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.

 

Science and Religion study the same thing albeit with different tools

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
There is a single attractor.

Science and religion study the same thing albeit with different tools. Both Learn from their mistakes and have their derelicts.

Science and Religion lead to one another, they are the same loop, just different curves. No matter which you choose as generator they converge upon the same attractor.


A religion being, "A practice to gain understanding"

A science being, "A practice to gain understanding"

Religion applied is charity

Science applied is industry

Science and religion combined is a charitable industry

A charitable industry is the womb of positive forms.

God is a charitable industry.

..?




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
NO

RELIGION DOESNT STUDY ANYTHING

religion says that everything you need to know its inside a book



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


Ummm... no.

Religion allows for spiritual growth and introspection.

Science allows for the study and understanding of the world around us through a rigorously controlled process.

This isn't even a case of apples and oranges. It's more like oil and water, they simply do not mix.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by maria_stardust]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I like Marilynne Robinson's approach to this subject. A Pulitzer Prize winning author, she bridges Sci and Religion in a fair and honest way, supporting both sides and celebrating where they meet. Her new book is Absence Of Mind.

She was recently on the Daily Show:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Full Episode www.thedailyshow.com...

Some Additional Quotes From Marylynne


INTERVIEWER
Are religion and science simply two systems that don’t merge?


ROBINSON
The debate seems to be between a naive understanding of religion and a naive understanding of science. When people try to debunk religion, it seems to me they are referring to an eighteenth-century notion of what science is. I’m talking about Richard Dawkins here, who has a status that I can’t quite understand. He acts as if the physical world that is manifest to us describes reality exhaustively. On the other side, many of the people who articulate and form religious expression have not acted in good faith. The us-versus-them mentality is a terrible corruption of the whole culture.


INTERVIEWER
You’ve written critically about Dawkins and the other New Atheists. Is it their disdain for religion and championing of pure science that troubles you?


ROBINSON
No, I read as much pure science as I can take in. It’s a fact that their thinking does not feel scientific. The whole excitement of science is that it’s always pushing toward the discovery of something that it cannot account for or did not anticipate. The New Atheist types, like Dawkins, act as if science had revealed the world as a closed system. That simply is not what contemporary science is about. A lot of scientists are atheists, but they don’t talk about reality in the same way that Dawkins does. And they would not assume that there is a simple-as-that kind of response to everything in question. Certainly not on the grounds of anything that science has discovered in the last hundred years.

The science that I prefer tends toward cosmology, theories of quantum reality, things that are finer-textured than classical physics in terms of their powers of description. Science is amazing. On a mote of celestial dust, we have figured out how to look to the edge of our universe. I feel instructed by everything I have read. Science has a lot of the satisfactions for me that good theology has.





"There is no justice in love, no proportion in it, and there need not be, because in any specific instance it is only a glimpse or parable of an embracing, incomprehensible reality. It makes no sense at all because it is the eternal breaking in on the temporal. So how could it subordinate itself to cause or consequence?"



Peace



[edit on 13-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


lol

so you need to have a religion ( to read a book and believe in everything written in that book and to interpret the book the same way the elite religion people want you to?)

to be able to grow spiritually/whatever ?

sorry, but thats not true

religion is a prison and a control tool

you may have the illusion of growth, but if you cant accept any other idea besides a fixed idea from a group of individuals, you CANT grow ..



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
NO

RELIGION DOESNT STUDY ANYTHING

religion says that everything you need to know its inside a book



Well, Religion is not one thing, it is not in a box somewhere, or on a shelf..

Religious books and precepts all came from study of the the meso and macro environments.

This discussion is concerning absolutes. You latch onto personal interpretation and emotion, concerning the word "Religion".

I am discussing free of emotion.




[religion] is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs


haha I'm sorry Faiol I misconstrued your post, I thought it was a reply to me.

ok maybe you didn't nevermind

I guess it was dumb to say without emotion, but that's what I was attempting.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by depth om]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by depth om]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by depth om]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


sorry, but the real meaning of religion is a set of beliefs followed by a lot of people


when I wrote about religion, I guess it was clear it was about the religion that base their beliefs on a book and that limit your views



added: it just doesnt make sense for you say that religion (as set of beliefs) and science are different, simply because for you to do science you need to have a base of beliefs to be able to prove that or not ...

I didnt get why you just did that ... the discussion that makes sense is why religion, and not science x religion ... as the other guy said, both are different and its really hard to compare ...

a scientists can be religious about a belief, and a religion could be based on science .. so, its hard!

[edit on 13/7/10 by Faiol]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


lol

so you need to have a religion ( to read a book and believe in everything written in that book and to interpret the book the same way the elite religion people want you to?)

to be able to grow spiritually/whatever ?

sorry, but thats not true

religion is a prison and a control tool

you may have the illusion of growth, but if you cant accept any other idea besides a fixed idea from a group of individuals, you CANT grow ..


Religions you see today are not religion. They are attempts at realizing the apparatus that the word "religion" attempts to describe.

I am speaking of idyllic absolutes, the absolute idea of science and that of religion, are converging upon the same attractor.

I said nowhere religion requires a book, you imposed that yourself.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
You latch onto personal interpretation and emotion, concerning the word "Religion".

I am discussing free of emotion.


"Science" - Latin "scientia," meaning "knowledge".

You latch onto personal interpretation and emotion, concerning the word "Science".

You are discussing free of comprehension.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by vinrock]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I think the idea is right.
I'll try a different expression of it.
They're both about seeking to know what the world is, that we're living in.
There are aspects of the world which cannot be known by religious teaching alone.
There are aspects of the world which cannot be known by science alone.
Both have value only insofar as the picture presented is truthful- but there comes a point, in both approaches, where much of the picture has to be taken on trust. Absolute certainty is unachievable.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by depth om
 


Ummm... no.

