Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Science vs Religion - A Discussion
Freejack
Jake the Not-so-Wise
in Zocalo v2.0
I found an interesting quote from Albert Einstien:
[i]"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion...The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"[/i]
I know we have some people on here who are somewhat anti-religous and we have some with whom religion plays a signifigant part of there lives. I just thought this quote might stir a healthy discussion.
Jake
[i]"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion...The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"[/i]
I know we have some people on here who are somewhat anti-religous and we have some with whom religion plays a signifigant part of there lives. I just thought this quote might stir a healthy discussion.
Jake
Comments
I don't believe in any god or religion because I don't have any reason to. The concept of a god really existing doesn't make sense to me. However, the concept of gods being artificial does seem like a plausible explanation to me. Some people need spiritual support and can't get that from anyone else, so they have a god they can take strength from, and that's good for them. There are the 10 commandments, which are fine, outstanding rules to live by. They match exactly to the fundamental sense of morals that we as human beings have developed (well, some of us).
The most primary theory I have about religion is this. Most people aren't comfortable with not understanding the unknown. One could say the deepest emotion embedded into all men is fear. And of all fears, the fear of the unknown is the deepest. So, it would seem logical that those who aren't comfortable with the unknown being unexplained, would come up with something to fill in the blanks. God seems to do that just nicely. God created the universe, God made man, God did all of these wonderful things that we can't understand. But to me - and please keep in mind what I said in the beginning - God is one big assumption taken in order not to have to face the fact that you don't know and understand how the universe came to be, how it works, and perhaps the core issue is, what happens when we die? Do we cease to be entirely, fading away into complete non-existance? Do we go to some place where there is only pain? Do we meet up with everyone who has gone before us? Noone can tell. But it is a huge uncertainty, one we will all have to face. And for those who aren't comfortable with eventually having to face the great unknown, they have their belief in God to "guarantee" them a happy place without suffering. They have comfort where others only have uncertainty.
Now, as for myself, I don't find the unknown uncomfortable. I marvel at the great things man has managed to explore and understand, and even more so, the unknown things and places that we have yet to explore and understand. I would rather keep trying to understand while admitting I can't explain it, than assuming something else and remaining ignorant about it. I'm not trying to blow my own whistle here, but I've been raised to be open-minded and independent. That has allowed me to further develop my own way of thinking into the logical and (as I'd like to think) sensible person I am now.
Right now is an exciting time to live in. I believe we as a race are starting to move out of our childhood and into adolescence. We're exploring and understanding more and faster. We're beginning to understand ourselves.
Now as for the Einstein quote (I finally got to that after all of this rambling :p), I don't think the aspiration towards truth and understanding springs from religion. It springs from mankind itself. From the day we're born, we're reaching towards things, we're touching things, we're looking and smelling and tasting. Man is born curious. We don't need religion to want to understand, to want the truth. In my opinion - and once again, I hope none of the believers will take offense - saying that wanting to understand, wanting the truth comes from a belief in religion is an oxymoron, since I believe that you need to want to be ignorant and not want to understand the universe to fully believe in the religions we have.
IMHO, i dont see any way for religion and science to be compatible. religion requires faith that god exists, but science demands an unbiased viewpoint which faith would cloud.
[i]"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion...The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"[/i]
I think science springs from a basic human desire to understand how things work, how it all works. As Curz said, this desire is in us from the start. Religion comes from a desire to have something to explain the unexplainable.
