longer periods of darkness H2o returns to its natural state, "it freezes!" that means it should be referred to as a solid, which is best explained or inferred as Ice rather than Water

.
.
.
.


Religion and in particular the bible states...
.
1 First God made heaven & earth

2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

My opinion has religion does not conform and or comply to real truth, whilst science does conform and comply to truth, if you read the above religious quote and note that water existed rather than a body of ice before the sun was created, it should be obvious the writer is not with sound knowledge of its own implied creation!

Now tell me which individuals would accept scientific facts over their religious points of view? OY! :mad: Moderator please don't delete this post, all I am doing is asking a question.. with my opinion and or reasoning as per below..

Perhaps someone who has been brain washed would prefer to ignore "in ones face facts" by rather accepting previous indoctrinated religious statements?

And perhaps even may defend what I consider lies, with more lies!

i got a bit lost,


science VS god cant happen, you can pit science Vs religion and religious books.

but modern science does not conflict with "god" in the slightest, people usualy over look this,

modern science in my opinion does the exact opposite, and actualy backs up the claim of a god in my opinion.

to say the universe and existence as a whole may have just sprung up at some point in time, is like saying god said "let there be light" and the universe just came forth, scientific facts do not collide with the idea of a god, it may be said that scientists "study and try to uncover and explain everything that was created"

peace.

I don't think it is a matter of a god interefering with science. It is a matter of what kind of god is believed. Even Einstein would agree that a Divine Force or abstract deity should not bother science. He played with the idea himself. He delighted with it. What is dangerous to science is the concept of a god that plays around with natural cause and effect---especially in such petty things as in response to prayer! That is the type of thing that the many so-called "miracles" are made of and which makes a mockery of scientific natural cause and effect.

Of all the old religion obstacles to science, the worst is "creationism." Genesis was a magnificant chapter 2,000 years ago---even 12 centuries ago or less. Now it is totally obsolete and a drag on human scientific progress.
It is killing to a society for everyone to be fighting over our own origins. It is no wonder that our present age is in decline and we feel adrift. We cannot agree on even the most fundamental thing. Our old religions are that divisive now. . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Religion provides some comforting notions relating to our mortality. Aside from that it does not seem to result in any useful results.

BTW: I envy the theist for his smug belief that he will be able to say "I told you so" to atheists.

For almost all of our recorded history, religion condoned slavery and seldom spoke against the outrageous activities of despotic rulers. Science in the last 200-300 years has brought all sorts of benefits.

There is just no need for or useful purpose to be gained by religioious beliefs. To a large extent it is holding back science due to its tendency to encourage the use of faith and emotion as a substitute for critical analysis and rationality.

Religion is hindering many from being able to deal with and contribute to our technological culture. I wonder how many potentially great medical researchers have been turned away from biology and a medical career by creationist/ID parents.

Science should start being more critical and intolerant in its view of religion. I am hoping for but not expecting the eventual defeat of the theist viewpoint.

The problem with hard line atheists is that usually they haven't researched the anthropology part of religions and therefore dismiss them as useless, but there is more to religion than just the everyday visible and most annoying aspects of it.

Religion is not holding back science. As J.Campbell (a CR scientist) has said "there is no conflict between mysticism and science, but there is a conflict between the science of 2000 CE and 2000 BCE". The outdated cosmology and biology that some of the world's religions still cling to is the problem, not the religion in itself.
Hinduism, for example, has no problems with science, neither has Buddhism (that is more a philosophy).

Religion and ritual has the important role in making every day conceptual conventions (peace, freedom, redemption) and social contracts a part of the natural world of the humanity. There are inherit problems in this as well, but the important thing is that without religion and ritual human society disintegrates, because important corner stones of how we see the world are not there any more. I'm not talking about Christianity or any particular religion here.

We already are more technologically advanced than our ethics and psychology is, we are like cave men with chainsaws (pollution, accelerated climate change, etc), and it is dangerous. By taking out the safe guards that religion can provide, its function to make conceptual conventions a part of the natural (the semi-subjective) world of humanity, our society becomes disoriented and unpredictable, more dangerous to itself.

As I said, the problem with some of the religions nowadays is the outdated science that those religions use, but the problem is not in the function of religion that has been with us since the invention of language.

Religion is not holding back science. As J.Campbell (a CR scientist) has said "
Well he was and is wrong!
Religion instills very backward ideas based on religious text written to imply ones concepts and or constructs to ones morality..

And no where is there a better example on how much religion is retarding science when we point out the Asian provinces, where they are decades ahead in the research in genetics, especially when one compares areas and or localities that are mainly influenced by the christian religions mentality such as it is in America, where even their leader must concede to its influence..

Another arena where religion is retarding science is that America and other localities could have been world leaders in just about all technologies had they not allowed religions to run educational institutes..

Need I point out these institutes are omitting much critical data that conflicts with their religious ideas and ideals therefore their students are wanting for more acurate data and whats more these institutes are attempting time and time again to replace more and more good sound science with a load of more and more rubbish, Can you imagine how many directors are religiously driven and because of their backward views introduce a decline rather than incline in knowledge..

America is not the only locality infected with religion and the deceit and underhanded tactics that come with it, and as long as these localities allow religions to take precedence those localities can only recede and or revert back to the dark ages, whilst those localities that disband and disallow foolish and childish religious notions will result with leading edge technology...

Therefore Religion IS holding back Science and whats more is holding back the rest of the population who are smart enough not to allow deception to over rule facts..

Religion instills very backward ideas based on religious text written to imply ones concepts and or constructs to ones morality..
Again, you are talking about Christianity, not religion in general. The three abrahamic religions are in no way representation of the whole picture, rather they are a special and an unfortunate case of how a religion can go wrong.
I am speaking of religion in general and the benefits on a society a good religion can have.
I shall elaborate on it further when I have more time.

Again, you are talking about Christianity, not religion in general. The three abrahamic religions are in no way representation of the whole picture, rather they are a special and an unfortunate case of how a religion can go wrong.
I am speaking of religion in general and the benefits on a society a good religion can have.
I shall elaborate on it further when I have more time.

Well excuse me and my locality for being infected mainly with Abrahamic religions! Gee I wonder if an apology from you is in order? :D what with your assumptions of what religions may be based in my locality..:p

Besides my locality being blessed with less Riff Raf than most other localities, Can you mention any religion at all that sticks to the facts and nothing but the facts as science does? And if so? How can one infer it as a religion then?

My guess would be that ALL religions are with some sort of deception and or hidden agendas just as all the religions operate, and therefore via whatever deceptions they rely upon that's what is holding back their flock.

No good has EVER come from religion and or deceit, even though most lay claim they are responsible for what ever good may have eventuated, which could have occurred with or with out implied religious influence anyway..

