Science and religion both side of the same coin?

[Asimov]

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

any view of the afterlife or god scientifically correct?

just wondering

 

Religion is inherently non-scientific by definition.

 

A belief...well...it depends on the context of what you mean by believe. If a belief is justified, and coincides with scientific thought then yes, there are.

 

What do you mean by afterlife or god?

[willybilly30]

i know that their is no proof god exists. i guess im wondering can you think their might be a god and an afterlife and believe in science at the same time. most religions i have studied seem to have alot of mythological mumbo jumbo thats against science. religion without the mumbo jumbo would be something i would like to study if it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

what do i mean by god?

ok i think something created everything the universe came from something. everything that exists began somewere had a starting point i think something made it happen. i dont know what it is or who it is i just call it god cause i dont know what else to call it.

 

what do i mean by afterlife?

i can not see non existance i cant see something dying and not existing i cant help but think some way some how when something dies it still lives or will live again. i dont know what it will be but i just cant see the theory of not existing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

any view of the afterlife or god scientifically correct?

just wondering

 

Religion is inherently non-scientific by definition.

 

A belief...well...it depends on the context of what you mean by believe. If a belief is justified, and coincides with scientific thought then yes, there are.

 

What do you mean by afterlife or god?

[willybilly30]

i think i will research some of the paths i have seen mentioned here.

deism, pantheism and taoism they dont seem to have so much mythological stuff.

[Asimov]

what do i mean by god?

ok i think something created everything the universe came from something. everything that exists began somewere had a starting point i think something made it happen. i dont know what it is or who it is i just call it god cause i dont know what else to call it.

 

In other words, you don't know what you mean by God. How do you know that everything that exists began somewhere? Can you provide any sort of logical proof to test this out? This sounds like the Cosmological Argument.

 

what do i mean by afterlife?

i can not see non existance i cant see something dying and not existing i cant help but think some way some how when something dies it still lives or will live again. i dont know what it will be but i just cant see the theory of not existing

 

Dying is the opposite of living, how can something live again if it dies? You mean the soul? What is a soul? Do you know what non-existence is?

 

Theory of not existing? It's not a theory, it's a fact that we die.

[qadeshet]

Evolution is fact, based on 150 years of Scientific testing. Creationists seem to have no real idea on how Science works. But even if Evolution could be proved wrong, that still wouldn't prove the Bible is right. We could spend hours debunking Creationism and a closed mind would remain closed. It simply doesn't matter what you believe. All life evolved and you can't change that fact.

[willybilly30]

everything begins somewhere look at the world around you everything has had a beginning. how can something come from nothing?

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, you don't know what you mean by God. How do you know that everything that exists began somewhere? Can you provide any sort of logical proof to test this out? This sounds like the Cosmological Argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dying is the opposite of living, how can something live again if it dies?

maybe a spirit or a billion years later scientists will resurrect everyone. scientists can now clone a sheep some day they will probally know how to resurrect the dead.

 

 

 

 

 

You mean the soul? What is a soul?

it is possible we have a soul. the spirit our self the body cannot work without the spirit.

 

 

 

 

Do you know what non-existence is?

 

Theory of not existing? It's not a theory, it's a fact that we die.

 

 

not existing is being unconscious you dont think your just lying their being maggot food. you dont think, see or feel you just dont exist. you family and freinds who die are just like computers thats been shut off just laying their with no thoughts, feelings or emotions. i dont see how you beleive this with out being scared and going insane.

i was calling the not existing part a theory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i dont believe in the bible

i believe in evolution

i believe something started it.

[SkepticOfBible]

But isn't that the origination of sin? Or is sin something different? Sin is either described as disobediance or as separation from God,

 

Just like everything else the bible doesn't give any clear answer, apparently even obeying God's command is a sin. Remember the story of the King David where he was following god order and suddenly realised he had sinned.

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/lookatsatan.htm

 

And if sinning means disobeying god's law, then I suppose they christians sin everyday cause they observe the sabbath nor do they follow circumcision ritual and they eat shellfish quite easily.

 

So why did God curse them with death?

