I think that there is no fundamental difference between science and religion.
If you think there is, please make your case for discussion.
I think that there is no fundamental difference between science and religion.
If you think there is, please make your case for discussion.
I am not ineterested in the difference between science and religion, but the difference btween science and Christianity: Science is a subset of the Christian faith.if it goes beyond the scriptures of truth, its only a matter of time,
Christianity is higher than science. You will enjoy this blog post: http://judewatchman.blogspot.com/2010/02/once-upon-snake-serpent-science-and.html
yes I do think you mean what you think I think and dat"s dependent on what u mean anyways .
but for wateva reason u wer ascrbed pastor b4 u became a xtian,your deep analyses on issues goes
along way to tell alot about what ur positon on such issues mean,
oh and by the way plz what was ur major?
psychology?cuz u trying to Bleep wth ma brain!LOL,
You asked me if I believed in God. This was your original question.
I told you that I believe that creation has an Author. Do you classify that as God or not? That is up to you. I don't want to get into any arguments about the definition of God. That world has an Author and the world is imbued with the Intent of the Author.
But then you said this:
If you never thought I were an atheist then why did you ask whether I was an atheist or a theist? Was it a rhetorical question? Was it a trick question? Or was it just an opportunity to get me to exercise my fingers on my computers keyboard?
I suspect that you have a series of neat boxes or categories in your mind and you would love to fit me into one of them. I fear that I might not fit into any of the categories you've got lined up for me and that is what is causing you so much consternation.
A question is not a dichotomy, but it can be based on a dichotomy. There is a suggestion in the OP and in the responses to the OP that science and religion are in opposition to each other. So a scientist can't be religious and a religious person can't do science. At least not on the same subject.
I guess my main beef is the suggestion of mutual exclusivity between the two.
A question is not a dichotomy.
In this case, the only premise is that science and religion are either fundamentally the same or they are not.
I think it is your approach that is causing your issue, not the question.
I just dug up your example. . .
There! Despite your own argument, you have suggested a fundamental difference.
I rly appreaciate most responses i read here, i never knew we are this knowledgeable in this country, some ppl hv spoken greatly and others based on their shallowy religious places, by now it should be a common knowledge that religion is more or else those believes that place ppl where they neccessarily wouldn't have loved to be, taking them quite far apart from their innermost sense of harmony, freedom and peace,
religion is merely a formation of believes, whatever believe you and your group are able to formulate becomes your religion, that is why they are so many.
science!! it is a body of knowledge and it is one and definite, it is a surer means to salvation cause is tested and proven
Reality, reality is life, it is neither religion nor science. it is that which keeps you and I connected as one, it is the source of existence, it is what you may call spirit, or enegy or life or God, the beautiful thing about it is that, it is who u are, it is who IAM
This topic (Religion and science) has cause Great catastrophe In the World , Nations Have risen Agains nation , Millions have been Killed , Thousands of Book has been Burnt All because of this same topic , Many has been banished , Many has been Glorified , all because of this Religion and science , Theories has been theorised , Doubt-shaking Experiments Has been carried out , Even to Explain GENESIS 1 , All in the Hope to FUSE religion and science , Bible verses has been Quoted , Supernatural miracle have happened , Still the world stil knows No peace .And I can see the spell is working on Nairalanders too , Fighting each Other , Just Like Galilleo was crucified , , read dan brown's ANGELS AND DEMONS , you will know more about Always-holy RELIGION and ever convincing SCIENCE ,
do you beleif in heaven /hell ,jesus as the xtians do?ur still evading the question,
you sound more like a pantheist who is tolerant of EVERY RELIGION?
, ironically ur name has PASTOR all over it which presupposes me to belief ur a christian .so why the false identity?
just answer the questions with YES OR NO e.g
PASTOR AIO:blackcypha, do you belief in mohammed?
BLACKCYPHA: no, QED
or r u somewhat not convinced in ur beliefs and ur still searching for truth?
I believe that the world has an Author. I believe that there is an intention in the creation of the world but that the world can deviate from the intention. I believe that the purpose of religion is to re align us to that intention.
In Judaism that intention is called Tsedeq
In Islam it is called Al-Fitra
In Vedic Hinduism it is called Rita
In Buddhism it is called Dharma
Jesus called it the Kingdom of Heaven, Basileia tou theos
In China it is called Tao
In Yoruba it is called Ayanmo
So what religion does that make me? I'm not interested in names and labels. What I am interested in is whether you know of that intended order in the universe, and whether your being is in tune with it. From Tsedeq come Shalom, and I don't know anybody that doesn't want peace.
I think we are using subtly different terminology. I chose the word 'sense' to imply more than perception, yet not meaning. It is what I am calling "sense" that comprises perception of, and connection between, events. But, unlike meaning, it does not represent a constraint.