This must've been asked 100,000 times by now on the forum, god does not win it :p

Science and religions have many things in common, the main shared "property" - neither science nor "faith" are able to explain world around us.

I meant to answer this post much earlier, but was limited with time..


Science for the most has and can explain the world and or our Universe.

The real problem why science in some localities may not, is via available institutes who are providing ones knowledge, these institutes - if religiously backed and or funded must consider what the truth will do to their religious agenda..

And if ones education is provided via Lectures that are them selves wanting for more accurate data via being infected with some religious brainwashing and or indoctrination, of course the students are going to end up wanting for truthful data, and this simply is not possible as long as Lectures are infected with a whole lot of religious garbage rather than with truth and or proper Science, the result is graduating scientists will be unemployable compared to those that have been availed a good sound education, but this leaves those rather lacking to become Lecturers and their is our backward slide..

The only way Science can progress and be able to explain anything in a completely truthful manner ~ is if all religious constructs are not allowed to take precedence over REAL truth and or REAL facts, but how can REAL truth take precedence when the religious educational institutes are over run with backward reasoning or worse religious Lectures and Directors who mandate omissions to the truth to be replaced with deceit that allows their religious constructs with the same luxury of credibility that science has..

This is one of the main reasons why powerful nations are brought to their knees! and I mean "knees" in all respects including being forced onto their knees bowing before ones dictator who may have been lucky enough to be in power at the right time.

One can only hope there is always enough intelligent individuals that over ride the illogical and religious minority by keeping them in check from destroying their Nation!..

Can you mention any religion at all that sticks to the facts and nothing but the facts as science does? And if so? How can one infer it as a religion then?


There are many believers in what might be characterized as pagan, or nature based religions with pantheistic tendencies that have no problem with the scientific method or most of the specific conclusions of scientific research. On the other hand these people do not assume that the scientific method is the only way of ascertaining truth and further believe that scientists and their worshipers often overestimate their ability to judge the liklihood of certain phenomena that seem (or would seem) supernatural to them. This myopia on the science based believer group is further complicated by their sense that scientific explanation (which tend, for example, to assume things are dead or non-sentient) are the deepest or only possible explanations of phenomena.

Religion is not holding back science. As J.Campbell (a CR scientist) has said "there is no conflict between mysticism and science, but there is a conflict between the science of 2000 CE and 2000 BCE".
Look, simply making up explanations for things doesn't qualify as "doing science." The entire point of science is that you make empirical observations in order to check to make sure that your made-up ideas actually correspond to reality. I could explain the sun by proposing that it's a giant firefly that buzzes across the sky every day, but the mere fact that this theory explains something about the world doesn't make it scientific. Now, I could be a scientist if I try to verify my firefly idea with empirical observation; I could try to find the giant firefly’s nest, or I could try to make a special camera that would let me photograph the firefly’s body through his enormous glare, or I could try to detect the beating of his wings as he buzzed through the sky. But of course my firefly theory isn’t likely to withstand that sort of investigation.

Some guy sitting around a fire 4000 years ago making up bullshit explanations for things without making any attempt to verify the factual accuracy of his ideas wasn’t doing science.
Religion and ritual has the important role in making every day conceptual conventions (peace, freedom, redemption) and social contracts a part of the natural world of the humanity.
The problem is that religion is incapable of doing any of that without also making claims about objective reality. Almost by definition a religion has to make some sort of claim about supernatural deities, forces, or realities. Any objective claim of that natural will be susceptible to scientific investigation. It would be fine if religion only provided the sorts of philosophical insights that you seem to want from it, but it seems to invariably go on to justify those insights with claims about objective reality that can be investigated scientifically.

There are many believers in what might be characterized as pagan, or nature based religions with pantheistic tendencies that have no problem with the scientific method or most of the specific conclusions of scientific research. On the other hand these people do not assume that the scientific method is the only way of ascertaining truth and further believe that scientists and their worshipers often overestimate their ability to judge the likelihood of certain phenomena that seem (or would seem) supernatural to them. This myopia on the science based believer group is further complicated by their sense that scientific explanation (which tend, for example, to assume things are dead or non-sentient) are the deepest or only possible explanations of phenomena.

Well now?~? I have heard of ignorant individuals being worshippers of concerns they don't understand? As in natives grovelling on their knees worshipping angry gods (air-crafts, volcanoes etc) around over 75 years ago, but an individual with ones knowledge of today who is an advocate to facts and truth bowing down and worshipping?????? what the fer~ark would one be worshipping?

That simply is not an all together logical statement.. REALLY! what in the universe would one be worshipping if one is empowered with real facts and truth?

Lets put it this way... with all the basic facts that you know what would be a prime candidate for worship? I would hazard to say nothing!

Facts are facts truth is truth, and by commanding knowledge of our universe, it empowers one with logical behaviour where the only fear would be the fear of losing the right to the knowledge one holds..

As for paganism I am quite aware of it and let me remind you many of the constructs are the basis for many of the religions that still infect the feeble and or illogical today..

Granted paganism has evolved in another direction from main stream religions somewhat, but as long as it relies on mythical entities and or events that are not fully explainable to their flock, it is hindering their flocks intellect from gaining their full potential..

The deceit and or omissions of details may or may not be intentional, but never the less important details have and are being twisted via some hidden agenda leading ones flock away from real truth to ensure ones income gleaned from them remains lucrative and sustainable enough..

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist..

One is generally concrete, the other is completely abstract. That said, to put it bluntly the existence of god is but a concept made long ago by us human. Then again in some religion it could possibly be just us glorifying ourselves to be god-like. Today though it's no hypothesis as there's no evidence at all in this omnipotent being's existence. Politically the concept of god is an ingenious propaganda. I don't have much to say other than that. I'd rather believe in something that has plausible explaination than something that doesn't. It's a shame that one has enough influence in politic to halt the advance of another. *sigh*

Lets put it this way... with all the basic facts that you know what would be a prime candidate for worship? I would hazard to say nothing!

Worship is a word I associate more with the monotheisms, also all that bowing down, making yourself small in relation to something. Gods, etc. do not have to be dictators whose asses neeed to be kissed. I feel great reverence for nature both specific places and the earth as a whole. As one example.



As for paganism I am quite aware of it and let me remind you many of the constructs are the basis for many of the religions that still infect the feeble and or illogical today..

I am quite capable of logic and rationality. Your assumption is that you know the liklihood of there being gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. based on current scientific knowledge. This is irrational on your part.

Granted paganism has evolved in another direction from main stream religions somewhat, but as long as it relies on mythical entities and or events that are not fully explainable to their flock, it is hindering their flocks intellect from gaining their full potential..

