Science vs. Religion ?

Originally Posted by theobia

Personally, I don't see how the two can be compatible. Scientific evidence points to evolution as a truth and that the world is millions of years old, which is contrary to biblical text and judeo/christian beliefs. Despite my upbringing, I am an atheist- I have honestly never felt the presence of god. I respect the beliefs of those who do believe, but to me it's still contrary to the evidence that's out there.

Wow! Another Black atheist! I'm honored to reply to your post.

And look! We have the same avatar. Awww... LOL!

[Istlota]

3500 years before Darwin wrote his Origin of the Species, the Laws of Manu, considered a holy book by Hindus, documented ages on earth going back millions of years.

Hindus in India are competing with monkeys for the same living space. The Hindus do not wish to kill the monkeys because their religion teaches that the souls of human ancestors can be sheathed within the bodies of monkeys - an idea not totally out of sync with Darwin's theory that man descended from apes.

The basis of superstring theory is that all is vibrating strings. If we go back to the first of all religions, that of KMT, we find the same idea, which is that All is Vibration.

Both science and religion seek answers to the same questions.

Originally Posted by Istlota

3500 years before Darwin wrote his Origin of the Species, the Laws of Manu, considered a holy book by Hindus, documented ages on earth going back millions of years.

Hindus in India are competing with monkeys for the same living space. The Hindus do not wish to kill the monkeys because their religion teaches that the souls of human ancestors can be sheathed within the bodies of monkeys - an idea not totally out of sync with Darwin's theory that man descended from apes.

The basis of superstring theory is that all is vibrating strings. If we go back to the first of all religions, that of KMT, we find the same idea, which is that All is Vibration.

Both science and religion seek answers to the same questions.

Science just happens to be based on fact.

[Istlota]

Originally Posted by LiseYates

Science just happens to be based on fact.

I recently got into a long, loud, late night discussion with one of my nephews about this. I will not do him disservice by attempting to present his argument. But, mine was that man has made science into a religion. And, just as with religion, you can be symbolically cast into the village square and stoned for the sin of heresy -- which is the sin of daring to question the sacred cows of the gods of science.

Obviously, since science has from time to time _believed_ things that turned out not to be true --- Piltdown Man, the earth is flat, space is filled with Ether, etc. --- science does, occasionally, _believe_ based on _faith_, not _fact_, just like religion.

Scientists sometimes extend their reach from what is _known_ to what they _believe_ to be true. This is why _Theoretical_ Physicists are called _Theoretical_ Physicists.

A current example of this is Superstring theory. There is a good chance your local library will have a copy of the PBS Nova documentary "Elegant Universe". It is a wonderful layman's introduction into the mathematically complex world of Superstrings. Actually, it is multiple worlds, multiple universes, eleven all together.

In this documentary, you will hear and see lots of men with letters behind their name, typically with an umistakably sheepish grin on their face, admit that:

• We will never be able to measure, or test, superstrings.
• The history of the theory is actually the history of multiple theories, at one time up to five, which had to be modified, tweaked, and from time to time even abandoned, as scientists figured out what might be possible and what could not possibly be possible. Scientists are cool with this process, which is part of what their church calls the Scientific Method. But, it is clear to me that the _exact_ same process is used by theologians. At one time, both scientists and theologians alike _believed_ the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe. But, with the passage of time, as the real_facts_ began to prove that such ideas could not possibly be correct, both scientists and theologians tweaked what they _believed_ to match the _real_ facts.
• Yet, despite all this uncertainty, superstring theory is still what most young physicists are choosing to get into after graduation.

You know why young theoretical physicists are choosing superstrings as their life work? It is because they _believe_ it may lead to the Theory of Everything -- the one Source from which all forces in our universe [Gravity, Electromagnetic, strong and weak atomic forces] emanate from.

Now, I am more of a philosopher, definitely not a scientist. But, it cannot be denied that their Theory Of Everything sures sounds a lot like what I call God. As a matter of fact, the only black person in the documentary, Dr. E. James Gates, Jr., came right out and admitted that Einstein's quest for the Theory of Everything was his quest to know the Mind Of God.

It is not surprising that it was a son of KMT who tied the pieces together to remind us of what the ancient KMT sages knew thousands of years ago, before the onslaught of barbarians from the north.

Science IS the quest to know ATUM. We can not know the Unknowable, but it is, nevertheless, our destiny to return to the knowledge of the God I AM.

Pss.46:10
Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

[Da Flash]

While the post above does have some very interesting points, I'd have to say that the biggest difference between science and religion is that while they both are founded on thoeries (things that aren't proven yet) but with science, if you can convince enough of the so-called experts that a theory is obviously flawed, the community will adjust or totally change that theory to fit the evidence. Try that with a religion! Science is far from perfect but, I'd always give a nod to the one that allows for correction of an erronious thought process once it's proven! Alas that is the reason why there are so many theories in science but, so few laws!

[Istlota]

Originally Posted by Da Flash

While the post above does have some very interesting points, I'd have to say that the biggest difference between science and religion is that while they both are founded on thoeries (things that aren't proven yet) but with science, if you can convince enough of the so-called experts that a theory is obviously flawed, the community will adjust or totally change that theory to fit the evidence. Try that with a religion! Science is far from perfect but, I'd always give a nod to the one that allows for correction of an erronious thought process once it's proven! Alas that is the reason why there are so many theories in science but, so few laws!

And yet, the two systems are converging to the same point, which is that ALL is One --- One Force, the Force which permeates the Universe [aka, Omnipresence]. The Force from which the blood [electromagnetic impulses] of conscousness [Omniscience] issues. And, the Force [Omnipotence] from which the very Light [also Electromagnetic] of Life [All is Vibration] emanates.

By definition, the Theory of Everything, if man were to discover It, would be, IS, the Son of God --- the very Word by which God created the heavens and the earth, and without Him was not anything made that was made.

[Sasori]

I believe one should only put their beliefs in things which are empirically based and look forward to where faith and actual fact are intertwined.

The biggest issue which stems from religion is the fact that it dictates you must have faith in its doctrines regardless of any contradictions which arises from said words, but once it is asked to be proven, there is difficulty in many aspects.

The true scope of religion is to afford the person ways to become better than which they are, in turn, it is good advice to live by, and of course, anything which makes you a better human in your society is good... but it is still advice nevertheless.

For the most part, in many religions, they are only delayed witness accounts through oral history, while many historians of the time itself seem to never be able to fully capture [if they do at all] the acts of the specified 'messiah', 'prophet', or demigod.

[DBlack]

It's not coincidence that more people fight and die in wars based on religion than science. Think about it.

[Istlota]

Originally Posted by DBlack

It's not coincidence that more people fight and die in wars based on religion than science. Think about it.

Religion provides the excuses to make war. Science provides the technology to make the weapons to fight the wars that religion excuses. The Defense Department issues the grants to pay for the research into the technology to make the weapons to fight the wars that religion excuses. The government collects the taxes to pay for the grants that the Defense Department issues to pay for the research into the technology to build the weapons to fight the wars that religions excuse.

And, we all, John Q. Public, are guilty of all these sins -- for we empower the government by paying taxes and voting scoundrels into office every two years, and we serve in the military, and we work for companies that buld the weapons, and we defend relgiously our religions.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.

[Amico]

Originally Posted by Istlota

for we empower the government by paying taxes and voting scoundrels into office every two years, and we serve in the military, and we work for companies that buld the weapons, and we defend relgiously our religions.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.

Truer words have never been spoken.