It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

page: 16
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent



The Dark Ages weren't about anything; they were just what happened next, after the Roman withdrawal.

History does not, in my opinion, have a teleological character, any more than biological evolution does.


I should have been clearer: by "about that" I meant "that was the pressing issue of the time people were concerning themselves with." I think we're on the same page.



In the absence of a strong state, various actors try to seize power for themselves. This leads to violent competition for power. At the beginning, many parties and factions are involved, then there's a shakeout. Eventually the winners emerge and then, in their own interest, begin to impose law and order. This happens successively at local, regional and national levels — unless the new order is imposed by external invaders, in which case the order is reversed.

Certainly, what some call the bourgeoisie and others call civil society cannot emerge until law and order and individual security are reasonably well assured.


Order before freedom, eh?
The interesting thing is, during this time, the religious people were preserving a lot of the knowledge since the church was one of the few enduring institutions–at least, that's how I understand it. Have you read Asimov's Foundation series? It toys with these concepts.




posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

thanks for the links, I will check them out another time! I bet I will learn something from them


When aspirant finally "gets it". Then meditation become science. In this video this is explained very good by Walter to some degree. If I go a step further, then religion also to a certain degree becomes science or maybe at least a close sibling, haha All is very deeply connected. Nothing is apart from each other in my opinion we - humans, are the ones who are making it so in my view.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Have you read Asimov's Foundation series? It toys with these concepts.

There is a novel that does not toy with these concepts but explores them in depth. A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr. Not many now have the stomach to read it, though.


edit on 20/5/15 by Astyanax because: of plurals



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Also, don't over-privilege this business of 'preserving knowledge.' At the end of the Dark Ages, there wasn't much left in Europe of what the Celts or Romans had had. It was the interaction with the Islamic world, which really got going in the ninth century or so, that began the process of re-civilizing Europe.


edit on 20/5/15 by Astyanax because: of phone dumbness.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Have you read Asimov's Foundation series? It toys with these concepts.

There is a novel that does not toy with these concepts but explores them in depth. A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr. Not many now have the stomach to read it, though.



I've heard good things about that novel. I'll put it on my list.



Also, don't over-privilege this business of 'preserving knowledge.' At the end of the Dark Ages, there wasn't much left in Europe of what the Celts or Romans had had. It was the interaction with the Islamic world, which really got going in the ninth century or so, that began the process of re-civilizing Europe.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Islamic thought had been at least partially building on Greco-Roman foundations during that time, correct? And thus the introduction of Islamic thought also led to the rediscovery of Greco-Roman thought?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Islamic thought had been at least partially building on Greco-Roman foundations during that time, correct? And thus the introduction of Islamic thought also led to the rediscovery of Greco-Roman thought?

Most certainly. Many of the great works of Greek science, mathematics and philosophy first became well known in the West through Arabic translations. Universities in places like Naples and Paris taught Arabic along with Latin and Greek. And we must not forget the role played by magic and alchemy. The Arabs were great students of both, and European would-be mages looked up to them and eagerly sought out their writings.

However, this isn't quite what I was talking about. Science, philosophy and ceremonial magic are of interest only to an elite within an elite. Far more influential was the commonplace experience of cultured, civilized life — of cleanliness and refined grooming, of care and attention paid to the arts of living and the cultivation of beauty — that Western Europeans gained through interaction with the great Islamic metaculture that encircled and threatened them.

The Greeks and Romans had been masters of the arts of living well, and the Arabs, who basically inherited Greek civilization in the Near East, continued their traditions and practices, which Europe had by then long forgotten. The Islamic conquest of Iberia and (even more so) the Crusades reintroduced these things to the West.

See, it's a mistake to think of the pre-Islamic Arabs as a bunch of towelheads from the deep desert. Some were, of course, but most Arabs lived on the littoral lands of the Arabian Peninsula, where the prevailing culture was a mixture of Byzantine Greek and Sassanid Persian, with a salting of Ethiopian Christian. They were civilized people; Mecca was a booming desert entrepôt. When the Arabs finally rolled up the two great empires that had surrounded them, it was no great trick for everyone to carry on more or less as before under the new dispensation. Of course, both Byzantium and Persia were in very decadent condition by then, and most of the great attainments of 'classical' Graeco-Roman civilization were beyond them; the Arabs caused a renaissance in the East just as they did in the West.

If you want to experience — vicariously, at least — the astonishing gulf that separated Islamic civilization from the barbarism of the West, here are a couple more items for your reading list.
  1. Arab Historians of the Crusades is an anthology assembled from the works of the greatest Islamic historians of the period, translated into lucid and lively English by Francesco Gabrieli, an expert in the field. The translations are lively, their content eye-opening. The Crusaders, understandably, don't appear in a very flattering light.