Well, that's a theory. But my experience is that many pagans are just as intelligent, capable of logic AND intuitive mental skills as your run of the mill rationalist athiest. Why not test your theory out? I also notice pagans tend to be less likely to fall for the BS of someone like Bush, for example.

The deceit and or omissions of details may or may not be intentional, but never the less important details have and are being twisted via some hidden agenda leading ones flock away from real truth to ensure ones income gleaned from them remains lucrative and sustainable enough..

I see athiest happily supporting all sorts of ludicrous ventures with their tax monies, for example. They seem quite capable of being manipulated.

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist.

You are making more unscientific claims. I don't think you know very much or have had much personal contact with pagans, wiccans, indigenous religious leaders. Pure speculation.

But this is OK because you think that since you are arguing in favor of what you think rationality is it's OK for you to just hypothesize in the guise of stating facts.

Worship is a word I associate more with the monotheism, also all that bowing down, making yourself small in relation to something. Gods, etc. do not have to be dictators whose asses need to be kissed. I feel great reverence for nature both specific places and the earth as a whole. As one example.





I am quite capable of logic and rationality. Your assumption is that you know the likelihood of there being gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. based on current scientific knowledge. This is irrational on your part.

Well, that's a theory. But my experience is that many pagans are just as intelligent, capable of logic AND intuitive mental skills as your run of the mill rationalist atheist. Why not test your theory out? I also notice pagans tend to be less likely to fall for the BS of someone like Bush, for example.


I see atheist happily supporting all sorts of ludicrous ventures with their tax monies, for example. They seem quite capable of being manipulated.

You are making more unscientific claims. I don't think you know very much or have had much personal contact with pagans, wiccans, indigenous religious leaders. Pure speculation.

But this is OK because you think that since you are arguing in favor of what you think rationality is it's OK for you to just hypothesize in the guise of stating facts.

So its agreed then!?? its pointless to worship what or whomever ~ Be-it fact and or some fictitious deity.

As for your inference to a gawd being possible and or highly likely, I don't see it that way at all, specially if truth and facts must conform to what is implied by its conformance to all else..

I am not sure how adept and or astute you are in physics but the facts are if a gawd was possible, its dynamics and or constructs by way of interactions as part of the "possible universe" must itself comply to some basic laws that can not be overlooked... And it is these simple Laws if broken by the inference to magic and or some miracle rendering all of the universe as impossible hence the exercise of intended magical and or miraculous interactions as null and void, and it so happens it is these very laws that every religion I have come across seem to over look this fact..

And yes I agree I know squat about the pagan religion, but the facts are if it is a religion then to me it simply is a cult and or sect that is advocating to anything other than to facts and or truth.. but going by you they don't dispute to facts and truth..

So if paganism advocate them selves as being religious then I have to ask why?...

If they don't worship a and or gawd/s and they don't worship inanimate objects and they don't dispute facts and or truth then really they don't need to degrade themselves as being religious..

I am not sure how adept and or astute you are in physics but the facts are if a gawd was possible, its dynamics and or constructs by way of interactions as part of the "possible universe" must itself comply to some basic laws that can not be overlooked... And it is these simple Laws if broken by the inference to magic and or some miracle rendering all of the universe as impossible hence the exercise of intended magical and or miraculous interactions as null and void, and it so happens it is these very laws that every religion I have come across seem to over look this fact..

You are assuming that magic is something that goes against the laws of the universe rather than being something as yet unproven by science. An understanding of QM should put a little humility into your position since much of what has been discovered to be true (light being both waves and particles somehow at the same time, particles moving backwards through time, instantaneous influence over vast distances - in other words faster than the speed of light - and so on) and that were/are very hard for some scientists to accept. Even Einstein who cracked some paradigms himself could not accept some of the ideas (that have been validated over and over) of QM because they contradicted his sense of what was possible and what was known before.

And yes I agree I know squat about the pagan religion, but the facts are if it is a religion then to me it simply is a cult and or sect that is advocating to anything other than to facts and or truth.. but going by you they don't dispute to facts and truth..

Notice the pattern. You don't know much about....then statements of 'fact'. Let's just say if you are trying to role model rationality you are not doing very well for us irrational savages.


If they don't worship a and or gawd/s and they don't worship inanimate objects and they don't dispute facts and or truth then really they don't need to degrade themselves as being religious

You have made a number of assumptions here.
1) you are assuming that magic cannot be phenomena AS YET untested verified by science.
2) the existance of a God must contradict current scientific knowledge
3) There cannot be different explanations for the same phenomenon that do not contradict each other. (as an example, for years scientists viewed animals as machines. They assumed that animals did not have emotions or intentions. They described their behavior in mechanical terms. Other people saw animals as 'like us' with emotions and motivations. Scientists have in recent decades stopped denying the obvious. They see animals now as subjects and not just objects. However much of their observations about animal behavior and physiology was correct. Two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, both accurate in their own ways.)
4) scientists can determine the liklihood of phenomena despite current restrictions on technology and paradgmatic influence on their thinking. (a concrete example - Rogue waves. Large 'lone wolf' waves that sailors reported seeing. Scientists (oceanographers and fluid scientists) said these sailors were wrong, their emotions were getting the better of them as these rogue waves could not possibly be as big as reported. Oops. Technology improved: video cameras were installed in the bridges of ships and satellite tech. made it easier to 'see' waves. The sailors were right. Then KNOWING that these waves existed oceanographers and fluid scientists (with their little wave machines and computers) came up with the math and physics to explain them. note the pattern: 'strange' phenomenon, scientist denial of its reality and claims that experiencers are 'irrational and emotional', technological change, verification of the phenomenon.

A little humility is in order when ASSUMING ONE CAN KNOW THE LIKLIHOOD OF EXCEPTIONAL PHENOMENA.

Put simply all religious leaders are the greatest Con artists and believe it or not the more intelligent they are the higher the likely hood they know they are a Con Artist..

And again, I can only stress that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what can loosely be called pagan leaders. I am thinking of nature-based believers in the west, many of whom identify themselves as Wiccan or pagans and also many indigenous religious leaders and shamans.

As someone who is advocating the scientific method and rational arguements with proof, etc, such generalizing should be embarrassing to you.

My problem with this entire business is that the argumentation is usually based on the assumption that religion is on the side of God.

I am inclined to suspect that if there is a God then HE/SHE/IT has a lower opinion of religion than I do.

If this God entity is responsible for originating the universe and life then this God entity has to know everything there is to know about physics including what we haven't figured out yet. The same goes for mathematics and chemistry and biology, etc. etc. etc.

So if science is the pursuit of truth about reality then there cannot be a conflict between God and science, if there is a God. So it should just be a matter of time before science tracks God's silly ass down.