Probably with Immediate death, otherwise if death was not part of their lifespan, than why would God prohibit them from eating from the fruit of life

 

and Jesus supposed death and resurrection undo that?

Well Jesus did not had to die in the first place, there was no point, he was not a valid a sin sacrifice

 

Unless A&E's actions are strongly interconnected with the so called "original sin"?

 

Just like the other concept such as baptism and the devil, this is another NT invention. The concept of "original sin" doesn't exist in the OT.

 

By that logic, babies who die of natural reason are pretty much burning in hell, because of inherited sin

[♦ ficino ♦]

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.

 

 

Great way to encapsulate the difference, Dhampir. I think it's more accurate to deny the "both sides of the same coin" analogy, but that's just my different take on its wording. Maybe another way to put it is to suppose that religious and mystical thinking preceded scientific thinking historically but paved the way for it, in that thinkers approached some of the same problems but with different methods.

[NotBlinded]

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.

No, what I am saying is that they all say the same thing (including Christianity). You even say so on your second line above. How is 'god' mutally exclusive when the words used to describe it say the same thing? What that tells me is that all these religions are trying to convey a point. The only way to try to get this point across is to describe this Entity/God/Consciousness with language in the form of metaphor that relates to the people's culture. They are described in different context, but point to the same thing.

[Amethyst]

i guess im wondering can you think their might be a god and an afterlife and believe in science at the same time.

 

IIRC, that is basically what deists believe. You can look them up. I highly suggest reading the Age of Reason.

 

Dying is the opposite of living, how can something live again if it dies? You mean the soul? What is a soul? Do you know what non-existence is?

 

Theory of not existing? It's not a theory, it's a fact that we die.

 

Yeah. Not existing isn't a theory. Willy, there is no scientific evidence of souls. There is stuff that's unexplained, but so far, nobody has been able to prove that we have souls, much less that they go someplace after we die.

 

I think you'll find eventually that a lot of religion is just wishful thinking. Most people are scared to death (no pun intended) by the idea of not existing at all, so they make up fairy tales about the afterlife to console themselves after a loved one dies, or when a complete asshole dies whose victims never got justice in life.

 

Nobody knows for sure, but I'm willing to bet that if there is an afterlife, it won't matter what religion we were in life. Death does not discriminate. Why should the afterlife discriminate, if there is one?

[Ssel]

How can a person compare the compatibilities of 2 ideologies if they understand one as reasonably logical but, not truly understanding the other, they can only see it as perhaps myth?

 

My claim was (and is) that once you TRULY understand what was being talked about, THEN you can see how they were, in fact not only talking about the same things, but they were both fundamentally right.

 

I grant you that science began from the bottom and looked at things from an object by object point of view so as to be very certain of each "truth". Whereas religion began from someone realizing how all things work in certain patterns. Moses noticed that ALL things basically work from the same fundamental effort. This is very similar to science saying that ALL things are made of energy.

 

Did science go examine ALL things? Does the scientist understand exactly what Moses was referring to?

 

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible..."

That is one of the most important things to say that I have seen in this forum. Until you can understanding it to the point where there is NO magic or superstition involved, then you don't yet understand it. You have to gain an understanding of the words being used before you even begin to argue what was really being said.

 

The words they use in religions refer to very real (scientific) things. IF your understanding of the words refer to magical things, then you're not understanding the words. The SCC is caught in this trap of misunderstanding exactly what their originators were really saying. They still believe in Santa Claus because they have no one to clear it up for them.

 

As long as you're thinking "magical", you don't understand. (That is exactly what the word "understanding" refers to.) And thus, you can not compare.

 

The height of the mountain refers to understanding, not merely being aware of a fantasy version.

 

 

Any time science discovers the mechanism that caused something, they say “We see the cause, we see no God.” As science progresses they see more and more causes but still see no God. If science were, by whatever future means, to discover a mechanism that could have started the universe, they would again proclaim, “We see the cause of all things now, and we still have seen no God.” The alternative is that they might say, “We can now see this mechanism and have found God.” But is God an intelligent mechanism?

