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.

 

So, Science Explains The How, And Religion Explains The Why???

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
how so???

I mean, I understand how science explains the how, but if you ask me... it also explains the why... People argue that science explains the how, and religion explains the why, and that they are both needed... but, how does religion explain the why??? It makes up stories that cannot be proven, and thats the why things happen???

I mean, evolution (science) explains "how" life has evolved over millions of years, but it also, indirectly, explains "why" the story of genesis is fake..


So, what is the why that religion so kindly explains???




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Well, I wish I had an answer for you, but since I disdain any dogma, being spiritual but not religious, I suspect that you and I have roughly the same view of science explaining both the how and (more or less) the why.

Actually... I am of the opinion that The Terra Papers explain the Why...



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If you type 'evolution' in the search area of this website www.lawofone.info... - there is loads of info.
Trick is opening the mind enough to allow that info in to absorb!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I don't think religion answers anything...it only creates more questions.
As for science,I still think we don't really know as much as we think we do.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
i think philosophy answers more "why" than religion. The only problem is that it always raises more questions



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Religion dates back from the time people were looking for an explanation and there was no science to tell or prove otherwise.

Nowadays, science is taking over, but there are still many things that remain unexplained. So both remain present.

In the future i think science will have the winning hand.
Religion will be remembered as stories of old times, and will assist people in their spiritual evolution.

Humans need both of them, but somewhere in time they will move in separate ways. A material and scientific way, and a spiritual and/or religious way.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Science is not in the business of explaining anything. It's a process used to find out correlations between things, and using those correlations to generate more questions. All answers or explanations are conditional. If some new idea or way of thinking about a particular thing is discovered, and it is tested and has merit, all bets are off. This happens all the time in science. New ideas knock the old ones out.

If someone can't see where this is a good thing, then there are plenty of religions out there with all kinds of "truth" and "answers" for them.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
I mean, evolution (science) explains "how" life has evolved over millions of years, but it also, indirectly, explains "why" the story of genesis is fake..



yeah, because there is only one creation story and it's found in genesis.


the real question you need to ask yourself, in my opinion, is "is science enough". for me, it just doesn't feel like enough, evolution doesn't feel like the whole story, i feel there's something more.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
What is quite interesting is how science cannot discard the ORIGINAL genesis story in sumerian scriptures.

I recon this could be a merger of a type of science and religion that was once there in the ancient times and has been talked about for quite a wile.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
well if that's the case, both science and religion are doing a pretty bumb job fulfilling their duties. Because all that arises from their endeavors are more questions.

Concerning the comment about religion making stuff up that can not be proven;
Science has actually made up more "stories" than religion. Most of the religions have the same generic and consistent story. Science has gone through MANY different ones and is still changing its' dirty diaper regularly.


[edit on 1/31/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by blujay
If you type 'evolution' in the search area of this website www.lawofone.info... - there is loads of info.
Trick is opening the mind enough to allow that info in to absorb!


i did it gave me a whole big list of questions where they use the word evolution but never talk about ..ya know the actuial theory of evolution or things realting to it

i went against Dawkins advice opended my mind so far my brain fell out and only then did it start to make some sense .. but so did venomfangX so i quickly put my brain back in anmd went to watch some thunderf00t videos

[edit on 30/1/09 by noobfun]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Well, if you are looking for proven theories, you won't find them at that site! You'd just be leaning towards science again.

I used to need proof to believe anything, but as time carried on, I began to steer away from all the scientific arguing and religious crap to find what really resonated with ME. And I believe that is all that matters... whatever resonates and feels right to the seeker. Some want proof, some will follow anything, and some just need to go off on their own and contemplate until the light bulb finally goes on!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

well if that's the case, both science and religion are doing a pretty dumb job fulfilling their duties. Because all that arises from their endeavors are more questions.

Concerning the comment about religion making stuff up that can not be proven.
Science has actually made up more "stories" than religion. Most of the religions have the same generic and consistent story. Science has gone through MANY different ones and is still changing it's dirty diaper regularly.


uhhh, did u seriously just say science has made up more stories than religion???

hmmm... I really don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face... What stories that science has made up compare to Zeus, Poseidon, The christian God, Allah.... the story of David and Goliath, Noah's Ark???... I can go on forever with this ya know...


Science has gone through MANY different ones and is still changing it's dirty diaper regularly


if science never changed, we would all still be believing that the earth was the center of the universe... which was a concept propelled by what??? Yes, religion....



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
if science never changed, we would all still be believing that the earth was the center of the universe... which was a concept propelled by what??? Yes, religion....

Before we presumably "learned" the earth was not the center of the universe. The earth was in fact, the center of the "universe". "The Earth along with the human race and the totality of human experience" was all we knew. It was the universe.

Now, i was using the old and now archaic definition of universe. However, when the modern definition "the totality of all matter and energy that exists in the vastness of space, whether known to human beings or not" is applied. Keeping the omphalos hypothesis in mind. You have absolutely no proof that the earth was not, by all definitions of "universe"; the center of the universe; before it allegedly ceased to be.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
You have absolutely no proof that the earth was not, by all definitions of "universe"; the center of the universe; before it allegedly ceased to be.


well as your making the proposition the burden of proof falls with you to prove it not for anyone to diprove, negative proof is for school playgrounds

but if thats the case how does the flat earth/round earth situation work?

the old testament describes a flat earth, the new testament describes a flat earth (tree/mountain that can be seen from all the world etc ) but inbetween the greeks worked out the earth was round

so was only the eastern mediteranean flat and the rest sphericle? both at the same time?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I'm not claiming to prove anything and you're not seeing my point . . . regardless of the catalyst, the earth may have very well been the center of the universe when they claimed it to be. To say they were wrong is a bit bold in my opinion.


To address your question . . . who says the earth is round?

[edit on 1/31/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
the greeks they thought it was round, we now know its sphericle but they were a lot closer then the bibles discriptions of flat circle earth

and they were wrong, its that simple. they did not or in some cases couldnt have known better but they were still wrong

[edit on 31/1/09 by noobfun]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


we KNOW the earth is spherical? How is that?

[edit on 1/31/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by noobfun
 


we KNOW the earth is spherical? How is that?


mathmatics, satelite imagrey, an understanding of gravity, and the realisation that standing on top of a mountain and turning in a circle doesnt show all the world so it is curved beyond my sight

which is where the flat earth\(probabily) came from they could see much of thier known world from standing on a mountain top and looking in a circle



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
mathmatics,

that's rather broad

satelite imagrey,

could be forgeries


understanding of gravity,

we experience, measure, and can predict how gravity will act in the "world" around us. But we don't understand it.


and the realisation that standing on top of a mountain and turning in a circle doesnt show all the world so it is curved beyond my sight

even if the world was "flat", you wouldn't be able to see everything from atop a mountain do to the limitations of human eyesight and other terrestrial obstacles, particularly mountains being in the way. I went to vermont a week ago, i stood atop it's highest mountain. I couldn't see more than a few miles.


which is where the flat earth\(probabily) came from they could see much of thier known world from standing on a mountain top and looking in a circle
like i mentioned before, even if the earth was/is in fact "flat"; that story is still, literally, impossible.

Your "reasons" for why "we" know the earth is spherical, still fall quite short of anything that can be personally and readily tested.


[edit on 1/31/2009 by JPhish]




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join