I think religion is nothing but a mind control game played by some human beings pretending they know more about God than everybody else. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of them are actually cynical atheists leading dummies around by the nose. So a lot of this quasi-pseudo-intellectual bullsh!t argumentation about religion is nothing but that, BULLSH!T!

Studying a physics book is a higher form of worship than studying the Bible.

psik

So if science is the pursuit of truth about reality then there cannot be a conflict between God and science, if there is a God.

Ipsik

I would agree, if God exists under most definitions it will encompass science. Even a distinct creator being type god would have created the laws of nature and physics as well....let alone a pantheistic type definition

So there cannot be God vs Science; but can there be religion vs science?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, science means knowledge, but it does not imply what sort of knowledge, just knowledge; omniscience = knowledge of everything; nescience = lack of knowledge, or ignorance.

The pursuit of knowledge of God, self or the spiritual is still science (by its original definitions). There is nothing in the word science that dictates empirical science only!... although the vernacular has come to mean that.


I think as somone else said earlier in this thread, religion contains the science of two thousand years ago. It is the canonnistaion of this old science that renders religion an ineffective tool for going forward. But that is not to say evertying that is found in religion should be automatically discarded. There is much in the old writing still of interst and value.

The pursuit of knowledge of God, self or the spiritual is still science (by its original definitions).
Only if by "original definition" you mean the original ancient Greek. “Science” has implied empiricism for hundreds and hundreds of years.
I think as somone else said earlier in this thread, religion contains the science of two thousand years ago.
As has already been pointed out, simply making up explanations for things does not constitute science.

Seriously now, the amount of BS being thrown around in this thread is almost beyond belief. Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation. Stop trying to solve the conflict between science and religion by redefining science to mean "any belief about the world that was arrived at by any method." It's not productive, and it only serves to divert the discussion.

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation. Stop trying to solve the conflict between science and religion by redefining science to mean "any belief about the world that was arrived at by any method." It's not productive, and it only serves to divert the discussion.


My idea of science includes not letting other people tell me what I do or don't know.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

And even when I admit I don't know I may have suspicions about some things. Life is short and filled with annoying responsibilities so no one has the time to investigate everything.

psik

My idea of science includes not letting other people tell me what I do or don't know.

psik

too true

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs that have failed all attempts at empirical validation..

Then say what you mean and talk about empiricism vs. beliefs. Not science vs god…

Some religious systems such as Buddhism, Taoism and Certain Hindu systems rely on the Science of meditation to support their doctrines, so belief is limited as one can ‘see for themselves’ by undertaking the necessary meditation disciplines required.

If you say that meditation is not objective. I say only to those who have not disciplined themselves in its practice. The same way science cannot be understood by the uneducated.

Okay, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were educated enough to know the definition of science that's been in use for hundreds of years, and by further assuming that you would realize that when someone starts a discussion today, in 2007, they probably don't intend for people to revert to the medieval definitions of the words in their opening post.

You are assuming that magic is something that goes against the laws of the universe rather than being something as yet unproven by science. Sorry but you are wrong! I treat Magic and Miracles as violations to the basics Laws pertaining to Force and Momentum.An understanding of QM should put a little humility into your position since much of what has been discovered to be true (light being both waves and particles somehow at the same time, particles moving backwards through time, instantaneous influence over vast distances - in other words faster than the speed of light - and so on) and that were/are very hard for some scientists to accept. Even Einstein who cracked some paradigms himself could not accept some of the ideas (that have been validated over and over) of QM because they contradicted his sense of what was possible and what was known before.



Notice the pattern. You don't know much about....then statements of 'fact'. Let's just say if you are trying to role model rationality you are not doing very well for us irrational savages.


You have made a number of assumptions here.
1) you are assuming that magic cannot be phenomena AS YET untested verified by science.
2) the existence of a God must contradict current scientific knowledge
3) There cannot be different explanations for the same phenomenon that do not contradict each other. (as an example, for years scientists viewed animals as machines. They assumed that animals did not have emotions or intentions. They described their behavior in mechanical terms. Other people saw animals as 'like us' with emotions and motivations. Scientists have in recent decades stopped denying the obvious. They see animals now as subjects and not just objects. However much of their observations about animal behavior and physiology was correct. Two different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, both accurate in their own ways.)
4) scientists can determine the likelihood of phenomena despite current restrictions on technology and paradigmatic influence on their thinking. (a concrete example - Rogue waves. Large 'lone wolf' waves that sailors reported seeing. Scientists (oceanographers and fluid scientists) said these sailors were wrong, their emotions were getting the better of them as these rogue waves could not possibly be as big as reported. Oops. Technology improved: video cameras were installed in the bridges of ships and satellite tech. made it easier to 'see' waves. The sailors were right. Then KNOWING that these waves existed oceanographers and fluid scientists (with their little wave machines and computers) came up with the math and physics to explain them. note the pattern: 'strange' phenomenon, scientist denial of its reality and claims that experience's are 'irrational and emotional', technological change, verification of the phenomenon.

A little humility is in order when ASSUMING ONE CAN KNOW THE LIKLIHOOD OF EXCEPTIONAL PHENOMENA.


The key here is ones understanding of reality and whether the reality is a conforming one to at least another individuals reality or not..

Another key is ones interpretation of what magic and or miracles are..
My reasoning has the inference to magic and miracles being used by those with lacking data on the laws of Physics, and in particular to Force and Motion and or how changes are possible if you will..

My experience in the Electronics Industry during my working days has me with certain advantages over those that have been availed an education recently, as my experience has had me correcting all of my lectures {YES ALL of THEM!} not their fault they don't have access to Industries models..

Never the less here are some key facts to consider when one refers to QM, QED and much to the Standard Models constructs, in particular pertaining to the postulated Particles which may I remind you they don't fully conform to the basics..

But first how familiar are you with Newtons Laws on FORCE and Motion?

Dare I say if one does not fully understand the basic laws that explain proper reality one will more than likely end up advocating to magic and or models and or even some religion, and unless one is adept in the skills of calculus which is a the only way to expose many of the failings in science and physics today..

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..

Change is only possible by way of momentum and momentum is only possible by way of force, but force can only ever exert by way of momentum (velocities)... and if we consider any physics, and if the force and or the velocities don't conform with all other velocities by considering beyond ones models, and or if the numbers don't add up, then ones theory and or Postulations would more than likely be WRONG! and or imply magic and or a miracle..

"The Standard Model, QM, and QED all have their lion share of problems because of the lacking above considerations, due from the fact of not considering proper velocities for our forces, in particular when one should consider the the particles form and what and how velocities are apparent for them.