Like I said, I agree with Curz, in that I don't believe in any form of higher being, nor the idea of an afterlife. To me, it's always been simply because there is no reason to believe. And also, because there are so many religions. If so many people believe in the Christian God, who's to say that the whole Greek Pantheon isn't up there with him? I'm no expert on world history, but from what I do know, religion was created to fulfill many needs. The polytheistic religions of old were created to explain why the unexplainable occured. Gods were the personification of natural occurances like the changing of seasons, the movement of celestial bodies, day and night, lightning, and the creation of Earth. However, the ancient gods were generally cruel and arbitrary, punishing people for minor infractions, and creating much havoc (partially because the things they represented, ie. lightning, floods, famine, etc killed so many back then). When monotheistic religions rolled around, people saw this new God as a much kinder, more personal God, even if the Old Testament God still had a thing for punishment. Instead of being there only to punish us, God was here to save us from the hellfire, to save our souls. God was a watchful father, tending for his flock, rather than a lightning bolt-hurling tyrant. Then over time, God becomes the nicer God we see today, promising not to drown us and all that. As science and philosophy became more advanced (Especially during the Enlightenment, etc), God evolved with it. Calvinists, Puritans, Transcendentalists, etcetera all had their own views of God, describing the kind of Greater Being that they [i]needed[/i] to believe in. With horrible Human acts like war, theft, and murder occuring throughout history, people needed to believe that this wasn't all there was, that they had a reason to live a good life, that they would be rewarded or punished after this life was over.
To me, God is borne of this intense, Human desire to not be alone, to [i]know[/i] that Human suffering, that this pitifully short stringing together of seconds we call a lifetime, is not in vain.
[QUOTE]It's all so brief, isn't it? Typical human lifespan is almost a hundred years, but it's barely a second compared to what's out there. It wouldn't be so bad if life didn't take so long to figure out. Seems you just start to get it right and then .. it's over."
"Doesn't matter. If we lived two hundred years, we'd still be human. We'd still make the same mistakes."[/QUOTE]
[i]Franklin & Ivanova[/i]
[B]maybe we should have a little disclaimer tag to go on these posts;)
IMHO, i dont see any way for religion and science to be compatible. religion requires faith that god exists, but science demands an unbiased viewpoint which faith would cloud. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats one way to look at it, however I have known people that through scientific research moved towards religion.
[B]Thats one way to look at it, however I have known people that through scientific research moved towards religion. [/B][/QUOTE]
That would be a good description of me.
The more I learn from Science, the more I am sure there is a God.
I think science fails in relation to religion, becuase Science will never be able to prove or disprove God. It shouldn't even be trying to answer that question.
Looking at it from the opposite direction, God is so much more than we can ever observe, and we should give credit to Science for explaining how God has set his rules for the Universe.
I mean... How can the creation EVER become greater than the God who created it.
The two can compliment each other, but they operate in totally different areas, and should not be used to prove or disprove each other.
I think the fundamental issue involved with the Bible for example, is the gross misinterpretation that is often flung around...
I would imagine that other religions fall prey to that as well.
The bottom line is, that one can prove things about the observable portion of Creation, while the other is a question for the mind and requires faith in the answer, and belief in the spirit.
;)
And a question for those that do believe in a deity, how did God come into existence? Where did the deity that was responsible for creating everything come from?
Jake
This bubble is Gods creation, he exist outside of it, and the laws we have come to understand do not apply there, time, physics, none of that matters there. God has always been, because there is no time where he is, only in his creation.
(Sorry if this is unclear, I am running a feaver, and it's hard to think straight right now)
Religiion is Faith.
[B]Let me ask this question for those who do not believe in a deity; what do you believe is the origin of all, what started the most basic building block what makes us exist?[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't know yet. I don't know if I ever will know. But I'm not going to make assumptions about it. The only thing I can do is strive to understand.
I would agree pretty much with CurZ.
Man has always feared unknown and there's need to explain this unknown somehow.
[B]Let me ask this question for those who do not believe in a deity; what do you believe is the origin of all, what started the most basic building block what makes us exist?[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't believe there was any beginning, any first mover as Aquinas put it. I believe that the universe, multiverse, whatever, has simply always been, and always will be. Even if everything inside of it were destroyed, existence would continue.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Sciance is Facts and questions
Religiion is Faith. [/B][/QUOTE]
Science is not all fact, there is a lot of faith involved, albeit faith of a different kind. We believe that 1+1=2, we believe that atoms are the building blocks of everything, we believe that gravity is what keeps us form flying into space.
