Science and religion both side of the same coin?

[Dark Helmet]

Hmm I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but anyhow...

 

I couldn't help but notice Ssel's sig line :

 

Science and Religion ARE two sides of the same mountain,

but one can only see BOTH sides from the very top.

--Problem is, it's far more fun to throw stones than to climb--

 

I'm not sure I agree with the analogy there. Consider this : science deals with the physical world, religion with the psyche. Both are related : the human psyche comes from the brain, which is dependent upon chemistry, and so is based in science. But the contrary is not true, science is not based upon religion (no, evolution it not a religion ) so can they really reflect a common 'object', or rather is it that one is a subset from the other?

 

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

 

DH

[Vigile]

I'm not sure I agree with the analogy there. Consider this : science deals with the physical world, religion with the psyche.

 

I don't know. I would go so far as to say that science deals with the real world and religion deals with an imaginary world. I have yet to see any reasonable proof that any religion should be taken seriously or should receive legitimate consideration in this context. Now I suppose SSEL will tell me that's because my intellect doesn't reach down to the same depths his does though.

[NotBlinded]

I think they are compatable. Evolution doesn't deny a god (nor does abiogenesis). They both are trying to describe origins (same mountain). Science does it by noticing the effect and working towards the cause. Religion does it by noticing the cause and then viewing the effects (science plays a great part here in explaining the effects). I think they point to the same thing - an energy in the universe, and this energy is all pervasive.

 

But, there are egos on the mountain that do not allow for each to recognize they are saying the same thing. The Rock of Egos (hehe...just a little spin from the Rock of Ages ).

[No Heaven for Kevin]

It seems to me that science = reason, and religion = faith. There is a lot of philisophical argument about the relationship between the two, but, personally, I don't think they are two sides of the same coin. IMHO, faith is the enemy of reason, and reason has a way of destroying faith.

[Amethyst]

No. It's like comparing apples to pizzas.

 

It seems to me that science = reason, and religion = faith. There is a lot of philisophical argument about the relationship between the two, but, personally, I don't think they are two sides of the same coin. IMHO, faith is the enemy of reason, and reason has a way of destroying faith.

 

Agreed. It's like fire and water, impossible to combine unless you contain one, and one will always destroy the other.

 

Science is the opposite of religion. It uses experimentation and observation.

 

With religion, you cannot experiment or observe. You cannot test religious beliefs the same way you can test a hypothesis to see whether it is valid or not. You can only believe, and once that wall of belief cracks because of some scientific evidence that disproves it, you are either bound to try and repatch the wall as more and more cracks form, or to take the wall down completely and step into the real world.

 

With science, you're not closing yourself off from reality, so you don't have to constantly repatch the wall of delusions built by religion.

[SkepticOfBible]

I think they are compatable. Evolution doesn't deny a god (nor does abiogenesis). They both are trying to describe origins (same mountain). Science does it by noticing the effect and working towards the cause. Religion does it by noticing the cause and then viewing the effects (science plays a great part here in explaining the effects). I think they point to the same thing - an energy in the universe, and this energy is all pervasive.

 

I sort of agree with you a lot. For me panentheism explains a lot to me.

 

But here is the thing

 

Science will change "dogma" once it recieves new informations, whereas the same cannot be said of religion

 

Evolution does however deny the christian god

[NotBlinded]

I think they are compatable. Evolution doesn't deny a god (nor does abiogenesis). They both are trying to describe origins (same mountain). Science does it by noticing the effect and working towards the cause. Religion does it by noticing the cause and then viewing the effects (science plays a great part here in explaining the effects). I think they point to the same thing - an energy in the universe, and this energy is all pervasive.

 

I sort of agree with you a lot. For me panentheism explains a lot to me.

 

But here is the thing

 

Science will change "dogma" once it recieves new informations, whereas the same cannot be said of religion

 

Evolution does however deny the christian god

 

You're right, science will change and that should not in any way threaten those that believe in a creator. It does, however, threaten those that believe the bible and all other religions that mistake the words for the thing (god) itself. It would seem obvious that when these books are taken at face value, they are ridiculous. But alas, such is the way of the world.

 

It does deny the christian god in the way it is understood by fundamentalists, but it doesn't really deny the christian god.

[Dark Helmet]

I think they are compatable. Evolution doesn't deny a god (nor does abiogenesis). They both are trying to describe origins (same mountain). Science does it by noticing the effect and working towards the cause. Religion does it by noticing the cause and then viewing the effects (science plays a great part here in explaining the effects). I think they point to the same thing - an energy in the universe, and this energy is all pervasive.

 

But, there are egos on the mountain that do not allow for each to recognize they are saying the same thing. The Rock of Egos (hehe...just a little spin from the Rock of Ages ).