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=122399

[willybilly30]

what is IIRC?

the idea of an afterlife and seeing family whose died and living forever is such a hard idea to give up.

having no proof of it is also scary if you die you wonder if your going to a after life or cease to exist.

i think death is my biggest fear i think i fear it more than anything on earth that could happen to me.

i dont know how to deal with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i guess im wondering can you think their might be a god and an afterlife and believe in science at the same time.

 

IIRC, that is basically what deists believe. You can look them up. I highly suggest reading the Age of Reason.

 

Dying is the opposite of living, how can something live again if it dies? You mean the soul? What is a soul? Do you know what non-existence is?

 

Theory of not existing? It's not a theory, it's a fact that we die.

 

Yeah. Not existing isn't a theory. Willy, there is no scientific evidence of souls. There is stuff that's unexplained, but so far, nobody has been able to prove that we have souls, much less that they go someplace after we die.

 

I think you'll find eventually that a lot of religion is just wishful thinking. Most people are scared to death (no pun intended) by the idea of not existing at all, so they make up fairy tales about the afterlife to console themselves after a loved one dies, or when a complete asshole dies whose victims never got justice in life.

 

Nobody knows for sure, but I'm willing to bet that if there is an afterlife, it won't matter what religion we were in life. Death does not discriminate. Why should the afterlife discriminate, if there is one?

[NotBlinded]

what is IIRC?

the idea of an afterlife and seeing family whose died and living forever is such a hard idea to give up.

having no proof of it is also scary if you die you wonder if your going to a after life or cease to exist.

i think death is my biggest fear i think i fear it more than anything on earth that could happen to me.

i dont know how to deal with it.

Maybe if you looked at birth as the opposite of death and not life, then could you logically conclude that life has no opposite? Just a thought.

[Asimov]

everything begins somewhere look at the world around you everything has had a beginning. how can something come from nothing?

 

Who said it came from nothing?

 

We are all just energy, willy...since energy can neither be created nor destroyed as far as we know, nothing began to exist.

 

not existing is being unconscious you dont think your just lying their being maggot food. you dont think, see or feel you just dont exist. you family and freinds who die are just like computers thats been shut off just laying their with no thoughts, feelings or emotions. i dont see how you beleive this with out being scared and going insane.

i was calling the not existing part a theory

 

I don't believe it, it's a fact that we die, willy. Our brains are who we are. If that dies, then we aren't who we are. Maybe the collection of matter that makes up "us" is gone, but that matter is still there and will never go away.

 

i dont believe in the bible

i believe in evolution

i believe something started it.

 

Why?

 

what is IIRC?

the idea of an afterlife and seeing family whose died and living forever is such a hard idea to give up.

having no proof of it is also scary if you die you wonder if your going to a after life or cease to exist.

i think death is my biggest fear i think i fear it more than anything on earth that could happen to me.

i dont know how to deal with it.

 

Wishful thinking, willy. Most people want to live forever so they make up an "afterlife".

[NotBlinded]

everything begins somewhere look at the world around you everything has had a beginning. how can something come from nothing?

 

Who said it came from nothing?

 

We are all just energy, willy...since energy can neither be created nor destroyed as far as we know, nothing began to exist.

Nor will it cease to exist. And if we are energy, wouldn't it logically follow that the energy that we are will continue to exist? (Don't ask me in what form, because I don't know. )

[SkepticOfBible]

 

No, what I am saying is that they all say the same thing (including Christianity). You even say so on your second line above. How is 'god' mutally exclusive when the words used to describe it say the same thing?

 

Well for starters they both the Islamic and christian god says that he is only true one and other god are false.

 

 

What that tells me is that all these religions are trying to convey a point. The only way to try to get this point across is to describe this Entity/God/Consciousness with language in the form of metaphor that relates to the people's culture. They are described in different context, but point to the same thing.

 

As a former Hindu I used to think in the same way, but once I actually sat down and read what the idealogies actually say, I changed my mind.

 

They may have a lot of similarities for sure, but to say that they are all same would be a false statement.