We often think about our lives and the universe around us as the only thing.
We often think of time as a measured dimension. I like to think of Time as more of our measurement of change. Strictly speaking it is a creation in our minds, or that of the Creator within the Universe we know.
God exists outside of this, but also dwells within it because he is everywhere.
This is a poor 4D analogy of something that is best expressed in even higher dimensions, but think of a Spoked Wheel. OUR timeline exists on the outside rim of this wheel. God exists at the center. He sees all as the same moment in time, where as we are locked on the outside rim where time marches on. I do believe in the circular nature of time, and I believe it explains a lot of wierd things that we cannot account for, such as precognition, history repeating itself in cycles etc.
This gets to the core of the Christian faith where the work of salvation was done before we ever road the wheel of time.
All too often we think of linear finite things or view our universe in linear finite interpretations. When we are actually the odd set of circumstances above the norm.
There never was a start to God, there is no past/present/future divisions. Everything is the PRESENT for God.
We may talk about the beginning of the Universe that he created, but God exists, not existed, he just exists.
When you can wrap your mind around the possibility of things being infinite, then you begin to see things about the finite world in a very different light.
;)
- More knowledge and understanding is never a bad thing
- Everything has a purpose, a reason, even if I don't understand it
The first puts me at odds with some very fundamental aspects of Christianity (Adam and Eve and Original Sin for one. Without belief in that...the rest kinda falls apart) so I don't consider myself Christian. Or Jewish. Or any organized religion really (no, not Wicca either). I just can't find the faith in me to believe in something that feels so...contrived. Though I do admire those who do have that faith, and many times I wish I shared it. Many times I wish I had the faith to believe in something that strikes the scientific half of me as irrational, because those same things strike my spiritual side as so beautiful. Miracles for example. Pure flying-in-the-face-of-physics miracles. I wish...but for the most part my scientific side dismisses those parts as fabricated myths, merely used to explain complicated ideas.
But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God. That I have enough faith for. Everything has a purpose, and God is that which knows the purpose. And yes, I find that comforting. I'm even fine with the idea that it's all in my head, it's a comforting lie that keeps me going when life gets hard. (Anyone read Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut? Think "Foma") But deep down my spiritual side wins out and I just can't shake my faith in there being something more than what we can measure. Do I truely know what God is? Or where God came from? Or what God's purpose is? No. And in this case, I never expect to. Ever.
Oh right...the quote. Personally I see where he's coming from, espeically the last line (science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind). Science without an ultimate purpose is...pointless. And religion without thought is not a part of the believer.
-Φ
I was raised Christian, but that isn't solely why I remain one today.
At some point in our spiritual and scientific development, everyone must make a decision about whether to trust what you've been taught, or to search elsewhere. To decide not only what you believe, but why you believe it.
I came to the realization that simply having been raised with Christian beliefs, with no external validation, was a piss-poor reason to continue believing.
I have always loved science, and I always will. Maybe I can blame Spock for that (I was also raised a trekkie, though I doubt my parents realized what they were doing); I dunno. In any case, it is specifically in the application of logic that I take great joy. The desire to simply understand; or, as Dukhat put it, "the simplest joy, that of the child and the closed box."
For me, that manifested itself in two areas: evolution, and free will. I'll not go in-depth into the question of evolution, except to say that I believe the current theory to be incomplete, and that I see no conflict between it and theism. It's in the exploration of free will that I found my biggest (not only) reason to believe.
Cosider this: The scientific process begins with the assumption that there is a reason for everything. Nothing causes itself, and nothing happens spontaneously. If we knew all the rules by which the universe is governed, and knew the locations and states of every particle in existence, we could theoretically build a computer simulation of the universe, run it, and watch as things unfold [i]exactly[/i] the same way as in reality. (Of course, the computer simulation itself would have to exist outside our realm of reality, but ignore that for now.)
The inherent implication of this is that there is no such thing as choice.