 

Interesting position, viewed in that light they seem to be compatible but science has one advantage : evidence. Religion is faith, belief in the absence of evidence. So in describing the origins (life, universe, whatever) they are pretty much opposite approaches, although one does not invalid the other. I guess it's a matter of preference (I go for evidence personally ).

[NotBlinded]

Interesting position, viewed in that light they seem to be compatible but science has one advantage : evidence. Religion is faith, belief in the absence of evidence. So in describing the origins (life, universe, whatever) they are pretty much opposite approaches, although one does not invalid the other. I guess it's a matter of preference (I go for evidence personally ).

Yeah, I guess it could be said that one starts at the top of the mountain and the other starts at the bottom to arrive in the same place.

[SkepticOfBible]

It does deny the christian god in the way it is understood by fundamentalists, but it doesn't really deny the christian god.

 

How does that work? Could you explain to what do you mean by the christian god and how evolution doesn't deny that?

[NotBlinded]

It does deny the christian god in the way it is understood by fundamentalists, but it doesn't really deny the christian god.

 

How does that work? Could you explain to what do you mean by the christian god and how evolution doesn't deny that?

I will give just a few examples that I can think of to maybe show what I am talking about.

 

Jesus (real or not) told of how "before Abraham was, I am". This tells me that whatever exists inside of Jesus was there before Abraham. He didn't say (or was it accredited to him as saying), I was here before Abraham because that would show the passing of time and would make Jesus god. Notice how the tense of the statement changes from past (was) to present (am). So, whatever it is that is inside of Jesus ("I and the Father are one") has always been there (before Jesus) and I take it to mean that it is everywhere ("Turn over a rock and you will find me" - Thomas) including us. Evolution can be understood as being the process (or medium) through which this god/consciousness works. Jesus may have been a teacher, but he wasn't god any more than any of us.

 

So when taken as an esoteric understanding, evolution does nothing to negate it.

[No Heaven for Kevin]

Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing here, as I am only familiar with the U.S. brand of fundamentalist Christianity. The Bible (especially SaulPaul) is very clear in saying one should accept ignorance for the sake of believing in God. He said "faith is the evidence of things not seen". I don't think it's any coincidence that people of this faith have gone out of their way to supress reason, as there is inherently no science or reason in this sort of faith.

 

So in our particular flavor of religion vs reason, you do not get to the same place by starting at the top or bottom of the mountain. If you start with faith (i.e. I believe the Bible is the word of God), and then apply scientific reasoning to that faith, you will find no harmony. In other words, our Christianity is an abosolute belief, with dates, histories, laws, etc. . One classic example is that the Bible traces every generation back to the creation of the world, but that directly contradicts the evidence that has been supplied by science.

 

I'm sorry that I don't know more about panentheism, but I'll assume for now that it's more of a harmonic belief, in that the universe is god and visa versa (again, forgive my ignorance, feel free to correct me). In that case, no matter what you find in science, you can always say that's just a part of god. They are intimately married, without any absolutes, so one will always support the other.

[NotBlinded]

Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing here, as I am only familiar with the U.S. brand of fundamentalist Christianity. The Bible (especially SaulPaul) is very clear in saying one should accept ignorance for the sake of believing in God. He said "faith is the evidence of things not seen". I don't think it's any coincidence that people of this faith have gone out of their way to supress reason, as there is inherently no science or reason in this sort of faith.

 

So in our particular flavor of religion vs reason, you do not get to the same place by starting at the top or bottom of the mountain. If you start with faith (i.e. I believe the Bible is the word of God), and then apply scientific reasoning to that faith, you will find no harmony. In other words, our Christianity is an abosolute belief, with dates, histories, laws, etc. . One classic example is that the Bible traces every generation back to the creation of the world, but that directly contradicts the evidence that has been supplied by science.

I couldn't agree more with you when you are arguing against this understanding of the bible. I just think that this understanding was inflicted on people by force and by ignorance (I do not mean that in a derogatory manner). Maybe I should call it forced ignorance.

 

I'm sorry that I don't know more about panentheism, but I'll assume for now that it's more of a harmonic belief, in that the universe is god and visa versa (again, forgive my ignorance, feel free to correct me). In that case, no matter what you find in science, you can always say that's just a part of god. They are intimately married, without any absolutes, so one will always support the other.

That's what I'm talkin' about!

 

The arguments die and the mountain becomes understood and the rocks are no longer thrown. There is a force of some sort that causes one to be alive and causes all matter to form into what it is and change into something else. It's something, but what? I don't know.

 

I like this saying by Eckhart Tolle (I think!): "I am the awareness that hears my thoughts."

[Ouroboros]

Evolution does however deny the christian god

Why?

 

Not if you read Genesis as an allegory, and not literal. I've met Christians that believe in evolution.

 

The only problem it creates is the literal explanation of sin in humanity, but the genesis story could be read as a description of why every human are falling into sin by trying to become God and trusting their own senses more than God. (Don't think that I personally believe this though.)

