thoughtcontinuum
Registered Member
yeah, what you said. very well put.
What seperates religion and science?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
yeah, what you said. very well put.
You may think this is not an important distinction to make, but I think it is very important.
Saying you can "change history" (or "change the course of history") implies that things are pre-determined - and if you CAN change them, then they must not be pre-determined.
You can't "change" the present either, as it is happening now.
All you can do is live your life right now and make decisions of what to do in this moment.
One should always remain mindful of his potential impact - which can be staggering - and try to make decisions which align with one's ideals and goals.
In other words, act with integrity.
History is the future and the future is history, depending on the present. You can change many things, by helping somebody you can impact there future decisions, which become history maybe in the space of 1 hour or 10 years. The intricate web of past, present, future and cause and effect are elaborate and complex.
Things don't have to be pre deterined for you to change history, If I speak to some person they can take action based on my impact and impression, which happens in the future, which inturn becomes the past sometimes very quickly. Maybe even like a debate or conversation like this?.
peace.
Yes and let your integrity be based on honour and just reason, we should always be mindful of our impression and impact left, not only on people but other things/matters.
peace again.
Science seeks explanations that are true while religion seeks explanations that make you feel good.
I agree with all that, but...
...this is where I disagree.
For something to change it has to exist. You can certainly affect the future in many ways by the decisions you make in teh moment, but saying that furture was "changed" implies the future exists to BE changed - that it ias already determined.
The choices you make help determine the future - not change it.
Science tells us how, Religion/Philosophy tell us why. Why is Gravity? I know what it does, I somewhat understand the theories on what produces it, but I have no idea why Gravity is. Gravity was not required after the big bang, if that is your belief. Can we blame Gravity's existence on someone? Then we have religion. If we do not want to travel this route and seek a more tangible purpose for gravity, we set our feet down the path of philosophy. Once we learn to seperate the "why" questions from the "how" questions, we will be less likely to close our minds to possibilities. 2+2=4 Why is 2 added to 2 4? Perhaps a mathematician has an answer, but it seems a simple enough question. The answer can't be found by scientific means. How tall is freedom? Why did the big bang happen? Why did man evolve? Why am I sitting here typing all this in, and not invading a small third-world country?
Well, for one, religion does not really explain the world. It gives a romantic little story of how the world came to be, but it isn't true. If you want to know how the world really came into being, then you pick science. Science has this neat thing called "evidence". It's really awesome. Anybody can get it.
Mr. Hamtastic said:
For now. And science may never be able to tell us "why"...but that won't stop us from looking.
Seriously, faith is great and all that, but we have to stop assuming that religion is a viable alternative to science. It isn't. It's bronze-age myths that have no place in society.
The question of "Why" is misleading. Based on it's context it might just be another "how" question (ex. "Why is the sky blue?")... and that's right up science's alley. What "Why" also asks are questions of intent. When it is applied to life forms that have intent then it's a valid question. When it is applied to anything else then it is invalid.
Many of your examples are actually "how" questions and you are making an assumption that they are beyond science and can only be answered by religion / philosophy. That kind of notion is utterly backwards. To date religion / philosophy has never correctly answered a single objective "how" question while science always does.
So it comes down to values. Do you value having an answer more than truth? Then go for religion and philosophy.
There's nothing wrong with having myth and superstitions, as long as they don't interfere with the pursuit of science, as they have in the past and are continuing to do today.
I agree with the fact that religion/philosophy cannot give answers to how questions. The questions one is asking is vital for determining whether to put it towards a scientific testing, or a religio/philosophical examination. Let's take your example-Why is the sky blue? Get your dictionary, find why, I'll wait... Now. answer the question. Why is the sky blue? Science will have more trouble than it thinks, as the question begs for a purpose, and science does not assign purpose. Science says"This works this way" Science starts to get kerfloozled on "This serves this purpose" I know that a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. I have no idea why a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. Pre-industrialism, copper cables would carry electric current from point a to point b, pre evolution, copper rocks would carry electric current from point a to point b. Why? Why does copper do that? Not how. Why. Do you see the difference now?
Religion has no use as an explanation of the natural world. If you want to know what seperates them then try making predictions about the natural world that can be tested with religion.......I'm waiting.
And, the purpose of the sky being blue from a religious perspective is... ?
The only difference I see is someone is attaching "purpose" to these phenomenon. So, it is the purpose we hope that someone will explain? Ham?
If you seek purpose, then science may be the wrong place to seek it, is all I'm saying. Religion/philosophy is good at one thing-feelgood hopefulness
Science is all about how stuff works
Why is the sky blue? God decreed it? Blue would be more indicative of our feelings? I dunno. Do you?
Science is all about how stuff works
Why is the sky blue? God decreed it? Blue would be more indicative of our feelings? I dunno. Do you?
I don't see a purpose in the sky being blue at all. It's simply the result of Raleigh scattering.
Do we assign purpose to the many dawns and dusks when the sky turns a reddish hue? Isn't red symbolic of anger and rage, as far as feelings are concerned?
If we sat here assigning religious purpose to every single event or phenomenon that took place in the universe, don't you think we would run across a number of contradictions, compared to not assigning purpose? In other words, it makes more sense that we exist in a universe devoid of religious purpose.
People see what they want to see.
To a man who has only a hammer, every problem is a nail
Well done for spotting SAM's fallacy John - science is packed with motive and ethics - indeed the scientific method is almost entirely and expression and application of ethics and motive