To put this as simply as possible for others reading this - Imagine our universe is one massive 3 Dimensional Jigsaw puzzle of all that is possible and how it would be destroyed if any piece was removed..

Therefore if a change to any area in our Universe occurs, all else must confirm and conform to this change so the possible remains as possible..

Now magic and miracles infers violations to the above simple physics, such as suggesting an object, a form and or entity one moment can appear in an area where their was a given amount of Energy to the areas mass and or something can magically create something else from nothing and or zero.. Do you agree how absurd that is!?

Perhaps one should consider the velocities for ones postulated particles if I am not making any sense..

Everyone here knows damn well that when people talk about the science vs. god or religion, they are talking about empiricism vs. beliefs

If you want to define science as empiricism.....

And if you want to talk about empiricism vs belief, then I would say that a belief system is fundamental to the functioning of individuals and societies. Why? Because empiricism has no morals. It is unable to make moral judgements.

To have morals one must have a belief system. Now I am not saying by any means that that belief system has to be a religion, it may be a philosophy or simply a set of personal beliefs but nevertheless belief system is required for individuals and societies to function.


SO again there is no vs, no contradiction .we need both

Sorry but you are wrong! I treat Magic and Miracles as violations to the basics Laws pertaining to Force and Momentum.
I know that you do. But there is no reason to. That was my point.

Another key is ones interpretation of what magic and or miracles are..
My reasoning has the inference to magic and miracles being used by those with lacking data on the laws of Physics, and in particular to Force and Motion and or how changes are possible if you will..

Each generation finds causal relationships that were denied by former generations (and that is within the history of Science).


Never the less here are some key facts to consider when one refers to QM, QED and much to the Standard Models constructs, in particular pertaining to the postulated Particles which may I remind you they don't fully conform to the basics..

This is not a clear sentence. 'Basics' is not clearly used here, for example.


But first how familiar are you with Newtons Laws on FORCE and Motion?

You want a number? I am very familiar with Newton's laws.

Dare I say if one does not fully understand the basic laws that explain proper reality one will more than likely end up advocating to magic and or models and or even some religion, and unless one is adept in the skills of calculus which is a the only way to expose many of the failings in science and physics today..

you are saying the same thing over and over in different ways. yes, I took calculas and physics and quite a bit of both. You are missing the point.

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..

Change is only possible by way of momentum and momentum is only possible by way of force,

This is not correct. And since you are looking down on those who you think know less physics than you, you should know better.


Now magic and miracles infers violations to the above simple physics, such as suggesting an object, a form and or entity one moment can appear in an area where their was a given amount of Energy to the areas mass and or something can magically create something else from nothing and or zero.. Do you agree how absurd that is!?

you are again assuming what magic must be and then saying it is not possible. There are phenomena which seemed impossible because of arguments similar to the one you just made that were later confirmed by scientists to exist. The energy and matter and momentum issues were solved because of new technology or new ways of looking at the problem or phenomena - or simply because the stubborness of the scientists became more flexible.

I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. I do not think that WE KNOW EVERYTHING YET about all the possible causal relationships, energies, interconnections etc. possible in the universe. I also know that at various periods in history science lacked the tools and the paradigmatics vantage to judge the validity of experiences people were having and so scientists decided these experiences were not real. many many times, in fact on a regular basis, scientists later discovered - with new tools or greater flexibility, that these experiences were not hallucinations.

We are still in that situation. We do not have all possible technology or measuring devices. The transition from Newtonian P. to QM should make scientists (and has in many cases) a bit more humble when postulating the liklihood of certain chains of causality or certain phenomena. Others, like you, assume they know what is possible, period.



Perhaps one should consider the velocities for ones postulated particles if I am not making any sense

Even if I considered the velocities of paired particles, you would still not make any sense. We have non-local causality over vast distances. This does not prove certain magical phenomena are possible. It does show that non-local causation is possible, because it is an example of that.

I don't think you really understand what i am saying, nor do I get the sense you will if I continue, so I am going to break off here.

Okay, I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were educated enough to know the definition of science that's been in use for hundreds of years, and by further assuming that you would realize that when someone starts a discussion today, in 2007, they probably don't intend for people to revert to the medieval definitions of the words in their opening post.


Definitions are very curious things.

You may notice that REALITY doesn't give a damn about them.

Take the definition of CONTINENT for instance. Have you noticed there is no water separating the land area of Europe from the land area of Asia. They say the Ural Mountains separate Europe from Asia? But the Himalayan Mountains separate India from the rest of Asia. Why isn't India a continent? I pointed this out to some nitwits I was arguing with on the internet. They said it was because the Himalayas run east and west.

ROFLMAO

Another peculiar thing about the definition of continents. Have you noticed that dictionaries are usually in alphabetical order? Most dictionaries list the continents. For some reason they usually list Europe first. How is it that books that are notorious for being in alphabetical order can't list the continents that way?

Definitions are created by human beings, therefore the assumptions and biases can be built into the definitions. If you want to let other people's definitions control your thinking that is your business.

psik

PS - And we must learn to distinguish between educated and indoctrinated. Another one of those definition things. If people are indoctrinated into thinking in the proper scientific manner then science has just been turned into another religion.

I know that you do. But there is no reason to. That was my point.



Each generation finds causal relationships that were denied by former generations (and that is within the history of Science).




This is not a clear sentence. 'Basics' is not clearly used here, for example.




You want a number? I am very familiar with Newton's laws.



you are saying the same thing over and over in different ways. yes, I took calculus and physics and quite a bit of both. You are missing the point.

Anyway the key point I wish to point out is the following..



This is not correct. And since you are looking down on those who you think know less physics than you, you should know better.




you are again assuming what magic must be and then saying it is not possible. There are phenomena which seemed impossible because of arguments similar to the one you just made that were later confirmed by scientists to exist. The energy and matter and momentum issues were solved because of new technology or new ways of looking at the problem or phenomena - or simply because the stubbornness of the scientists became more flexible.

I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. I do not think that WE KNOW EVERYTHING YET about all the possible causal relationships, energies, interconnections etc. possible in the universe. I also know that at various periods in history science lacked the tools and the paradigmatic vantage to judge the validity of experiences people were having and so scientists decided these experiences were not real. many many times, in fact on a regular basis, scientists later discovered - with new tools or greater flexibility, that these experiences were not hallucinations.

We are still in that situation. We do not have all possible technology or measuring devices. The transition from Newtonian P. to QM should make scientists (and has in many cases) a bit more humble when postulating the likelihood of certain chains of causality or certain phenomena. Others, like you, assume they know what is possible, period.




Even if I considered the velocities of paired particles, you would still not make any sense. We have non-local causality over vast distances. This does not prove certain magical phenomena are possible. It does show that non-local causation is possible, because it is an example of that.