 

It's only a problem for those who make it a problem. Evolution could have been the tool the supposed God used, even the Christian kind.

[NotBlinded]

The only problem it creates is the literal explanation of sin in humanity, but the genesis story could be read as a description of why every human are falling into sin by trying to become God and trusting their own senses more than God. (Don't think that I personally believe this though.)

I like to understand sin as understanding that we are separate from all that is. So, humans are trying to become like gods by the way of their egos. They already are like gods that know good from bad (through evolution). The problem that arrises with this knowledge is that of separation from everything else by the ego as setting oneself as good and the other bad, one as right and the other as wrong, shame of nakedness; all this removes us from our connection with "All that Is". I think this is what is meant by the allegory. This is the only sin, not recognizing our source, and this is why we have not done a very good job with the knowledge (be like gods) we have. Our egos are in the way and this is what the allegory perdicts or alludes to.

[Amethyst]

Not if you read Genesis as an allegory, and not literal. I've met Christians that believe in evolution.

 

When I was Christian, I believed in God & evolution. Most moderates do. It's generally only the fundies that refuse to accept evolution in some way, shape, or form.

[Ouroboros]

The only problem it creates is the literal explanation of sin in humanity, but the genesis story could be read as a description of why every human are falling into sin by trying to become God and trusting their own senses more than God. (Don't think that I personally believe this though.)

I like to understand sin as understanding that we are separate from all that is. So, humans are trying to become like gods by the way of their egos. They already are like gods that know good from bad (through evolution). The problem that arrises with this knowledge is that of separation from everything else by the ego as setting oneself as good and the other bad, one as right and the other as wrong, shame of nakedness; all this removes us from our connection with "All that Is". I think this is what is meant by the allegory. This is the only sin, not recognizing our source, and this is why we have not done a very good job with the knowledge (be like gods) we have. Our egos are in the way and this is what the allegory perdicts or alludes to.

Right you are, and I understand what you're saying, and I could have elaborated a bit more on my post.

 

Knowledge (or science) is a two edged sword, it can be used for good and evil, and that's what the "fruit" symbolize, knowledge can be used for good and for evil, not only the knowledge of the good and the evil.

 

I like to think of Genesis as the story of how the first Neanderthals started to think and invent things. When the brain had evolved to such a level that the first humans began to question and make tools and draw on the walls in the caves, that's when the "original sin" came into the world. The human killed each other the same way as before, but now, he was aware of it and started to rationalize why and how and who. The intent to kill someone started to exist in the mind and the killing instinct became only secondary. Before that killing was done out of necessity, but now the animal-human could plan and figure out ways to gain from it. And this goes is told in the Cain and Abel story. When humans became aware like this, they also became aware of "right" and "wrong", and the whole "sin" concept is built on the thinking of right vs. wrong on a global scale.

 

So to sum it up, Genesis tell us the mythological story of how the first humans became aware of his own existence and his actions, through evolution.

[NotBlinded]

Right you are, and I understand what you're saying, and I could have elaborated a bit more on my post.

 

Knowledge (or science) is a two edged sword, it can be used for good and evil, and that's what the "fruit" symbolize, knowledge can be used for good and for evil, not only the knowledge of the good and the evil.

 

I like to think of Genesis as the story of how the first Neanderthals started to think and invent things. When the brain had evolved to such a level that the first humans began to question and make tools and draw on the walls in the caves, that's when the "original sin" came into the world. The human killed each other the same way as before, but now, he was aware of it and started to rationalize why and how and who. The intent to kill someone started to exist in the mind and the killing instinct became only secondary. Before that killing was done out of necessity, but now the animal-human could plan and figure out ways to gain from it. And this goes is told in the Cain and Abel story. When humans became aware like this, they also became aware of "right" and "wrong", and the whole "sin" concept is built on the thinking of right vs. wrong on a global scale.

 

So to sum it up, Genesis tell us the mythological story of how the first humans became aware of his own existence and his actions, through evolution.

Yes! You just gave me goosebumps! You said it much better than I did.

[SkepticOfBible]

Jesus (real or not) told of how "before Abraham was, I am". This tells me that whatever exists inside of Jesus was there before Abraham. He didn't say (or was it accredited to him as saying), I was here before Abraham because that would show the passing of time and would make Jesus god. Notice how the tense of the statement changes from past (was) to present (am). So, whatever it is that is inside of Jesus ("I and the Father are one") has always been there (before Jesus) and I take it to mean that it is everywhere ("Turn over a rock and you will find me" - Thomas) including us. Evolution can be understood as being the process (or medium) through which this god/consciousness works. Jesus may have been a teacher, but he wasn't god any more than any of us.

 

Well you are assuming that the christian god is the only one who made this claim

 

Buddha, Allah and Krishna made the same claim that they had existed long before time was made.

