more science v religion

[popeye1945]

Perspective on religion-------- https://www.tiktok.com/@thegenxcrew/vid ... pgUnF&_r=1

[MagsJ]

Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.

Religion is conceptual; Science is factual.

Religion is conceptual; Science is factual, and conceptual.

Does not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific? otherwise it’s just a notion or a theory, but not a fact.. until tested, and verified, and proven, as true.

[MagsJ]

Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.

Religion is conceptual; Science is factual.

Religion is mythical, science is wonder and critical thinking, as well as self-correcting.

Religion is not mythical, because it is simply a code of conduct for a Peoples and a Place.. tho yea, it does come with its myths and legends.. true or otherwise.

Science requires evidence, or it is a theory and not a verified fact.. some things can be a fact, contrary to the misconception of popular belief.

[popeye1945]

Mythology is the other man's religion. Religions' foundation is emotional and requires of its adherence an element of anti-intellectualism for an embracing of the irrational.

[Sculptor]

Religion is conceptual; Science is factual.

Religion is conceptual; Science is factual, and conceptual.

Does not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific? otherwise it’s just a notion or a theory, but not a fact.. until tested, and verified, and proven, as true.

Yes, I do say it is factual. It's all about facts. But it cannot avoid concepts else it would not be able to communicate the ideas.

[attofishpi]

Mythology is the other man's religion. Religions' foundation is emotional and requires of its adherence an element of anti-intellectualism for an embracing of the irrational.

This Science V Religion is something rather recent is it not - since the likes of militant atheists, such as Dawkins?
Dawkins has made a fortune out of attacking the most ridiculous aspects of theism - fundamental Christianity for example, where apparently a man spoke the universe into existence.

Science V Religion becomes something of a misnomer once one understands than indeed their IS an intelligence behind the makeup of what we perceive as reality. So to suggest to believe in God, such as Pantheism\Panentheism is anti-intellectual and blatantly irrational is a shortcoming of your own comprehension.

[popeye1945]

[/quote] This Science V Religion is something rather recent is it not - since the likes of militant atheists, such as Dawkins?
Dawkins has made a fortune out of attacking the most ridiculous aspects of theism - fundamental Christianity for example, where apparently a man spoke the universe into existence.
Science V Religion becomes something of a misnomer once one understands than indeed their IS an intelligence behind the makeup of what we perceive as reality. So to suggest to believe in God, such as Pantheism\Panentheism is anti-intellectual and blatantly irrational is a shortcoming of your own comprehension.
[/quote]

attofishpi,

Yes, it is true that before Darwin it was somewhat more difficult to be an atheist or agnostic because there seemed to be an intentional design. Personally, I do not find the desert religions of the west spiritual at all. Panentheism or Spinoza's god really don't qualify in the absurd category neither do many eastern religions, it is just the desert religions I find an insult to one intelligence. If you are able to be honest with yourself it is difficult to get around the fact that the difference between mythology and religion is believing it literally it is then that mythology becomes religion. You seem to be assuming that because things are ordered that there is a literal intelligence behind it, do you assume also that that assumed intelligence is of the anthropromorphic kind of intelligence. I like quoting Einstein and/or Hawkins, Albert, " It is time for humanity to grow up." Hawkings, " Religion is for those who are afraid of the dark." Then there is the talking snake, the devil made me do it!!

[attofishpi]

This Science V Religion is something rather recent is it not - since the likes of militant atheists, such as Dawkins?
Dawkins has made a fortune out of attacking the most ridiculous aspects of theism - fundamental Christianity for example, where apparently a man spoke the universe into existence.
Science V Religion becomes something of a misnomer once one understands than indeed their IS an intelligence behind the makeup of what we perceive as reality. So to suggest to believe in God, such as Pantheism\Panentheism is anti-intellectual and blatantly irrational is a shortcoming of your own comprehension.

attofishpi,

Yes, it is true that before Darwin it was somewhat more difficult to be an atheist or agnostic because there seemed to be an intentional design. Personally, I do not find the desert religions of the west spiritual at all. Panentheism or Spinoza's god really don't qualify in the absurd category neither do many eastern religions, it is just the desert religions I find an insult to one intelligence. If you are able to be honest with yourself it is difficult to get around the fact that the difference between mythology and religion is believing it literally it is then that mythology becomes religion. You seem to be assuming that because things are ordered that there is a literal intelligence behind it, do you assume also that that assumed intelligence is of the anthropromorphic kind of intelligence. I like quoting Einstein and/or Hawkins, Albert, " It is time for humanity to grow up." Hawkings, " Religion is for those who are afraid of the dark." Then there is the talking snake, the devil made me do it!!

