Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam
I think the key would be frightening to the religious because they feel it would detract meaning from their beliefs. Even as science and religion
could finally come together as the two halves of something greater and more comprehensive than anything we imagined, the religious would reject it as
detracting from the meaning they have ascribed to the one half, as though the whole isn't worth nearly as much as the one solitary half. I don't think
that's their decision, but they care more about their personal stake than what it means for the rest of the world.
I think a lot of the "power" of God in religion is that nothing is explainable. Once we claim to be able to explain something, or find a pattern in
something, then I think many feel it takes away from that "power." By remaining inexplicable, except through proprietary means (like buildings and
specific "special" people), it also works much better as a system of control and profit.
Since religion has directly affected everyones
cultural story, this results in the idea that the things we can explain must not be God. And
lately, that it directly disproves a God/s all based on a premise that originated in religion! Kind of an interesting sociological impact to me.
But, I think that when eplxoring something that is defined as omnipresent (amongst other things), it has to be considered that these patterns are part
of a God/s by definition. If they werent, then that God/s is not
In the end, we are all exploring a place that is so incredibly vast and complex, that it is taking a very long time to even get the basics solidified.
And just when we think we do, something like the theory of relativity comes along and starts everything up again
We are bound to come to different interpretations of the universe, as each one of us is almost a universe unto ourselves. Some of us are much more
emotional, some are more rational, but in that difference we can see all of the ways the universe can manifest.
I think the scientific method itself has been discarded by many religions, and I think the industry of science might just be doing the same (though it
hasnt yet). Its too bad, because it is the one of the best communication tools we have to share our experience with one another. I still strongly
believe it should be taught much, much earlier in education as it is a very simple process. We would then teach our children how to learn before
to learn. The other way around leads to stagnation, in my opinion.
edit on 14-7-2013 by Serdgiam because: made coherent