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.

 

Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


I am giving the "Vedic" view on the topic.

In Vedic education, both "gyaan" and "vigyaan" are taught.

"gyaan" is knowledge that is revealed or knowledge of God, soul and the natural world that cannot be known through human senses.

"vigyaan" is knowledge of matter and natural world that can be observed through the human senses.

"Veda" (what is revealed) is "gyaan".
"Shashtra" (method of doing things like building a house, a machine, etc) is "vigyaan"

For example "Rigveda" is a "veda" or "gyaan".
"Vastu Shashtra" (methods of construction) is "vigyaan".

"Religion" is a term that usually refers to preach of a saint or a holy man. There may be truth in such preach. The best way is to always accept what is true.

Vedic teacher says that both "gyaan" and "vigyaan" are necessary for a human society. A society that only practices "vigyaan" and forgets "gyaan" cannot and will not last long. Such a society self-destructs.




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I think where you and I are not seeing eye to eye here (other than the obvious) is that you are taking the OP and the source article literally by holding to the term "religion" which was used in both. I am attempting to approach the issue from outside of dogmatic thinking and instead attempting to tackle it philosophically. You seem to be holding on to the definition of "religion" as it concerns reconciling science with the notion of God, where I am trying to point out that religion is a human expression of spirituality but doesn't necessarily precede the idea of a creative force behind the universe.

From the article linked in the OP:


"It would serve us well to remember the topics on which there is greater agreement or openness to collaboration, such that a framework of trust and mutual respect might develop between these two communities," the authors write.


Surely that is something we can both agree on?

Just to clarify further, my criticisms of your posts here haven't been stated because I think atheism is without merit. Atheism is as strong a position as Deism, because neither can be proven conclusively. Rather, my criticisms have been leveled because you seem to be focused on Christianity (or even the abrahamic faiths) without paying due diligence to the broader issue of a created universe vs a strictly material one which occurred by chance. There are hundreds if not thousands other faiths and beliefs outside of the abrahamic religions which have considered this question for millennia. We should consider the bigger question first (which is the origins of the universe) before we try to decipher which system is the "right" one. We sort of need to know if we are even making a picture in the first place. Imagine putting a puzzle together with all the pieces turned picture down.


edit on 20-2-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


It gets confusing when people forget that they are complimentary elements and not rivals. It doesn't help that the defining parameters of "vigyaan", and thus the nature of its relationship with that other thing, are never universally established or agreed upon.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Of course, "vigyaan" (science) exists only because "God" exists and created the reality in which we exist.

Humans tends to forget that fact.

There is a problem with almost all religions of today that the correct qualities of God are not taught.

God is NOT looking for human's attention or flattery. God neither need nor want human's attention. It is humans that have desires, not God.

God is pure because God has no desire. Desire is the reason that causes fall of Soul.

The first verse of "Veda" itself clears the doubt. "Agnim Ede" - I desire Agnim (Agnim is God or the source of Agni). This is the statement of "Purush" or soul.

"Veda" says souls are the reason why God creates the Universe. Souls need bodies to be able to do anything. God does not need body. It is souls that desire the bodies. So out of kindness, God creates the Universe and gives souls the bodies of humans, animals, and plants as per their 'karmas'.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   

peck420

Lucid Lunacy
If science and religions account for creation are happy co-existing then reconcile this:

1)Bible says the Earth was formed before the Sun.
2)Bible says the Earth was growing fruit bearing trees prior to the Sun existing.




1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.


It would appear that you are incorrect.

Please note the words "without form"...the physical entity of the Earth (as we walk upon it) was not created until the 3rd day...2 days after the Sun.
edit on 20-2-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


So how did god see where he was putting everything in the dark. How did god know what light was if everything was at first dark in the first place. The bible makes no sense at all.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Ironclad2000

peck420

Lucid Lunacy
If science and religions account for creation are happy co-existing then reconcile this:

1)Bible says the Earth was formed before the Sun.
2)Bible says the Earth was growing fruit bearing trees prior to the Sun existing.




1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.


It would appear that you are incorrect.

Please note the words "without form"...the physical entity of the Earth (as we walk upon it) was not created until the 3rd day...2 days after the Sun.
edit on 20-2-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


So how did god see where he was putting everything in the dark. How did god know what light was if everything was at first dark in the first place. The bible makes no sense at all.
\

These are very solid questions.
I snuffed a fluff when "It would APPEAR that you are incorrect", then went onto state/claim facts lol



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Ironclad2000
So how did god see where he was putting everything in the dark. How did god know what light was if everything was at first dark in the first place. The bible makes no sense at all.


Actually "Veda" says the same that the Universe was created in darkness however the Bible's account differs greatly from Veda's.

Light comes out of stars and then reflected by other non-luminous objects. So it is clear that there was no light before the stars started working.