When everything happens for a reason, and every occurrence has only one possible outcome, free will disappears.
Along with free will goes morality, accountability, true thought, and everything else that makes life meaningful.
Let's say I move my right arm. Why does it move? The most direct explanation is that the muscles flexed. Why did they flex? They received an electrical stimulus. Why was there a stimulus? On and on, this string of whys can only end in one of two places: either it stops with my decision to move my arm, my exercise of will, or it extends all the way back to the very foundations of the universe.
Society cannot survive without an implicit belief in free will. If murderers are not held accountable and parents don't choose to act for the benefit of their children, society descends into chaos. It seems to me that the natural result of (non-theological) predestination is a world without any real semblance of order. What are the chances that a universe consisting solely of a single big chain reaction would result in music? Poetry? Art? Even science? It just doesn't seem very plausible to me that a universe constructed of a chain reaction from an initial random state would include me sitting at a keyboard typing this thing out. Possible, yes; likely, no.
We are left with only a few explanations that make sense:
1) Everything is exactly as I have described above; no free will, no inherent creator, events unfold because they never could have occurred in any other way.
2) Order exists in the universe because some event(s) or consciousness(es) external to the universe dictated (or continues to dictate) that it should exist.
3) Our understanding of the universe is flawed, and events can happen spontaneously, with no cause external or internal to the universe.
Whichever route you take, you're making an assumption. As long as there are no compelling arguments in one direction or another, why not choose (there's that word again) to live in the reality that makes the most sense to you?
For me, that's option 2.
The only difference is Occam put an arbitary 'mark in the sand' which divides 'truth/reality/fact from falsehood/ephemera/fiction...
'truth' in this case sits opposite 'faith'
Anything we test on a scientific basis 'could be true'. Only Occams razor currently determines validity as a scientific truth.
Science tries to define the undefinable... to make sense of the universe
which is what religion does...
Thankfully scientists aren't evangelists... (for the most part), and I don't know of any wars fought over scientific ideaology...
[IMG]http://www.sinfest.net/comics/sf20040212.gif[/IMG]
[B]Thankfully scientists aren't evangelists... (for the most part), and I don't know of any wars fought over scientific ideaology... [/B][/QUOTE]
Try the academic life. You'll come across a few in no time.
I thought:
1d = line
2d = square (Width/height)
3D = cube )Width, height, depth)
4D = movement
5d = time
6d = ???
[B]picture our universe as a bubble, inside this bubble there are rules. Nothing can come from nothing, everything needs a mover. The laws of physics apply, etc etc.
This bubble is Gods creation, he exist outside of it, and the laws we have come to understand do not apply there, time, physics, none of that matters there. God has always been, because there is no time where he is, only in his creation.[/B][/QUOTE]
I can believe in the bubble theory. I've always thought the universe was round.
For those that believe in God. D'you think he is human? So many ppl think he was made in our image but I personally would be more inclined to disagree.
BTW Curz in particular, you sound alot like G'kar in your wonderful writing. Please don't be offended. I wish I could write and describe like that. :)
[B]hey jack, don't you mean 5th/6th dimention? Or am I just really messed up on my unerstanding of the dimentions? :D
I thought:
1d = line
2d = square (Width/height)
3D = cube )Width, height, depth)
4D = movement
5d = time
6d = ??? [/B][/QUOTE]
3 spatial dimensions, 1 time dimension (that's number 4), and after that it's all hideous mathematics and fun string theory. :)
[B]BTW Curz in particular, you sound alot like G'kar in your wonderful writing. Please don't be offended. I wish I could write and describe like that. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Not offended at all; in fact, I take that as a great compliment. Thank you :)
yeah #4 is supposed to be time. It is for Einstien's equations...
When you say Space/Time you are refering to the first 4 dimensions.
Now, generally speaking, these work for the physical universe we know. I have a hard time seeing TIME as a dimension though... (no pun intended) at least as normal people see it, and I guess it's my brain trying to live in the contemplation of how things work at higher levels.