'sense' invites the observer to acknowledge that the smell reminds him of cigarette smoke. (relative)
'meaning' prompts the observer to believe that the smell is of cigarette smoke. (absolute -- a constraint)
So, while I see sense (which includes connection between events) as "objects of pure cognition," my definition of meaning goes further than yours. Meaning prompts the observer to adulterate his cognition by interposing an assumption.
I used the term "peculiar" to describe connections between events. (i.e connections are peculiar to their specific events and therefore necessarily anachronistic in the sense you have illustrated.)
Indeed, 'transient meaning' looks increasingly akin to what I am terming "sense".
It may just be that transient meaning has less value than putatively permanent meaning within the instinctive human nature to categorise, simplify and reduce events. Perhaps that instinct to simplify is intrinsically problematic, seeking permanence where there is none.
Edit: I've been spelling 'peculiar' as 'perculiar' all day today! I sensed something was wrong but I couldn't make the connection. How peculiar!
Na wa o! You still don't know whether I'm an atheist or theist from all that. Okay let me see if I can summarize all of that.
I believe that there is an Author to the universe. I refrain from using the word 'God' because I find it to be a loaded term with too many connotations that I may not want to carry. In believe that there is intention in existence.
I thought so, that was why I asked (rather said) . . .
But what are the objects of pure cognition? Why cannot meaning (the connections between events) be objects of pure cognition? That was why I stated 3 scenarios on my 3 hands. One, that meaning is irrelevant with pure cognition. Two, that meaning can be evidence via pure cognition. And Three, that the meanings accepted are perforce anachronistic because the relationship of meanings are constantly shifting. So before you can formulate the idea that A means Alpha, A would have ceased to mean Alpha anymore. This would suggest that it is not the meanings that are the problem but the conceptualizations and codification of meanings.
I do try to please whether it be in the capacity of entertainer or otherwise.
Yes, this is what I mean.
The term "downgrading" was in reference to the confidence we subjectively assign to our (artificial) deductions.
And what you have termed "pure cognition" or "Perception AS IS" is similar to what I have termed "sense".
The mind that engages solely in "pure cognition" comprehends rather than analyses. This is why I said somewhere that there is no logic in 'infinite comprehension'. Seeking meaning requires analysis and logic, and arrests the comprehension.
I have to say, you are the first person I have come across who has demonstrated an ability to entertain my perspective. You will not believe how often I have been called disingenuous, or accused of sophism, by people who do not follow.
But by being a prediction (or rather a deduction) is it really being downgraded? How are you sure that the smell can be identified as that of a cigarette? Perhaps there is another substance/molecule that smell remarkably like a cigarette. So perhaps all references/meanings/inferences/whateveryouwannacallit are artificial (in the sense of being made by man as opposed to naturally occurring). Imagine a mind that engaged only in pure cognition, not re-cognition, or naming, or labeling, or categorising, or referencing. Just perceiving things as they are. Perception AS IS.
I understand 'the smell' to be a 'sensation'. It has context and peculiarity -- it reminds me of cigarette. I have added sense to the sensation.
I would be assigning meaning to that sense, if I were to claim that the smell is the smell of cigarette. Some subjective measure of past experience may qualify the meaning as "direct" and above some notional threshold of confidence. However, if the reference is sufficiently remote -- a smoker was recently in the room -- the meaning is downgraded to a prediction. However, I see both references as tentative and realness as artificial.
Yes, I imagine you would. That is because, I think, you have a beef with the word religion. I don't want to get into an argument over what is the proper definition of religion.
I take it that by 'sense' you mean perception. I understand meaning to simply be a reference. I believe that we instinctively make connections between one event and another so that we say that the one event means the other event. eg. she blows me a kiss means she loves me. The kiss refers to the state of being in love. Bonjour means Good day, ie the french word is a direct reference to the english word. We connect up the world and all the events it contains with these lines of references.
We can uses these meanings to predict things that we don't then perceive directly. eg. The empty room is smelling of cigarette means that someone was in here a short while ago smoking a cigarette. I didn't see the person but I know because I know what a smelly room means.
Yet can we say we actually perceive (sense) those lines of references, those meanings, like we perceive a ball on the lawn, or do we merely arrive there by means of induction. Are those meanings real objects? Perhaps they are in which case, far from arresting comprehension, they will help us to understand the world better. On the other hand if they are mere conceits then they will arrest comprehension of the universe.
We've only got two hands, but if we had 3 hands I could say, on the final other hand . . . perhaps the connections of meanings were real objects but they were dynamic according to laws of their own. In this 3rd scenario then the problem won't be whether the meanings that we believe in are real or conceits but rather whether the meanings that we once induced are still valid.