Religion allows for spiritual growth and introspection.

Science allows for the study and understanding of the world around us through a rigorously controlled process.

This isn't even a case of apples and oranges. It's more like oil and water, they simply do not mix.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by maria_stardust]


You are constrained by your own semantics, I proposed they study the same thing.

The environment. The person is never absent from the environment. They study the same thing.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


On the contrary. You are attempting to build a bridge upon wispy illusions of vagueness, not solid ground.

Perhaps you should narrow your focus on something more concrete upon which to build a discussion, otherwise you'll be attempting to capture smoke in your hand. As it stands there is no solid basis for any type of argument as your line of logic is currently fuzzy.

Precisely, what is the point you are trying to convey?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


The solid ground is my post, this is skunk works, this is why I posted it here.

"Religion" was around before the word was coined.

Science and spiritual excursion (religion) each were born in the mind, so they each concern themselves with the same thing. That which exists outside the mind. Which leads to the point that it is all mind.

I was leading to a point that science and religion is sorcery (source - ery?)
attempting to discover the key, the cipher, the meaning to mans relationship with himself, his environment.

Man is his environment, ultimately. Where does the boundary of a human body end and that of it's environment end?

it doesn't If you sped up time and had some sort of super eyes, it would appear as if your body is smoking, as countless particles are lifted away from the whole.

What was the point of this? What does it matter as long as it's not negative?

I'm interested in other peoples Ideas. I just wanted to present my own.

I think that spiritual "vision" has the ability to bind the human to undergo study and contemplation that leads to scientific, applicable, verifiables.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by depth om]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by vinrock

Originally posted by depth om
You latch onto personal interpretation and emotion, concerning the word "Religion".

I am discussing free of emotion.


"Science" - Latin "scientia," meaning "knowledge".

You latch onto personal interpretation and emotion, concerning the word "Science".

You are discussing free of comprehension.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by vinrock]


I did choose definitions of science and religion, but no emotions were involved, the definitions are for the sake of this discussion. They are obtuse but wholly applicable.

Religion - a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Experiment as ritual. For result.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by depth om]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


Fair enough.


As far as environment is construed from a religious point-of-view, well that's a simple matter of personal perspective. An individual's place within the environment resides is firmly anchored within his or her's life experiences, personal belief systems and frame of mind.

Science operates in a vacuum and is free from philosophical constraints. In other words, it is what it is.

The only common factor that science and religion share is perhaps the quest for truth and knowledge. However, one is achieved through internal introspection and the other through quantifiable observation free from outside interference.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
NO

RELIGION DOESNT STUDY ANYTHING

religion says that everything you need to know its inside a book



it's kind of silly to lump ALL religions into the abrahamic traditions that are indeed fond of their written source material (aka books).

many many religions do not need or require a book so that they may celebrate their relationship to whatever 'higher power' they so choose to revere.

spirituality is an individual's expression of their connection with the larger forces of creation. religion is a culture's spirituality.


ain't nothing wrong with trying to understand the universe via means of intuition (religion) or intellect (science).

THERE NEED BE NO WAR BETWEEN THE TWO.
they simply represent 2 forms of human perception, each with limitations. each with insight.



the OP is seeking to do what is at the very front of both modern science movements and modern spiritual explorations... unite the quantifiable and the esoteric.


check out the Dalai Lama's passion for science, and he is one of the most spiritual dudes any of us are going to meet.


www.scientificamerican.com...
southerncrossreview.org...



cheers to the OP for not being afraid to bridge what others have insisted was a wall.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by depth om
 




Science operates in a vacuum and is free from philosophical constraints. In other words, it is what it is.



science does not operate in a vacuum, as science requires an observer.

as quantum physics is just now beginning to understand, the observer themselves influences the subject.


science simply CANNOT be as objective as it fantisizes itself to be. by the very fact that it is humans conducting the experiements, with human prejudices and limitations.


PS i am not dogging science. it is a wonderful TOOL. it ain't the end all be all to human understanding, however. just a piece to the puzzle.

quantumphysics.suite101.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by depth om
 

Science operates in a vacuum and is free from philosophical constraints. In other words, it is what it is.

The only common factor that science and religion share is perhaps the quest for truth and knowledge. However, one is achieved through internal introspection and the other through quantifiable observation free from outside interference.


I must say that science supports itself upon the same precipice as that religion.

Language and symbol generating communication of ones thoughts with oneself. To say that science is free from outside interference is not totally true, many times a person cannot worship how they want to or where they want to, the same goes for person wishing to work his science.

it is just a strong belief I hold that the vectors of symbol and the material with which they interact in our "minds", the mechanics employed is deliberately hidden from a person if they are born into a "civilized" cult-ure.

Sometimes language itself can impose a barrier almost like a spell. and it is funny we learn to "spell" in schools.

Again I think it's not totally correct in saying scientific pursuit is unadulterated. Science is contained and so is religion by something, not just money or memetic opposition.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mythos
 


I believe ancient occult manuals and scripture are now todays lexicon of formula and postulation of reality.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by depth om

I did choose definitions of science and religion, but no emotions were involved, the definitions are for the sake of this discussion. They are obtuse but wholly applicable.

Religion - a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Experiment as ritual. For result.
[edit on 13-7-2010 by depth om]


If for the sake of this discussion you chose to provide your own definitions, what's the reason for using the terms "Science" and "Religion"?

Other than to create controversy and misinform, there isn't one. What you are trying to do is stir up a debate where the spiritual beliefs of people are given equal footing to the efforts mankind has put fourth in educating himself.

If your car begins to sputter you can either start rubbing the dashboard praying for your engine not to die out, or you can simply open the hood and fix the problem if you have the knowledge to do so.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join