I sometimes wonder if Newton's Laws, Einstien's equations are strictly for the physical universe that we know of, and that quantum level stuff is a much more far reaching set.
An analogy would be - You have a computer ready and waiting with memory space, a programming language, and a symbols set.
Now take part of that whole, and create a selfcontained program within it and start at the beginning address to run the program.
The program may take up more space and resources than it initially started with, but there is still much more to the computer than there is to the program.
I know it's a poor analogy, but...
Getting back to (shall I label it - fingerprints of a creator?) I'll say this:
As my life has gone on, I have watched in amazement the things that science has brought to all of us.
I have a tremendous respect for science. In my personal quest for answers to everything, those big ones like where did we come from, who are we, are we alone, etc etc etc... I have constantly seen a common thread to the Universe as a whole.
and that is this:
In a universe where everything in relation to me degrades, decomposes, dwindles down, loses power, dies, etc etc I have to ask myself how in the world anything could be created, organized, fit together, etc.
It's not the natural state of the universe. The universe is running down.
Oh sure some things get created by the death of others, like stars, or young animals feeding off the carcass of another dead animal... but at some point the whole thing will collapse like a bad Pyramid scheme, where at the end those who are left get screwed the hardest.
I look at things like the wonder of DNA, of RNA, life itself?!? How it can create energy from consumed material...
or look at the senses - sight, sound, smell, feel, etc... To think of a tiny one celled creature evolving to become a colony of specialized cells to create an organism, not to mention the sense they are equiped with. How do you make the jump from just living, to living with sensory input...? Evolution seems lacking in that regard for an answer...
I could go on and on about things, like how the solar system, the planets, the type and output of our sun, the correct location in relation to the sun for the Earth to harbor life, the correct amount of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc for life as we know it to come about.
I can only see design from these things, and that requires someone or something to create.
The next question being what or who is the creator, I don't think anyone could ever answer that except him/her themselves... ;)
A universe so organized and fitting for our existance that happened by chance? come on...! ;)
How in the world did those early simple celled organisms come up with a chemical programming language in the DNA strand? And Memory in RNA?
It had to be designed from an external source...
IMHO...
;)
[B]In a universe where everything in relation to me degrades, decomposes, dwindles down, loses power, dies, etc etc I have to ask myself how in the world anything could be created, organized, fit together, etc.
It's not the natural state of the universe. The universe is running down.
Oh sure some things get created by the death of others, like stars, or young animals feeding off the carcass of another dead animal... but at some point the whole thing will collapse like a bad Pyramid scheme, where at the end those who are left get screwed the hardest.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, increasing entropy.
Stars are good examples, every new star generation contains more heavy elements, with enough of generations there isn't anymore light elements which star could "burn" to heavier elements, so with enough time every star will die.
After that universe would be completely dark and cold place and only thing that woud illuminate it would be random collisions of neutron stars, brown dwarf, and black holes.
With enough time even all matter should "decay" to energy. Now only thing left from all this mattter, stars, nebula, galaxies would be cold long waved radiation in ever growing and cooling universe.
(with current knowledge)
Unfortunately I am too busy at work today to write a proper response, but I will work to add my views before the end of the weekend.
This has been a great discussion thus far, lets keep it up!
Jake
If you try to look for a God that dwells in the clouds, and sits on a thrown surrounded by angels within what we can know in the universe you will come to the conclusion that God does not exist, and we only made him up to make us feel better about life. But if you try to see in everything around us the will of God that dwells in every atom, in ever molecule, in every cell that makes up your body then you will see that he is almost challenging you not to see him, to deny him in the midst of so much purpose.
Science to me is just our attempt to bridge the gap between what we inherently feel about the universive which is that there is a reason, there is a purpose to life, and what we can physicaly know and measure in our limited existence. I believe that if the day ever comes when we can through science understand everything in existence, that day we will truly grasp what God is. Of course if we refuse to accept the part of us that feels, the part that has faith then we may find our selves staring God in the face and not knowing what we are looking at.