I don't think you really understand what i am saying, nor do I get the sense you will if I continue, so I am going to break off here.

Good Idea..

But before you do - Consider the Particles form with respects to the rest of the universe, consider the forces and in particular the velocities that infer where your particle ends to where the rest of the Universe begins, and does your model "which I have no doubt is based on The standard Models Particles" treat areas of the Universe as pure void between each Particle?

Think about that, and then ask your self what crazy and illogical person would formulate a model that does NOT consider the need for a greater environmental interaction, Interactions which simply cant be possible if there is nothing to interact with such as that space and or pure void implied by the Standard model, Not very good science, because an area of nothing simply is impossible anyway!

The utmost best is a near Vacuum such as beyond our atmosphere where each mass has the luxury of occupying C^2 of an area..

Let me remind you the utilisation of the electromagnetic spectrum has led the electronics industry with this advanced model which disbanded the quirky particles, oh sure we quanta-size areas with given quanta's that may infer to the uninitiated we are dealing with particles, but the point is Particles are not the proper reality...

The reality is the UNIVERSE is a single medium where areas are with meeting velocities, these meeting velocities imply relativity, compression, Potential Kinetic Energy, and in electronics one area to another imply positive and negative charges.. Electronics infers to The Theory Of Everything "TOE" if anything is observable and then some and it occurs in the universe, science can apply the appropriate forces and or velocities to the event..

Well that is as long as one discards the very old and tired Model of our universe constructed via particles!..

So where does newtons laws come into it?

Well all events in the universe adheres to these BASIC Laws! EVEN in the field of electronics every event complies to it..

The only area where there is non compliance is when one refers to a Model introduced by religiously corrupted scientists with an insane desire for magic and or the impossible to be highly likely..


I am quite sure that magic is natural and will fit the laws of the universe. As for your statement above!

I am sorry but change is dependent on force and force is dependent on momentum, and they are both dependent on each other for them to be possible!

And as much as it pains for you to hear that magic is simply not possible, its a fact, simply because everything that is possible MUST conform to what ever force and the velocities that imply it and the placement and or replacement for our given areas, do you understand this?

Here's a thought experiment to separate the intelligent from the morons..

Imagine if you will - EVERYTHING that is something via its forces and or the velocities that imply the forces and then define it as part of the universe, the only exclusion is No-Thing and or absolute zero "void" "space" because it is not something.

Now if we go anywhere within the UNIVERSE what we are doing is moving around the velocities that define and redefine us and the area that we now occupy which has been moved elsewhere.. notice how if one fully understands ALL of newtons Laws on force and motion, how "No-thing or void" is possible?

This means "No magic!" Everything that leads to change is via the basic laws on force and motion.. EVEN LIGHT and or radio waves "Electromagnetic waves" which means NO MIRACLES IETHER!

which also means no Angels, Spirits, Demons, Gawds and or other realms and or dimensions.. and if they do exist and don't conform and comply to the basic laws on force and motion they simply are null and void anyway to what complies to all else as a truth statement and or our three dimensional puzzle if you will.. A puzzle may I remind you that SHOULD already consist of everything that is possible!

Our UNIVERSE is our reality to which is dependent on force and motion laws..
So how are we to get nothing to do something?

force is dependent on momentum

momentum = mass * velocity

So if you are locked in a small closet then you can't put your hands against the door and apply force to it with your muscles because your hands don't have any velocity relative to the door?

psik

momentum = mass * velocity This is correct but as per below you are overlooking what mass is!

Mass is Potential Kinetic Energy... and when we state this we are referring to the force that an area of mass exerts and or exudes as its density and or the elevated Potential, and therefore we need to consider mass to consist with force.. with force we need to imply a direction and with a direction we have our inferred velocity and or Kinetics... And if we refer to E=MC^2 we have a means to convert the two dimensional area implied as C^2 into a three dimensional area by summing C^2 and then dividing The areas Energy "E" into three dimensions..

But as the formula stands I think it is the best way to imply the two velocities that imply what Potential Kinetic Energy and or mass is..

The c^2 can represent the two meeting velocities where one "c" can represent a velocity to the left and the other the velocity to the right and if we postulate them meeting, the sum of the two stored and or opposing velocities is our area of mass and or implied compression and or increase in density where the velocities remain at "c" to each other, but to the rest of the universe they cancel each other out, hence our storage and or conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy and I would suggest one may need to know what Relativity implies and if one doesn't understand it to how we are are familiar with Newtons Laws on Force and Motion the next few statements may be a little hard to understand..

Here's the most simple model I can come up with of three key moments anyway..
I have uses the symbols ">" for our velocity to the Right.
I have used the symbols "<" for our velocity to the Left.

I have used the symbols "-" as an area implied to be a relative near vacuum..

-><- here is the moment before velocities meet
<=> here is the moment of meeting velocities experience in an area
<--> and here is our repulsive moment, where if there are no more RELATIVE meeting velocities, the area will return to a near vacuum where I should point out the near vacuum areas are really areas with a relative ongoing meeting velocities..

Note the mid moment of relative compression where two velocities ocupy an area inferring compression and or increased potential where an area is double the density. And if we consider another velocity into that moment note how the area must increases in mass and or Potential Kinetic Energy..

So if you are locked in a small closet then you can't put your hands against the door and apply force to it with your muscles because your hands don't have any velocity relative to the door?

psik
Wrong!
Muscles are mass and when the muscles exert their implied exertion it is possible via momentum of Potential energy being exchanged into Kinetic Energy and back again to potential energy but the energy is transposed to another area, in this case the fuel and or food we have consumed is converted to energy for our muscles possible functions..

All changes and or exchanges are only possible via Force and when we consider what and how force is possible in that it is - Via kinetics and or force and the direction of exertion which if considered correctly are basically velocities at "c" which meet other velocities at "c"..

If we consider this momentum in a basic format such as two breezes meeting in our atmosphere we should get a general idea of how an area of our atmosphere can be with a compression when compared to the rest of our atmosphere that is more kinetic, much like when two or more velocities at "c" meet to imply our Potential and or <Stored Energy> which if allowed can become Kinetic Energy, to which if one refers to E=MC^2 we can calculate what energy we may expect via meeting velocities that imply our various densities and or as to how solid an area exudes itself from being a compressed area such as a solid where there are many meeting velocities to consider, right up to an area that is highly kinetic via hardly any meeting velocities such as our relative near vacuum and or space..

"E=1" = "M=1" and "C^2"="cxc" which equals our two dimensional area and or velocities..
2=2xcxc
3=3xcxc
note how if the area remains the same and the more mass that is compressed into the area of cxc the higher the potential energy?