I'm not sure whether I find it perplexing or just sad when people insist on quoting others. I could find plenty of quotes of Einstein that would probably insist upon humanity growing up, and comprehending there is something far deeper than that which has been projected by standard religious texts going on...indeed if I could place a bet on it, I'd say he was panetheist.

People can't see Christ for the churches.
Reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth.
- AS.

[popeye1945]

Atto,

Einstein believed in Spinoza's god he was in awe of the unperceived totality of the mystery. As to traditional religions its all quotations of mythical entities at least Einstein and Hawkins were real. You seem to believe in some esoteric spiritual vision, this is not what the general population is into. To my way of thinking any spiritual tradition needs to be fully open to the wonder. The mind is an open system and when one embraces an anthropomorphic god one closes one's self off from the mystery. The most obvious realization is that we are part of something larger than ourselves this realization has morphed in the absurdity of all three of the desert religions. These desert religions are a source of conflict and division in the modern world and rely upon ignorance and anti-intellectualism to maintain their emotional frenzy.

[Sculptor]

Atto,

Einstein believed in Spinoza's god he was in awe of the unperceived totality of the mystery.

As to traditional religions its all quotations of mythical entities at least Einstein and Hawkins were real.

Eh? what does this sentence even mean?

You seem to believe in some esoteric spiritual vision, this is not what the general population is into. To my way of thinking any spiritual tradition needs to be fully open to the wonder. The mind is an open system and when one embraces an anthropomorphic god one closes one's self off from the mystery. The most obvious realization is that we are part of something larger than ourselves this realization has morphed in the absurdity of all three of the desert religions. These desert religions are a source of conflict and division in the modern world and rely upon ignorance and anti-intellectualism to maintain their emotional frenzy.

They were both essentially atheists in the sense of the most common and widespread versions of theism.
Spinoza was declared such by his own community.

[popeye1945]

Sculptor,

As to the statement about quotes, I was accused of appealing to authority, whilst religion appeals to the authority of mythical entities. My own sense is that Atto is inferring some personal esoteric system, my problem is just with anthropomorphic gods. I acknowledge only that there is a great mystery.

[MagsJ]

Mythology is the other man's religion. Religions' foundation is emotional and requires of its adherence an element of anti-intellectualism for an embracing of the irrational.

Modern religions, yes.. or the concept of what we think religion is, which is so far removed from what it originally was.

I don’t see why we can’t abide by both [science and religion] as one guides Us logically, the other.. spiritually/morally.

I don’t think we can get moral values from Science alone.. the unethical practices documented over time, are testament of that.

[MagsJ]

Religion is conceptual; Science is factual, and conceptual.

Does not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific? otherwise it’s just a notion or a theory, but not a fact.. until tested, and verified, and proven, as true.

Yes, I do say it is factual. It's all about facts. But it cannot avoid concepts else it would not be able to communicate the ideas.

True.. the formation of the theory/the idea, materialising into the real/the concrete, and so becoming fact.

It’s a process..

[Age]

Does not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific? otherwise it’s just a notion or a theory, but not a fact.. until tested, and verified, and proven, as true.

Yes, I do say it is factual. It's all about facts. But it cannot avoid concepts else it would not be able to communicate the ideas.

True.. the formation of the theory/the idea, materialising into the real/the concrete, and so becoming fact.

It’s a process..

In fact, 'science' does NOT even deal in, NOR with, 'facts'.

As already pointed out 'science' only deals with 'notions', 'theories', 'assumptions', and/or 'guessess'.

Once some 'thing' becomes an ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Fact, 'science' is NOT needed ANYMORE. As there is NOTHING left to LOOK AT and STUDY 'there'.

[uwot]

Does not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific?

Defining 'science' is like nailing jelly to wall, but a useful guideline is that science starts from facts; things like 'Rocks fall to the ground' or 'People get headaches'. A scientist tries to work out why, with a view to doing something about it, whereas a philosopher sees the answer as an end in itself. A theory is scientific if by applying it you can make some demonstrable difference i.e if you can generate new facts from it. So for example, you might have a theory that taking aspirin will speed up recovery from headache. You can do a study, which could in principle give results that are statistically meaningful; so the study is scientific, even if the theory turns out not to be significant. Likewise a theory that belief in prayer can cure headaches can be measured, and is therefore scientific. However, a theory that it is the intervention of the god you happen to pray to that cures the headache is not scientific, because there is no way to distinguish between one's belief about the god and the existence of that god. Gods are funny like that.