Even a scientist would tell you that humans have more than five senses. They deem five of our senses to be major senses. Our senses of temperature and damp, for example, are not categorised as major. Many of our senses may be very dim -- electro-magnetic etc. I recall a recent article on a form of ghostly sight that some blind people develop. Shapes and shades of things around them register in their conscious, but scientists don't 'know how'.
This is why I say that morphology is at the heart of our beliefs. If our psychology had demanded a different way of life, our morphology would reflect a different sensory emphasis, and our description of the 'universe' would be different.
Well, you are not the first to claim I am disingenuous, so I will not hold that against anyone. I give my heart-felt opinions based on my own (probably unusual) experiences. Of course, you are free to disagree with that, but it could hamper our discussion by making you more dismissive.
I actually think you have evaded my point that scientists start from belief in an unassailable truth, comprising a particular logic and statistical framework. Clearly, these are so deeply ingrained in your psyche that entertaining concepts beyond them seems absurd to you. To me, it doesn't. As I said in an earlier post, I believe objectivity to be morphological and psychological. It is only our similarities in these respects, both taught and innate or inherited that amass to give an impression of universality. It is essentially a socio-political process.
Once a putative truth has been deemed, it still has to be unravelled. You can define a number system, but it can take centuries to unravel an implication such as Fermat's Last Theorem.
Similarly, stating that a book is the holy truth, still leaves the believer with the task of interpreting it.
I hope you can now see where I am coming from.
I prefer to use the word 'observation' rather than 'information', and I hope the '5' you have quoted is metaphorical!
Objectivity is no more that consensus of subjective opinion won by socio-political means. It reflects no more than morphological and psychological similarities between stakeholders, who project their morphology and psychology onto everything else and declare them universal.
Excellent question, sir! Only a new thread would really do it justice.
Not many people saw my "can you think without words?" thread, and no-one posted on it. But it is a related question.
What is meaning? How does a 'baby' learn?
I would say that a 'baby' develops sense rather than meaning, but only up to a point. Eventually meaning supersedes and new observations are interpreted relative to the accumulated sense. It is that process of interpretation or translation that encapsulates meaning. Meaning arrests the comprehension, the accumulation of sense.
The Bible is not a scientific book but on a number of occasions, it has stated facts which science caught up with centuries later, about the question of the shape of the earth, the bible in Isaiah 40:22 states
Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version)
22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
This was written centuries b4 greek philosophers theorized it, and Millenniums b4 Yuri Gangarin actually saw the circle of the earth from his space craft. The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
In ancient times, humans were perplexed by other questions about the cosmos: What is the earth resting on? What holds up the sun, the moon, and the stars?
Among the most influential views were those of Aristotle. Although he theorized that the earth is a sphere, he denied that it could ever hang in empty space. In his treatise On the Heavens, when refuting the notion that the earth rests on water, he said: “It is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to rest upon.” So, what does the earth “rest upon”? Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres. Sphere lay nestled within sphere, with the earth—immobile—at the center. As the spheres revolved within one another, the objects on them—the sun, the moon, and the planets—moved across the sky.
The views of the revered Aristotle were accepted as fact for some 2,000 years.
With the invention of the telescope, astronomers began to question Aristotle’s theory. Still, the answer eluded them until Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are suspended in empty space, held in their orbits by an invisible force—gravity. It seemed incredible, and some of Newton’s colleagues found it hard to believe that space could be a void, largely empty of substance
What does the Bible have to say on this question? Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)
Job 26:7 (Young's Literal Translation)
7Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,
Job 26:7 (New International Version)
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
Most of the contradictions people perceived between science and religion/Bible is because we don't fully understand both. Both have been misinterpreted by their adherents and sometimes they seem not to have patience for each other.
Is it not true that all religionists already believe that they started from the truth, hence no need for any quest?The rest of their activities, henceforth, is mainly to have unflinching faith in that truth(whatever that truth may be) and do occasionally maintainance tasks on that "truth".
The only quest i do see in religion is finding and maintaining the good and favourable side of whatever deity they identify with through worship for the sake of getting both material blessings in this world, and divine ethereal blessings in the here after.
Many are under the conceit that that is how science operates
Many religious people think like this but there is more to religion that this sort of reasoning.
My point is that there are certain tendencies in human thought processes. Those tendencies manifest in the activities of scientists as well as of religionists. Everyone is subject to them. There is also a real quest for truth that can manifest in the activities of scientists and religionists too.
i am really surprised at all the contributions under this topic. some of the mathematical equations coming from some of the contributors are also mind boggling. for me this topic is quite simple. i will rather put it in another way. what is the difference between moving forward and staying in the same place? because if you look at religion and science you will find that science is the only one moving forward and making necessary changes. when a certain concept becomes outdated and no longer works science immediately drops it and picks up a new and better one. but unfortunately for religion to make necessary changes is virtually impossible as it will mean the virtual death of that religion. e.g the catholic church refused to allow their priests to get married even though most of them have been involved in relationships with females. so far as i am concerned that concept of priests not marrying is outdated but they do not want to move on as they feel it will mean an end to their doctrine.