  2. Vie de St Louis by Jean de Joinville is full of a northern barbarian's wonder at his first glimpse of real civilization. The author was seneschal of Champagne and a close friend of the French king Louis II, and he went crusading with Louis. The record of his experiences is one of the greatest travel books ever written — or rather, dictated, since Joinville was illiterate. If you love books, make it your business not to die without reading this one. You'll find an excellent, complete English translation of it in M.R.B. Shaw's Chronicles of the Crusades

  3. Finally, allow me to recommend to you a Muslim work from a later period: Tim Mackintosh-Smith's translated and condensed edition of The Travels of Ibn Battutah. Writing in the fourteenth century, Battutah describes his travels around the Islamic world, from Granada in Spain to Indonesia and even to China, from Tanzania to the Volga. Islam was, at this time, by far the world's dominant culture. All that would change radically in the next two centuries, but it would be much longer than that before Western society could throw up a cosmopolitan world traveller like Battuta, or create a safe, civilized, well-secured world for him to travel (and he always travelled first class). In fact, it would not happen until the eighteenth century.

Just for the record, I'm not grinding any religious, ethnic or political axes here. I'm an atheist from South Asia, of greatly variegated ancestry; my cultural background is Christian and Anglophone.


edit on 21/5/15 by Astyanax because: of metatypos.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
This denial of Dark Age (please note dark age is not the same as Middle Ages) reminds me of two George Orwell's quotes:


“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history."



“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”


Speaking of religion and history, today is very sad day - ISIS is in control of Palmyra (Syria), and there is high probability that they might destroy this UNESCO heritage site.


edit on 21-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

hey, I checked out one link. The one about a book interview. Although I did not listen to the whole audio, I get the general idea.

And I agree with his prospective. I bet that from his past experiences and thoughts this is the correct conclusion which he finalizes in the book. This is all good and this is his reality!

What I cannot fathom is, why should we all think like that, we are all unique with our own life and it is just not right for me to generalize in such a way for everyone. Just like I said before, let it be ...


For example:
we have another version of me in another reality, who is a lot smarter and more into science. But the foundations of this imaginary person are the same. He has a lot of faith in the underlying reality which is the ALL (god, the self, collective conciousness, energy, or you name it ...).
He knows a lot about religions and spirituality and nature and our universe. And his background is deeply religious as he was practitioner of Buddhism after he was Christian as a child. But after further inspection he takes from it what was good for him and moves on to other religions and holly ancient scripts and along the way he graduated from some university for science.

He does not impose anything onto others. Because he beliefs that each has his own path and final destination which is the same, but it can be achieved by various paths. So no path is right or wrong, but every action/reaction is guiding us to the realization of this final reality by hidden hand.

But by exploring science, his views are different and more importantly his methods are different. His tools are meditation and dreaming. He gets inspiration by them because he has faith that everything is manifestation of the same source. And we, with our thoughts are making our reality.

Why would he limit himself by not following intuition which comes from imagination like dreams and meditations. Why would he ignore a whole other non science part of himself. It is just like a tool used for further development of his own awareness of the world.

Even though measurement of thought/imagination and dreams is nonsense, that does not mean that they are false. They are a part and a very important part to this person. And if he sees a vision of some divinity from some religion and it is telling him some things related to work, in meditation or in dreams, why is that bad for him or anyone else? Why should he not use that if it is available to him?
---
end of story. I hope you can see the point I am trying to make, about different prospective we can have


Why should things be separated like so? ... like night + day = just a day... wired analogy for: religion + science = just science. But night is a part of the day and even if it is not included in the final result. But this is self evident to all. We can see when is it night and when it is light, but unfortunately it is not so in our case and therefore comes the confusion of labels and what is what.

Yes, it is true I cannot call religion a science or science a religion or can I? ... But why should I label anything. Both are just tools for us to explore life and our understanding of ourself. Don't make tools a reality. Reality is you, me...is US! And we experience or learn about it with the tools we have available and hopefully take the best from it


This is my opinion and we can agree to disagree. The main part is that we can learn from each other even though we think differently. After all we are all here and now together lets learn from our differences, because we cant learn from the things which are the same for both


From earth prospective our lifetime is short, like a blink of an eye, let it be a nice relaxing blink, haha

Ok. I am done ...
edit on 1432279130518May185183115 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
The way I see it, religion and science can coexist, but they are polar opposite in meaning. One is based on fact and one is based on faith. That doesn't mean one goes against the other, they are just completely different concepts and should be treated as such. Most religious folk don't actually deny science or evolution, it's really just the fundies that can't bother to educate themselves or even think for themselves beyond what was ingrained into their head as a child.

That is a big problem in society, as well as when folks equate the two terms in an attempt to paint science as a faith based belief system when that couldn't be further from the truth. They are projecting their own insecurities onto science when they do that, and I guess that's just the mentality of being indoctrinated so strongly. They don't know any other way but pure blind unconditional faith, so they see everything as requiring that same faith, including science. Unfortunately for them, science actually is used to find facts and discover new things, so it does hold weight.
edit on 22-5-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity
Was thinking to leave it at this... but then again, I wouldn't be I if I did not respond to one part that just strikes me out of your post. Let me explain...


originally posted by: UniFinity
Why should things be separated like so? ... like night + day = just a day... wired analogy for: religion + science = just science. But night is a part of the day and even if it is not included in the final result. But this is self evident to all. We can see when is it night and when it is light, but unfortunately it is not so in our case and therefore comes the confusion of labels and what is what.