Think about why the propagation of light in a solid takes longer via having to traverse a vast area which in reality is still with the same distances only they are compressed within an area that if uncompressed such as it is when we refer to a near vacuum would ocupy, to which if one considers relativity correctly should know about the Space-Time I am referring to..

ROFL

I'm not even taking the time to read that bullsh!t.

The chemical energy to power your muscles isn't coming from momentum. Your statement was incorrect.

psik

ROFL

I'm not even taking the time to read that bullsh!t.

The chemical energy to power your muscles isn't coming from momentum. Your statement was incorrect.

psik
Really! So what you are trying to imply is that with chemical reactions their is no change, and or momentum what so ever?

My Dawg! Are you serious!

OK ~ Perhaps you are very young so I will grant you some reprieve, but let me insist chemical changes and or reactions are only possible via motion and or momentum and in all cases the reactions one observes entails the potential differences between the postulated areas of protons and electrons(Atoms and or Molecules) in close proximity to each other, I should also point out that the electromagnetic spectrum in all cases need to be considered in all aspects..

Let me suggest you attend at least some physics classes before you remark further on physics..

Good Idea..

But before you do - Consider the Particles form with respects to the rest of the universe, consider the forces and in particular the velocities that infer where your particle ends to where the rest of the Universe begins, and does your model "which I have no doubt is based on The standard Models Particles" treat areas of the Universe as pure void between each Particle?

Think about that, and then ask your self what crazy and illogical person would formulate a model that does NOT consider the need for a greater environmental interaction, Interactions which simply cant be possible if there is nothing to interact with such as that space and or pure void implied by the Standard model, Not very good science, because an area of nothing simply is impossible anyway!

The utmost best is a near Vacuum such as beyond our atmosphere where each mass has the luxury of occupying C^2 of an area..

Let me remind you the utilisation of the electromagnetic spectrum has led the electronics industry with this advanced model which disbanded the quirky particles, oh sure we quanta-size areas with given quanta's that may infer to the uninitiated we are dealing with particles, but the point is Particles are not the proper reality...

The reality is the UNIVERSE is a single medium where areas are with meeting velocities, these meeting velocities imply relativity, compression, Potential Kinetic Energy, and in electronics one area to another imply positive and negative charges.. Electronics infers to The Theory Of Everything "TOE" if anything is observable and then some and it occurs in the universe, science can apply the appropriate forces and or velocities to the event..

Well that is as long as one discards the very old and tired Model of our universe constructed via particles!..

So where does newtons laws come into it?

Well all events in the universe adheres to these BASIC Laws! EVEN in the field of electronics every event complies to it..

The only area where there is non compliance is when one refers to a Model introduced by religiously corrupted scientists with an insane desire for magic and or the impossible to be highly likely..


As for your statement above!

I am sorry but change is dependent on force and force is dependent on momentum, and they are both dependent on each other for them to be possible!

And as much as it pains for you to hear that magic is simply not possible, its a fact, simply because everything that is possible MUST conform to what ever force and the velocities that imply it and the placement and or replacement for our given areas, do you understand this?

Here's a thought experiment to separate the intelligent from the morons..

Imagine if you will - EVERYTHING that is something via its forces and or the velocities that imply the forces and then define it as part of the universe, the only exclusion is No-Thing and or absolute zero "void" "space" because it is not something.

Now if we go anywhere within the UNIVERSE what we are doing is moving around the velocities that define and redefine us and the area that we now occupy which has been moved elsewhere.. notice how if one fully understands ALL of newtons Laws on force and motion, how "No-thing or void" is possible?

This means "No magic!" Everything that leads to change is via the basic laws on force and motion.. EVEN LIGHT and or radio waves "Electromagnetic waves" which means NO MIRACLES IETHER!

which also means no Angels, Spirits, Demons, Gawds and or other realms and or dimensions.. and if they do exist and don't conform and comply to the basic laws on force and motion they simply are null and void anyway to what complies to all else as a truth statement and or our three dimensional puzzle if you will.. A puzzle may I remind you that SHOULD already consist of everything that is possible!

Our UNIVERSE is our reality to which is dependent on force and motion laws..
So how are we to get nothing to do something?

You make the same assumptions over and over and your interpretation of physics is limited. Try your ideas on physicists, who will show you your limitations. Perhaps you will listen to them, but I doubt it.

You make the same assumptions over and over and your interpretation of physics is limited. Try your ideas on physicists, who will show you your limitations. Perhaps you will listen to them, but I doubt it.
First let me apologise for my arrogant demeanor, but there is no other way, other than to point out as efficiently as possible, when one observes a failure, misunderstanding and or misinformation being propagated via someones lacking knowledge..

Let me remind you it was not I who laid down physical laws, I only have come to agree with the laws via my education, observations and referral to them during my working years..

I hope this makes it perfectly clear that I do in most concerns agree with Peer Physicists and or Leading Physics Lecturers who are keeping themselves up-to date with the Industries latest models and or findings..

Have you considered that you may be in error?

To discover "if this is"- "or not the case" How about considering how magical events are to end up complying from a non complying to a complying and or conforming Physical state, and working your way back as to what forces and or changes have made implied magical and or miraculous event possible?

My guess is, You're in for one mother of a reality wake-up call!

Because all realities must conform to all else if the reality is a truth statement and or an actual fact, put simply there is no room for assumptions such as there is in magic and or miraculous events.

In fact "Physics" and science exposes the details of all implied magic and or miracles of ones given observations and or interactions confirming a repeatable exercise via the referral to proper forces via our physical laws..

And no where is there a better analogy of science having an advantage over magic and or some miracle than when one refers to electron flow and or the propagation of the electromagnetic spectrum via mass and its various states of Potential Kinetic Energy which our magical and or miraculous consumables rely upon to do their implied magic to those that are ignorant to the details.

Really! So what you are trying to imply is that with chemical reactions their is no change, and or momentum what so ever?

You are trying to say the energy your muscles get to apply force comes from the momentum of the chemicals involved? ROFL

psik

You are trying to say the energy your muscles get to apply force comes from the momentum of the chemicals involved? ROFL

psik


Well not exactly as per most laymen would imagine it to be..

You see what one needs to consider is that ones muscles are a bunch of Cells and these cells are themselves a mixture of chemicals and or molecules which if considered and or elaborated over, are structured and postulated to be made up of Atoms..

And by considering the Atoms and their interactions with each other we need to understand them at the Potential Kinetic Energy level, and if we convert the energy to forces we need to consider the velocities direction..

Err~ that's the directions said forces is exerting upon whatever forces are being exerted upon its velocities and or forces..

I don't expect the average schmo to fully understand all of the complexities, but that's the truth, and in fact can be proven via calculus!