God does not need light to see, if that is what you are asking. God has many many powers which humans do not understand.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   

GargIndia

Ironclad2000
So how did god see where he was putting everything in the dark. How did god know what light was if everything was at first dark in the first place. The bible makes no sense at all.


Actually "Veda" says the same that the Universe was created in darkness however the Bible's account differs greatly from Veda's.

Light comes out of stars and then reflected by other non-luminous objects. So it is clear that there was no light before the stars started working.

God does not need light to see, if that is what you are asking. God has many many powers which humans do not understand.



God is your Atoms. DNA is your script.
The planet is alive and this is what the highest order of consciousness anyone should be concerned with.
Obviously there is the sun too but that is self sustaining and needs no love or gratitude.

We have been made to love something outside the sphere and as a result we are not "feeding" the planet anymore.
We are raping God to serve a Dog.
That is the truth from Freddie the Ferrate.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


God has many many powers which humans do not understand.

Thus a basis to justify any religious belief.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


I think where you and I are not seeing eye to eye here (other than the obvious) is that you are taking the OP and the source article literally

Well specific to the article since you mentioned it. It mentions a young creationist Christian. Obviously he takes it literally. So again, I am not out of line there for doing so. That said, if we embrace the whole of Christendom in this thread, which the OP was by including 'religion', then you have to concede many Christians take a literal view and my responses were justified in that respect.


I am attempting to approach the issue from outside of dogmatic thinking and instead attempting to tackle it philosophically.

Okay
I said I supported that. We do see eye to eye there. I'm not just understanding of it, I encourage it. I spend time on this myself philosophically. Since we are mentioned degrees in this thread apparently… mine is in philosophy with an emphasis in religion.

You're doing what Craig does
Focusing on the metaphysical arguments of a 'Prime Mover' and avoiding conversation specific to the faith.


You seem to be holding on to the definition of "religion" as it concerns reconciling science with the notion of God

Religion defines itself, it doesn't need me. It makes claims about the the physical Universe. That's separate from god belief, as I said. If you can't see this it's not my doing.

And those claims enter the domain of science and can and should be addressed scientifically.

If religion only held a belief in 'god' and left it there, I assure you I wouldn't be talking about it nearly as much on ATS.


I am trying to point out that religion is a human expression of spirituality

Understood. Agreed.


but doesn't necessarily precede the idea of a creative force behind the universe.

God might exist. I said that before fyi. Like many times. I can't prove god doesn't for the same reason you can't prove it does.


Just to clarify further, my criticisms of your posts here haven't been stated because I think atheism is without merit. Atheism is as strong a position as Deism, because neither can be proven conclusively.

And just to be clear on my behalf. I am not saying god belief is without reason. I am saying religion, which makes claims about the nature of god, demands that much more reason. Reason that the faithful seems passionate to avoid. I think that's telling. I think they know their reasoning only goes so far as the god belief itself and everything else is faith. Per the OP premise, that faith aspect is not reconcilable with science.


Rather, my criticisms have been leveled because you seem to be focused on Christianity

So if I tell you my position will you remember it an cease bringing it up in literally every thread we engage in?

You're a Christian. You believe. I honor and accept that. I might question your beliefs but I don't question you as a believer. That is essentially what you keep doing with me. You keep essentially asking over and over why I am an anti-theist instead of arguing my argument. I am so, good sir, because I think religion's cons outweigh the pros. I think religion lacks sufficient evidence to justify the belief it's true. I feel this way to all religions. All. That's what anti-theism means. I target Christianity [and yes I do] is due to two facts. 1) It's what I am most familiar with. 2) its what my opponents are most familiar with. However, I discount all religions. I do so on the basis god [if it exists] is unknowable and therefore their religious claims necessarily cannot be declared as absolute truth. It's speculative.


(or even the abrahamic faiths)

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That's the Abrahamic faiths. I need to point this out because in the beginning of the thread I only talked about Creation and Genesis. Which applies to all of them, they share that root. You inferred it was about Christianity cuz it's your faith, and attacked me for focusing on Christianity. When in fact at the start I wasn't. That came out later.
edit on 21-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Nope. Diffused light is still light. Plants and trees can live on it.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


Where does diffused light come from according to science?

You're intentionally ignoring the point.

All the stars existed after Earth according to Genesis.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:40 AM
link   
How can you even REMOTELY say that science and religion, IN PARTICULAR CHRISTIANITY (but basically all Abrahamic religions) "go well together"?

They do not go well together ALL ALL.

Just reading the first few verses of Genesis would open up a ton of contradicting, wrong and absurd statements which do not, not remotely, go together with science.