[NotBlinded]

 

No, what I am saying is that they all say the same thing (including Christianity). You even say so on your second line above. How is 'god' mutally exclusive when the words used to describe it say the same thing?

 

Well for starters they both the Islamic and christian god says that he is only true one and other god are false.

But what are these books referring to when it says that other gods are false? Were they idols or gods that fulfill a person's material (egoic) desires? If so, then maybe both books are referring to the same 'Thing' (I didn't want to use god here because of the tendancy to picture a being).

What that tells me is that all these religions are trying to convey a point. The only way to try to get this point across is to describe this Entity/God/Consciousness with language in the form of metaphor that relates to the people's culture. They are described in different context, but point to the same thing.

 

As a former Hindu I used to think in the same way, but once I actually sat down and read what the idealogies actually say, I changed my mind.

 

They may have a lot of similarities for sure, but to say that they are all same would be a false statement.

But, I didn't say they are the same thing, I said they point to the same thing. Try not to mistake the thing that is pointing for the thing itself.

 

Can it not be possible that several different stories are conveying the same message?

 

Edit: It was my error. I did say they say the same thing in the top quote. I apologize.

[Amethyst]

what is IIRC?

 

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly.

 

Tech Dictionary has definitions of various chat slang.

[Ssel]

The "false gods" are the principles that seemed to have had total control over a situation, but with deeper examination, they are discovered to be really dependant on a higher principle. Science has a few "false gods" when you look at a few of the past corrections that had to be made.

 

A "god" is that which totally controls the outcome of a situation, much like a scientific principle. Those who worshipped the principles they thought were controlling things were thinking that they had a solid and logical bead on reality (not a magical ghost thingy). Moses, among others proved them wrong.

[SkepticOfBible]

But what are these books referring to when it says that other gods are false?

Any God which is not described in that book?Islam explicitly says that the christian god is false, the bible explicitly says that the God "Baal' is false.

 

You would obviously agree that both Islam, Christianity and Judaism are exclusivist religion,(ie it denies other religions as being true)

[Ssel]

If you were an Egyptian 3000 years ago and you had a pretty realistic understanding of the principles of warfare and of weather. How could you have made a record such that no one would misunderstand your hieroglyphics and later worship without really understanding exactly what you meant?

 

The problem is that ancients were very limited by their written language. They made pictograms, symbols for the basics concepts. What else could they do? When they demonstrated that they truly understood a basic idea, they gained a following. But the followers allows have a degree of error, and the larger the following, the greater errors become a part of the following.

 

Those who follow without questioning tend to advance in their society such as to become the wealthy and leave a greater legacy. They teach their children what they understood. but what they understood was mostly "follow what some other guy had said". This understanding is always skewed a bit. It is exactly the same as someone following a calculus formula but not really understanding how the formula was formed. He would advance faster than the one who tried to truly understand every detail.

 

The more serious understandings get lost as the wealth of the non-questioner displaces them with more vague notions. The fact that the understanding basically worked is what caused its original respect. The lack of detailed written language along with the effect of faster advancing fundamentalists causes the effect that you see as you look into history.

 

Science has ever reason to follow the exact same course. Science has far more advancing followers than those few who truly understand the exact details. If not for the more detailed language, especially concerning mathematics, science would already be no more than a worshipful religion incapable of proving its foundations.

 

The Yin-Yang symbol, although not entirely accurate, is amazingly representative of a very fundamental concept concerning opposites in reality. If they had made one side slightly larger than the other (the yin side, if I remember right), then it would be even more accurate and much of science today would have been affected by this tiny change from an extremely old symbol.

 

The "Bohr atom" picture is a false and misleading image. This poor representation led PLank into creating what we now call quantum mechanics. A better representation of the reality of the atom would have resolved the questions that Plank had long ago.

 

But what are these books referring to when it says that other gods are false?

Any God which is not described in that book?Islam explicitly says that the christian god is false, the bible explicitly says that the God "Baal' is false.