Idea behind whole topic is exactly that, to explain (fundamental) difference between two. They are not the same, nor you can say religion + science. There is no such a thing. To believe you can't accept all facts of science, and if you accept science you can't believe in folklore tales. It is actually simple. Some people tend to believe they can master both (talking about top scientist here), but in reality they really have to place on in tradition, not something you believe, but just accept as part of your past, because it would go against what science and facts will tell him.



originally posted by: UniFinity
Yes, it is true I cannot call religion a science or science a religion or can I? ... But why should I label anything. Both are just tools for us to explore life and our understanding of ourself. Don't make tools a reality. Reality is you, me...is US! And we experience or learn about it with the tools we have available and hopefully take the best from it

Religion will never let you pick and choose... if you do that, you are just heretic and/or not so honest to yourself. Just take what we know about evolution as example, either you believe everything got created by God as it is, or you believe that life evolved over millions of years to current state and its still in process of change. There is no middle ground, religion itself does not allow and you either take it as true or false...



originally posted by: UniFinity
This is my opinion and we can agree to disagree. The main part is that we can learn from each other even though we think differently. After all we are all here and now together lets learn from our differences, because we cant learn from the things which are the same for both


From earth prospective our lifetime is short, like a blink of an eye, let it be a nice relaxing blink, haha

Ok. I am done ...


Just check my signature... sure I like to live my life... and I agree, we can disagree about it...





a reply to: Barcs
I agree, well said.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne
Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because scientists of the past held those beliefs doesn't make them correct.

Who is the ultimate authority? God allowing scientists to explore its domain or scientists attempting to describe IT. You are a human; you are of the birthright of a Creator Being. Are you attempting to usurp the Creator/outsmart it by telling it WHAT IT IS, or what you ARE NOT? What is your program here; "I exist therefor God creator does not (as am self created by accidental evolution)". I am *maybe* a Godlike production and cannot prove God exists but think UPON a FAITH basis be a truth I EXIST and cannot adequately explain WHY.
edit on 22-5-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Anyone can make up a god and invest it with authority. Until you prove your authority exists the rest of your post is meaningless. Surely this must be obvious to you?


edit on 23/5/15 by Astyanax because: I had to ask.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

cool, thanks for your answer!

Well it seems to me, that the major problem you have is with blind belief system which religion imposes upon a person. This is indeed true. But the same can be said about science.

For instance look at all of the theories about dark mater, dark energy, black holes, big bang...they are just theories and people will blindly follow them and even argue about them. Even though we don't have many know facts for certain about the universe.

Is this not the same thing? ...we agree that blind belief is bad. But why are we focused only on religion - if you are a scientist, you should't have those beliefs whatever they may be about - religion, universe, nature,...? Or they will effect your thinking process while you are working as a scientists.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Theories in science are based on verifiable fact. They aren't "just theories". That's like the oldest anti-science argument in the book. It's not even close to the same thing as religion and I explained it in detail in my post above.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Anyone can make up a god and invest it with authority. Until you prove your authority exists the rest of your post is meaningless. Surely this must be obvious to you?


It is not AT ALL OBVIOUS. Did you create yourself and if so you can call your self GOD CREATOR BEING the AUO (absolute unbounded oneness) are now responsible for EVERYTHING PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE. God is not a made up creature unless you believe yourself to be some sort of amalgam of all or both/an idea form you CANNOT adequately describe as one meaningless or as a potentiate. I can invest in a God form as I believe I am its expression. I have the Authority to do so.
edit on 23-5-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Did you create yourself and if so you can call your self GOD CREATOR BEING the AUO (absolute unbounded oneness) are now responsible for EVERYTHING PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE.


Did God create itself?

edit on 5/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing



Did you create yourself and if so you can call your self GOD CREATOR BEING the AUO (absolute unbounded oneness) are now responsible for EVERYTHING PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE.


Did God create itself?

YES; (through its creations/descriptions and perfect ecosystems self evident) and is in a process of continuance/exploration; that of understanding ITSELF AS A WHOLE BEING: (we[all specie] are the lab rat volunteer expressions) that describe potential; WAR, STRIFE, exponential growth AS God would not know itself other than its creations describing IT to ITSELF. It is a lonely being; believe it or not; it wants its creations to love IT unconditionally and for some reason cannot ultimately convince the human IT actually EXISTS.
edit on 23-5-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The circular argument upon which creation depends.
And also demonstrates the point of the OP.
edit on 5/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The circular argument upon which creation depends.
And also demonstrates the point of the OP.

I am not understanding what you are saying; what circular argument accidental? God created Satan to destroy itself? Fibonachi spiral is not the golden rule of creation?
edit on 24-5-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing



I am not understanding what you are saying;
I'm not surprised.


what circular argument?


Did God create itself?
Yes.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join