Most fundamental Christians have an "anti-stance" against science since their 2000 year old book says things which contradict science, starting with the idea of 6000 year old creation, whether the light/sun was there first, the claim of a global flood, whether the sun/earth revolves each other etc....they require the anti-stance since the one or the other does NOT, in the slightest, go together with their "book". (A simple dig and finding a fossil would contradict their book, a simple observation of the sky would (and has) contradicted the idea that earth is the middle of the universe...and so forth..and so forth...)

If someone would call themselves Christian I would assume that they to some extent would need to accept what is in the Bible...and how can a scientists do this? UNLESS you start to admit and freely interpret the bible and come to the conclusion that some things in it simply cannot be "true"...but this then opens up the question WHAT EXACTLY is true in the bible and what not.

However, once you say you "tend towards Christianity" or think you're Christian...PLUS you say you are a scientist....it's impossible to reconcile both with Christianity and many things written in the Bible. Again: IMPOSSIBLE.

This is only possible if you allow yourself so much freedom in interpretation (which, by the way, is NOT wrong in the slightest!) that you're already far from what the Bible teaches....in other words....strictly speaking you would then not be a Christian because would more tend towards Hinduism or similar religion which, by the way, FAR, FAR more are able to go together with science than Abrahamic religions.

I for myself do NOT see a contradiction of my own spiritual beliefs with concepts such as EVOLUTION, the fact that the universe may have billions of potential "Earths", the fact that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe....the fact that Earth is billions of years old and not 6000 etc..and not even the idea that God necessarily MUST BE an "entity" in a sense separate from us...or act "human-like" as Christianity wants to make us believe, by "judging" etc... for me those ideas are not only naive but WAAAYYYY to simplified because I do think that a creator/god is far more complex or probably even "incomprehensible".....and Abrahamic religions do not really reflect this in-comprehensibility but instead attribute god simplified and all too human attributes/motivations. (Which, IMO, is just outright ridiculous...)

Other, non Abrahamic beliefs (Hinduism etc.) have far better "ideas" which (and this is the great thing about them) do NOT have to clash with science. The universe "born" 15 bil years ago......Evolution? No one cares! Nothing of this would contradict a creator-intelligence, even WITH evolution it may very well be possible that a form of intelligence stands behind all this. Why not? The Earth not the center of the universe? Who cares! And this is exactly the problem of Christianity, THEIR belief is built on an endless chain of contradicting and LIMITING assumptions where some words in a 2000 year old book impose limits in the way of imagining a purpose/existence of a god/creator or our own "purpose". Why is this? IMO....and I say this straight out, a religion which clashes with science (and culture! and sociological developments over millennia can not be "right". I want to have the freedom to have a belief WITHOUT those restrains. I don't want a religion where science is considered the "enemy".



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
very interesting thread S+F il present some ideas in a moment.


I mainly have problems with the aspect of it being towards new testament christian views mostely though but i thought it was
amuzing.

Do you comtemplate instant creation such as many of these *creationists* prepose?

I personally cannot fathom such things as it is portrayed.
But again, Il have to read and contribute. Thanks for making this thread, I wish to discuse hypothetical physics with the OP.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Quick pro quo: What is your motivation? Why is it you so clearly are intent on dodging good questions and efforts at dialog? Your every step returns to the very futility you accuse your opponents of. You are the epitome of an individual who is dogmatic about anti-dogma. It's kind of sad really. You see yourself as so much more than a religious person who can't see through their own doctrine, without seeing through your own.

The blind leading the blind.

Well, If anything, we can say I tried. More than I can say for you.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Don't take it so literally, the word for earth in the original texts does mean more than "earth", it can be conveyed as "matter" "soil" "dust" "earth" among other things.

So...In the beginning God created all the dimensions(heaven and the earth, (immaterial dimensions and the material dimension)), the matter had not yet taken form (the flow of phi and pi in the mainframe of the universe among other constants), and darkness was over the whole material world. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of all the matter.

And God said: Let there be light(and there were suns, or maybe just the original explosion from the big bang...), and there was light, and God saw that the suns(or the big bang) were good, and he seperated the form of photons from other matter(which is darkness...) and so on and so forth...

Then read on about the seperateness of matter from other matter and the expansion of the universe via big bang (law of atoms and how a cluster of them acts with other clusters of them...)

It ain't that hard to let go of all you've been told about what the text says and apply "advanced" science upon it.





posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by AnuTyr
 


Lets not attempt to frame the debate within such a narrow framework, shall we? After all, that is not what the OP was about.




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I agree with the OP.



When an atheist totally ignores this science they should stop and think if they are being totally intellectually honest with themselves, of coarse it opens possibilities that cognitive disonace my not want to ever ponder.

The real question is why ?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I don't think you read any of my posts. Perspective. The perspective of the Genesis account is from the surface of the earth. It isn't from God's perspective, it's from Man's.

The sun was the source of diffused light.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


Point of the post proven again.

Can you show me the scripture where the bible says the earth is 6000 years old?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join