 

You would obviously agree that both Islam, Christianity and Judaism are exclusivist religion,(ie it denies other religions as being true)

ALL gods are considered false by a new understanding of Reality. The interesting thing is, that you can have 2 exactly correct understandings of the same reality. These would create 2 forms of a "god". Followers of each might proclaim the other as false, even though they are really talking about merely 2 different ways of looking at the same Reality.

 

But what are these books referring to when it says that other gods are false?

If you remember, the God of the Bible told Moses that God would make Moses a "god" before the Pharaoh. This is due to Moses being able to display a very serious reality despite the Pharaoh wanting to keep things the way they were.

 

false god = every understanding or principle that isn't really the most fundamental understanding or principle involved. What the Bible God was saying is "DON'T worship any understanding other than what I AM." Else you will be proven wrong by Reality itself and fall into misery.

[NotBlinded]

But what are these books referring to when it says that other gods are false?

Any God which is not described in that book?Islam explicitly says that the christian god is false, the bible explicitly says that the God "Baal' is false.

 

You would obviously agree that both Islam, Christianity and Judaism are exclusivist religion,(ie it denies other religions as being true)

ALL gods are considered false by a new understanding of Reality. The interesting thing is, that you can have 2 exactly correct understandings of the same reality. These would create 2 forms of a "god". Followers of each might proclaim the other as false, even though they are really talking about merely 2 different ways of looking at the same Reality.

Yes. They are claiming the other is false by judging the words as the meaning itself. (I don't know if I am saying that right.)

 

But what are these books referring to when it says that other gods are false?

If you remember, the God of the Bible told Moses that God would make Moses a "god" before the Pharaoh. This is due to Moses being able to display a very serious reality despite the Pharaoh wanting to keep things the way they were.

 

false god = every understanding or principle that isn't really the most fundamental understanding or principle involved. What the Bible God was saying is "DON'T worship any understanding other than what I AM." Else you will be proven wrong by Reality itself and fall into misery.

Great way to understand that. Thanks.

[Ssel]

They are claiming the other is false by judging the words as the meaning itself. (I don't know if I am saying that right.)

OR perhaps they simply couldn't see it from the other perspective. Like a Chinese Dr. and an American Dr. They look at the same body but view the problems from a different perspective. It isn't an issue of right or wrong, but merely which grouping of ideas your accustom to working with.

[willybilly30]

what would that mean? being reborn?

 

 

what is IIRC?

the idea of an afterlife and seeing family whose died and living forever is such a hard idea to give up.

having no proof of it is also scary if you die you wonder if your going to a after life or cease to exist.

i think death is my biggest fear i think i fear it more than anything on earth that could happen to me.

i dont know how to deal with it.

Maybe if you looked at birth as the opposite of death and not life, then could you logically conclude that life has no opposite? Just a thought.

[Ssel]

what would that mean? being reborn?

When you go to sleep at night, the life (spirit) in you "dies" temporarily. When you awake, that energy comes back to "life".

 

When they are speaking of spiritually dying, they are meaning that your efforts in life, your spirit, has dwindled and isn't likely to return. If you give up on trying to live, then you have "died" even though your body still functions, you have lost your spirit.

 

To be "reborn" means that you have given up on your prior spirit of life, the prior ways of behaving and prior priorities. Then you accept a new way to live with a new set of priorities. This tends to change your character. It also changes the way that you look at life and the way you handle problems.

 

To be reborn simply means that you start your life over, giving prior concerns no regard. To be reborn "in Christ" means to drop all prior worries and accept Jesus' way of handling life (not a fundy's).

 

A person could be reborn into Satanism or Nazism, or Socialism, or Mohammadism, or Buddhism,...

 

 

This leads to the old question, "How old was Jesus when He was born?" The fundy and most others who are not metaphorically inclined argue about whether it is 0, 9 months, or infinite (meaning that He was always around). Those with understanding say "30". For this is when He realized those things that made Him what he is. They are speaking of the spirit Jesus, not the body.

 

And this is when the 3 "wise men/kings" came to Him baring gifts of "gold, frankincense, and mir"

 

gold - wealth

frankincense - health

mir - spirit

 

What we today refer to as "Health wealth, and happiness"