This looks like a comment rather than an answer to the question. Could you please expand on the relevance of your comment and also answer the question?
No. But, I could describe a model that fits the observations. This however is not my point. My point is that evidence is subjective and transient.
I was responding to a poster who said that people accepted that the Earth is flat, "without evidence." Well, as I said, seeing the 'edge' of the Earth was taken as evidence at the time. The evidence was there, but has become outdated.
Similarly, scientists believed evidence that matter was made of indivisible beads called atoms. The evidence has become outdated. I don't think that the same poster would claim that scientists at the time believed what they did "without evidence." So why does he make this claim about non-scientists in a similar situation? imo, that is to misunderstand the meaning of evidence.
Even at one point in time, you can have evidence pointing towards a conclusion, and other evidence point away from it. They 'conflict', but both are still regarded as evidence. If one becomes the preferred explanation, the other doesn't magically cease to be evidence relating to the relevant point in history.
Not sure what you are looking for behind this, but you'd be better off asking a Christian, I think.
Does the Bible say the Earth is flat? Bible is not a scienctific book, but a compilation of historic events premised on christian doctrines.
Of course there was "evidence" that the world is flat. People looked and saw an 'edge'.
Could you tell me why New Year's Eve (December 31) in New York is January 1, in Nigeria and January 2 in New Zealand?
Could also explain according to Genesis. God said let there be light and there was light' why this assertion doesnt apply to the whole world. Night time in some countries is daytime in some countries.
Does the Bible say the Earth is flat?
Of course there was "evidence" that the world is flat. People looked and saw an 'edge'.
Then explorers, not necessarily scientists, looked closer and reinterpreted their observations. That doesn't take science. A migratory pigeon can do it.
There is "evidence" the Earth is round. Well that idea is not absolute. There are different models for space, from multi-dimensional space to multiverses depending on the phenomenon you are trying to describe.
If you are looking at cosmic rays entering the Earth, a relativistic model may use a flat Earth due to Lorentz contraction.
If you are interested in weather, your model has the Sun going round the Earth.
For certain predictions, humans have been taught or instinctively find it to be easier to conceptualise certain geometries. You could model the Earth at the centre of the universe and make equally accurate predictions. But the way we have learnt to conceptualise would make the mathematics tedious.
the fundamental difference is very clear but you need to go back to history to get the details. religion relies on faith and belief whether there is proof or not whereas science does not accept anything at face values without proof and evidence on how it works. e.g when Christopher Columbus who discovered America was about to set sail he was told by the pope that the world is flat and that he will fall into the abyss if he reaches the edge of the flat earth. but Columbus moved on and not only discovered a continent but also discovered the red indians whose existence was not accounted for in the bible. this caused quite a problem in christendom when Columbus came back with the red indians as the scholars struggled to account for the red race.
secondly Galileo using his telescope was able to discover the earth revolves around the sun but at that time the christians believed that the sun moves around the earth. Galileo was accused of witch craft and tortured by the church and made to recant his findings. it was only recently that the pope apologized to scientists over the maltreatment of Galileo who was stating only truth he discovered through experiment. fundamentally there is no problem with science as we have seen how science has made our lives easier over the decades. every knowledge that comes through science actually comes from God who uses a viable vessel to manifest that knowledge for the upliftment of mankind but fundamentally there is a lot of problems with some religions being practiced on earth today which instead of sowing seeds of love is creating discord among people with claims that theirs is the best and only religion to take one back to God and with such myopic views that grand vision which God is revealing to man today is lost to such people. one should be scientific in his approach to religion and should not swallow hook line and sinker anything he is told about God without investigation as to its authenticity. this is the only way one can prove the existence of God to him or herself. this them becomes his/ her authority and not just a blind belief.
You have been shown the full meaning of FTFY, you have been presented with a respectable link for you to independently assess the full meaning and I still do not see why you think it is gutter language.
Here's another site where you can see other meanings of the abbreviation in order of popularity I still do not see anything wrong since in this discussion just one of them fits after showing the modification made to your statement.
Besides what do you think it means?
Tales by moonlight, novels, songs, movies, frescoes, even city designs and building architectures all have incorporated in them esoteric meanings.But to understand them and not misinterprete is what makes the difference.
Exoteric religions like christianity and islam, because of their literal and very superficial interpretations of their holy scriptures, miss the plot right from the start.Whether that was done intentionally or by honest error is another topic entirely.