God = The Universe - Page 4

I don't think that “Science”(the term I used) and “Reason” are necessarily the same thing. Whenever scientific theory, which has only been determined to be increasingly likely or unlikely by experimental results, becomes “truth,” reason has left the building, leaving the religion called science.

Granted, the practitioners of most religions do not follow the same empirical path as the disciples of science, but they end at the same place – a theory, the sum and substance of all religions. Although science is substantially more useful to Humanity in terms of technological advancements (ignoring that whole nuclear weapons thing), it still ends in the realm of faith.

Like any religion, science has its tenets, its irrefutable laws and its staunch champions, prepared to defend their beliefs at the instant blasphemy rears its ugly head. The comments this thread has logged in response to my postings lends credence to my hypothesis. Science is not the reasonable opposite of religion, it is simply an alternative religion.

Yeah but science is aside from reason by reason I mean common sense the soft sciences like philosophy particularly ethics and psychology of the human mind as well as literature, religions are just books that's all they are and you are giving religion too much credit and also too much power

I don't think that “Science”(the term I used) and “Reason” are necessarily the same thing. Whenever scientific theory, which has only been determined to be increasingly likely or unlikely by experimental results, becomes “truth,” reason has left the building, leaving the religion called science.

You don't seen to know what science is. You sound like you did not get past high school science. Science is about describing it in ever more detail. It's not about truth.
Truth is easy. Just make up any shit and call it religion.

pickup: “Yeah but science is aside from reason by reason I mean common sense the soft sciences like philosophy particularly ethics and psychology of the human mind as well as literature, religions are just books that's all they are and you are giving religion too much credit and also too much power”

Religion only has as much power as each individual gives it. If you are unable or unwilling to take a hard look at the world and yourself and decide what you truly believe about your purpose and ultimate fate, you need not look far to find those who will tell you what to think. They will cheerfully accept whatever monetary donations you might provide out of gratitude for relieving you of the burdensome process of thinking.

Hobbes Choice: “ You don't seen to know what science is. You sound like you did not get past high school science. Science is about describing it in ever more detail. It's not about truth. Truth is easy. Just make up any shit and call it religion.”

Actually, I rather liked science in high school – biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy. Science was an excellent way to examine and categorize the touchable world,;but, I also learned that, as any “average Joe” on the street will readily tell you, “science doesn't have all the answers.” It still doesn't, and it never will. “Pushing the boundaries of science” is a never-ending process.

Making up shit and calling it religion is, well, for lack of a better word, the truth. Truth, beyond the physical world, is unavoidably subjective. Truth only becomes a problem when someone decides that a personal truth is truth for all.

I am only sharing my personal truth. I do not expect others to adopt it.

REBerg, this thing did not 'erupt onto a discussion of science v. religion' as you propose. It was there in your original founding post:

quote:

---

All of this could not have happened by accident. Someone had to plan it.

---

No matter what name you give it, the concept of a separate, autonomous all powerful singular being ( as you stated: "someone" ) that created everything is God based creationism. It is a simple rephrasing of: 'God (someone) created the universe with His plan.” And in the original statement you utilized the standard "Watchmaker" argument.

Some of the people here do not buy creationism. That is, they are not buying the concept of 'plan,' or in some cases even 'someone.'

If you care to dismiss both logical or factual evidence to the contrary, you may. Faith requires neither. But do not claim that your argument is not one of faith for it transparently is. And, none can dispute a faith argument because it is not based on logic or fact. Doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just can't be argued. In short, believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe that there is an independent being that has planned everything, thats fine. But that is still faith, and the proposal is creationism.

Sometimes, I think that you want science to be more of a faith so that your faith can be more of a science. Not happening. Just be content with your faith.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
-- Hebrews 11:1

REBerg,

quote:

---

Making up shit and calling it religion is, well, for lack of a better word, the truth.

---

You are kidding right? The last time I checked, the common English definition of truth is "a genuine depiction or statements of reality."

THX 1137: “”Sometimes, I think that you want science to be more of a faith so that your faith can be more of a science. Not happening. Just be content with your faith.”

Your insight is absolutely correct. I wasn't even aware that I was trying to reconcile science and faith. I am, in fact, content with my faith, albeit a most unconventional one. I hereby abandon the effort to find common grounds.

I have a question for you: Does the human mind survive the death of the body?

REBerg, I have no reason to think that it does. You may think otherwise.

Science and Faith are not necessarily incompatible. Albert Einstein believed in God, Niels Bohr did not. These two friends debated this issue till the end of their days. Neither ever changed their opinion. I think we both agree that neither of these men were dumb.

Einstein did not believe in God.

Science is completely incompatible with Faith

Hobbes, how would you explain his famous retort to Bohr: "God does not play dice"? He did not believe in a anthropomorphic God, but that is not the discussion here. In his own words: " My views are near to those of Spinoza. "

And we are not talking about dogmatic faith here, either. Simply a belief that there is more to the universe than meets the data.

I myself, do not hold that opinion, I am an atheist. But if REBerg wants to work something out between was is known and what he feels, let him. Don't be dogmatic yourself.

Most physicists I know are atheistic. But some of my favorites are Taoist. But most medical doctors I know are know are not atheists. Are you going to tell me that Medicine is not a science? Some of the best are Hindu.

Lighten up.

Thank you, thx1137. I have never been speaking of dogmatic Faith, as followed by glassy-eyed, unquestioning believers in any established religion. I have been using faith more broadly defined by Merriam-Webster as a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”

Everyone has faith in something – the existence or non-existence of a supreme being, regardless of the name attached to it; faith in a scientific theory; faith in one's self. As you aptly put it, “There is more to the universe than meets the data.” Faith in that belief drives both science and religion.

The difference is that religion settles for a set of beliefs, then takes a defensive posture; whereas science pushes on, never satisfied with what has already been proven. The space occupied by religion shrinks every time science changes the unknown to the known, but I don't expect science to eliminate everything unknown, at least not in my lifetime.

It is beyond your ability to make a statement that suggests anything about "everybody".
You can't know about everybody unless you are omnipotent.

And you don't get to pretend that "faith" drive science, as if it were not different from the Faith people have in religion.
Religion thrives on faith, one of the aims of science is specifically to dispel it.

The aim of science is not to dispel faith. Science simply attempts to describe what is. It draws no moral or ethical conclusions; nor does it speculate a philosophical why.

How did the universe begin? This is a question for science. What is the meaning of the universe? Science does not attempt to answer.

Science can be used to build a nuclear weapon. It can't tell you whether it is right or wrong to use it.

It has been the SPECIFIC claim of science to do just that.
To dispel faith and superstition.
How does it do that?
By describing the world as it is and not by how you want it to be. That makes it utterly different from religion which only encourages superstition and urges belief through faith.
Sadly how did the universe begin is also a question for religion, and one that it has always pretended to have the answers to.
Philosophy suggests that "the meaning of the universe" is not the preserve of religion.
Who says it a valid question anyway?