And you and anyone else may also come to the same conclusion simply by understanding solid facts written about force.. Do a search on Newton's Laws and read ALL of them until it is absolutely clear, that everything is only possible via considering the changes resulting from force and the velocities that imply the force.

mod note: I kindly request you both take any further discussion in Physics to the appropriate forum.
Thanks

mod note: I kindly request you both take any further discussion in Physics to the appropriate forum.
Thanks

And In closing...

The last few Posts are a good example of two individuals debating and utilising points a little out of this threads intended subject, but sometimes this may be necessary!

One Poster holds much accurate data via Science, The other poster may or may not be an easy target by religious sects by taking advantage of ones limited data base as an easy target to infect, if not yet already infected with religious data!

This discussion and or debate has indeed side tracked, but in doing so an important point has been made, a point that points out the difference to what is possible if one holds scientific facts, to an individual who is limited with truthful and factual data, this limitation is what keeps most religious virus's ongoing with easy victims to infect.

One now needs to ask two questions, how much side stepping to prove a point is allowed in this forum?

And what is the real agenda of the moderator?

I am concerned whether the moderator is going to remain impartial and fair!

Or are the views of the moderator going to attempt to quash and or sway the outcome of this debate in favour of their own ideals.

To LATE! There should be no doubt now why religions and the constructs of a gawd are detrimental to the human race!

Science is the pursuit to truth and facts, whilst advocating to a sect, religion and whatever the religious text implies is an acceptance of statements as truth even if they are not the truth!

mod note: I kindly request you both take any further discussion in Physics to the appropriate forum.
Thanks

I don't think LaidBack's pretense of understanding physics qualifies. ROFL

psik

My agenda is to keep this discussion on topic.

I have heard, oh Avatar, respect and obey. (playful, not snide, irony intended; we were off topic)

I think that to understand this long-term conflict of science verses religion, (which constantly motivates the opposing factions to pointlessly beat each other in the face) we should first go back to their origins and define their intents and purposes. Religion being the first philosophical tool used by sentient life tries to accommodate three things. First it is an attempt to define the origins and purpose of this evolving sentient life and all of his surroundings. Secondly and most importantly it is an attempt to establish forms of common morality to help stabilize growing societies. Thirdly it attempts to satisfy the curiosity of sentient life about its future with various forms of prophecy.
As the knowledge base of sentient life began to grow science began to emerge as the new tool for defining what is and what is not. While it is rarely used to measure our morality it is greatly utilized to define our past and present conditions on this planet.
Being a more analytically minded person I feel that in spite of the emotional grip that the applied moral values of my religion have on stabilizing my personal life, I should still find the courage to accept, that which has become black and white through science when it comes to defining my past and present surroundings. Likewise however my open acceptance of science should not be allowed to stifle the possibility that my religion might yet still have some intrinsic value in defining the past the present and the future

I don't think LaidBack's pretense of understanding physics qualifies. ROFL

psik
REALLY!
Please point out my error/s, by starting a physics thread and then private message me with the link..

I noticed, again, the title of this thread: Science vs. God.
Those are not really the words to contrast, science being a set of processes, assumptions of procedure and verification and God being a posited being.

I think the real contrast is between modes of experiencing and gaining knowledge. There are people who feel that scientific methods (note the plural) are the only valid methods of gaining knowledge about the universe. There are other people who feel Religious practices are the only way to gain knowledge. This second group includes those who simply believe a certain text is the right one (the Bible, for example) and follow that, or they follow a certain authoritarian figure (a priest, an imam) and 'learn' about the universe that way. I think most scientists/rationalists and people like me agree that this second set of methods is very limited.
Then there are people who have experiences and practices that have led them to believe that while science is very effective in certain ways, it is not yet capable of registering or helping one understand very real portions of reality. Some of these people follow traditional religious practice: prayer, meditation, shamanic work, etc. Some have developed other routes to gaining knowledge that are effective and through these have found out about reality in ways science does not or where science and scientists seem not to realize how impoverished their metaphysics is of the assumptions they make about starting points.
Scientists and rationalists have no idea have fast the mind is in cutting off experiences that would lead them to question their assumptions about the nature of reality. They also tend not to be interested in exploring practices or methods of exploration that might lead them to experiencing portions of the world they are currently unaware of. They do not realize how much their bias and pre-judgements have restricted their experience. Which is fine. But their continual battle to prioritize only one way of gaining knowledge is problematic. They form a rather odd tag team with the monotheisms who treat alternate practices as evil or the work of satan, while the scientists mock, insult and assume there is nothing new under the sun and that new technologies will not later verify some or many of the beliefs of 'religious' people - this has happened many times, but for some reason, rationalists/scientists have not registered this as a pattern and assume that current technology and scientific focus covers all bases, not really noticing the radical changes in paradigm and knowledge EVEN WITHIN THEIR OWN WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS. 'Religious' people have turned out to be right about a wide range of things that scientists poo pooed originally.

Ah, well. It is literally, their loss.

I think it ironic that they often view themselves as braver, not understanding 1) the difference between religious poeple who simply follow authority and those who are deeply immersed in experiences and technologies the scientists know nothing about 2) the way their own minds control their experiences and their need to be right and EXCLUSIVELY right about what is real is based on fear TO THE PRECISE DEGREE they project this fear on believers of all kinds.

I noticed, again, the title of this thread: Science vs. God.
Those are not really the words to contrast, science being a set of processes, assumptions of procedure and verification and God being a posited being.

I think the real contrast is between modes of experiencing and gaining knowledge. There are people who feel that scientific methods (note the plural) are the only valid methods of gaining knowledge about the universe. There are other people who feel Religious practices are the only way to gain knowledge. This second group includes those who simply believe a certain text is the right one (the Bible, for example) and follow that, or they follow a certain authoritarian figure (a priest, an imam) and 'learn' about the universe that way. I think most scientists/rationalists and people like me agree that this second set of methods is very limited.
Then there are people who have experiences and practices that have led them to believe that while science is very effective in certain ways, it is not yet capable of registering or helping one understand very real portions of reality. Some of these people follow traditional religious practice: prayer, meditation, shamanic work, etc. Some have developed other routes to gaining knowledge that are effective and through these have found out about reality in ways science does not or where science and scientists seem not to realize how impoverished their metaphysics is of the assumptions they make about starting points.
Scientists and rationalists have no idea have fast the mind is in cutting off experiences that would lead them to question their assumptions about the nature of reality. They also tend not to be interested in exploring practices or methods of exploration that might lead them to experiencing portions of the world they are currently unaware of. They do not realize how much their bias and pre-judgements have restricted their experience. Which is fine. But their continual battle to prioritize only one way of gaining knowledge is problematic. They form a rather odd tag team with the monotheism's who treat