 

So how do you which God is the correct one, since they are all mutually exclusive gods?Either one of them are correct or none of them are.

[SkepticOfBible]

Evolution does however deny the christian god

Not if you read Genesis as an allegory, and not literal. I've met Christians that believe in evolution.

 

Well how do decide that Genesis is supposed to be read as allegory?By giving allegorical method neither the Muslim or the Hindu account of creationism cannot be denied.

 

 

but the genesis story could be read as a description of why every human are falling into sin by trying to become God and trusting their own senses more than God. (Don't think that I personally believe this though.)

 

Contrary to Saint Paul teaching, Adam and Eve was not kicked out Eden because they sinned, it was because they acquired the "knowledge of Good and evil" just God and his Angels, and God not want them to from the tree of life, and hereby becoming immortal.

 

And the Etrnl God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree Of Life, and eat, and live for ever:: Therefore the Etrnl God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the Tree Of Life. [Genesis 3:22-24]

 

The biblical God had designed death as part of the life from the moment of creation.

 

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation05.html

 

If you read the Genesis book, the first official "sin" was commited by Cain against Able, and not by Adam and Eve.

[Dhampir]

Science and Religion aren't necessarily compatible, but I do think they are but two sides of the same coin. Ssel's little analogy falls short when he says that thing about only seeing the whole form the top. Aside from the fact that technically a coin has no top, his argument states that one cannot truly understand without an embracing of religion as well as science.

 

Science and religion are the same in that both were developed to explain the natural universe.

 

That is it. Religion starts by making an observation, same as science, but then it goes on to posit explanations with little to no basis in the original observation, explanations which neither require, nor can be subjected to any testing.

 

Ultimately, only the most progressive aspects of the most progressive religions acheive ongoing... ...progress... to match the rate of acheivements in the past which they build upon.

 

Science begins with observations, posits hypotheses, tests them, tests them again, forms theories, tests and modifies the theories as new information becomes available, and never moves backward in any respect.

[Ouroboros]

Evolution does however deny the christian god

Not if you read Genesis as an allegory, and not literal. I've met Christians that believe in evolution.

 

Well how do decide that Genesis is supposed to be read as allegory?By giving allegorical method neither the Muslim or the Hindu account of creationism cannot be denied.

Correct. No religion can claim the single or ultimate truth, but all can claim to have a piece of the puzzle.

 

By following a specific religion, is just taking one path to understanding of or experiencing the transcendent, and wouldn't be denied by a "generic" God. No path is the only path or the only true path, all paths lead to the same destination.

 

(And still be aware, that I'm an agnostic/atheist, so I'm not trying to convert you Pritishd. )

 

but the genesis story could be read as a description of why every human are falling into sin by trying to become God and trusting their own senses more than God. (Don't think that I personally believe this though.)

 

Contrary to Saint Paul teaching, Adam and Eve was not kicked out Eden because they sinned, it was because they acquired the "knowledge of Good and evil" just God and his Angels, and God not want them to from the tree of life, and hereby becoming immortal.

But isn't that the origination of sin? Or is sin something different? Sin is either described as disobediance or as separation from God, and the acts of A&E and the effect of their acts are that they disobeyed and got separated. And they fell because of the temptation of becoming more than what they were. They wanted to get knowledge. Even though God had commanded them not to.

 

And the Etrnl God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree Of Life, and eat, and live for ever:: Therefore the Etrnl God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the Tree Of Life. [Genesis 3:22-24]

 

The biblical God had designed death as part of the life from the moment of creation.

 

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation05.html

 

If you read the Genesis book, the first official "sin" was commited by Cain against Able, and not by Adam and Eve.

Interesting, I haven't heard it that way before. I don't think many Christians would agree with you, since that means there's no inherited sin to be "saved" from. I always had the understanding that the original sin was from Adam and Eve.

 

So why did God curse them with death, and Jesus supposed death and resurrection undo that? Unless A&E's actions are strongly interconnected with the so called "original sin"?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Scientists live by faith same as spirit-filled believers, just that they put their faith in their own wisdom and not in the unalterable Word of God. A scientist believes that there are microbes in the slide of his microscope; he doesn't know that. He believes the chair he's aiming his butt at will support his weight; he doesn't know. We can only know if our knowledge is based on something inerrant - on the Bible! Praise be to Kryasst! Glory!!

[willybilly30]

Is their any religion, beleif or path that is scientifically correct?

any view of the afterlife or god scientifically correct?

just wondering

[Amethyst]

Is their any religion, beleif or path that is scientifically correct?

any view of the afterlife or god scientifically correct?

just wondering

 

There is not yet any scientific evidence that god exists. Only emotional feelings, which don't prove anything except that many people want a god to exist. But wanting something to be true, and that thing being true, are very different.