science vs religion

[Sanatogen]

Tom Campbell is a good author and presenter of his Theory of everything. Lots of vids on YouTube.

[Muppet]

See signature box below. 

[Digit]

i thought i was going to come in here to simply say in response to the title, "no." or even elaborate as far as "each religion as science and science as religion" or hopefully not get drawn into windbagging too much about moving goalposts and strawmen, but then i see the first post...

On 01/05/2011 at 3:43 PM, troy said:

Given that the religious community tried to stop stem cell research, is Is there any conflict between science and religion ? Is it still acceptable to be religious and be a scientist like Francis Collins the director of the National Institute for Health.

"the religious community", oh boy.  nothing like going for the broadest brushes when lost in duality.  XD

 

which religions?

oh, they're all the same are they?  and they're all wrong, through the lenses of science are they?  i must have missed those studies.

 

what's religion?

might be a better question.   if we could clarify and define terms, it might help.  often i see babies thrown out with bathwater, conflating tyranny, arrogance, dogma or ignorance as religion. 

 

it's remarkable (as many have) how much science is pursued in, and as, the pusuit of knowing god.  whether that's god as the universe, or god as the creator of the universe, or both.  or even done because either for fear of god, or because god told them to. 

 

I recall being enthralled at the neurochemistry and neurophysiology of godness in our brains.  how you can both point to, and dose for.  marvellous.  that just makes the curiosity, wonder, intrigue, so much more grand.  how can we know?  if indeed both/either are to find knowing and/or convince of knowing, whether science or religion, are we back to just that level playing field of humility in the socratic "all I know, is I know nothing"? 

 

some religions are more open about their use/origins of psychedelic god-brain ticklers.  and interestingly this seems another of those strong overlaps/unifiers, where such substances have proved helpful with numerous leaps in science.  one might wonder who these other actors are, who behave so contrary to these interests shared across religion and science.   ... and whom if any might seek to wear god/religion stephenHawking*/science as a puppet?

(* or whomever else becomes the science pop hero of the times)

 

wearing the puppets of either in our own minds, to play out some theoretical bucket experiments, we find entertaining questions, like going down the road of imagining god's will, in our capacity to love science and finding out more about her/creation.

 

anyhoo, to re-answer the original post, I don't know what kind of scientist Francis Collins is (nor in what manner he's religious), so I can't answer to that specific, but more generally, it's still acceptable to me, for me or others, to be religious and a scientist.  In a large part, it's acceptable to me, as an extension of my own having accepted I threw the baby out with the bath water early on, and still need be sympathetic and patient with those who've thrown the baby out with the bathwater too and maybe not even realised yet.  or perhaps worse, not even realised the bath-water is that dirty yet.   ... I'm not sure how well my mangling of a Victorian metaphor gets it across, but if you like, for simplification (and without confusing with the complexity of it working both ways), picture the baby like the sun baby from teletubbies, an immortal golden god baby, so it's still alive n well when you run outside to retrieve it from the gutter you accidentally threw it in.  (get it?  got a better, clearer, more concise depiction I can use?

 

well, i'm glad i didnt come in here only to say "no" or tell it how it is (like a tyrant).  arent the questions so much more interesting? 

(if you think yes, i suggest picking religions and fields/labs that think so too, or at least welcome you thinking that... actually, wait, no... scrap that... be courageous, and pick the ones that dont, and try convert them to curiosity and learning  hehehehe.)

[harvestreaper]

i thought science was a way of proving truth ,,i see no reason to make a  diffrence between proving spritual or physical truths ?? 

[Hir]

On 2/24/2018 at 6:39 AM, Digit said:

i thought i was going to come in here to simply say in response to the title, "no." or even elaborate as far as "each religion as science and science as religion" or hopefully not get drawn into windbagging too much about moving goalposts and strawmen, but then i see the first post...

"the religious community", oh boy.  nothing like going for the broadest brushes when lost in duality.  XD

 

which religions?

oh, they're all the same are they?  and they're all wrong, through the lenses of science are they?  i must have missed those studies.

 

what's religion?

might be a better question.   if we could clarify and define terms, it might help.  often i see babies thrown out with bathwater, conflating tyranny, arrogance, dogma or ignorance as religion. 

 

it's remarkable (as many have) how much science is pursued in, and as, the pusuit of knowing god.  whether that's god as the universe, or god as the creator of the universe, or both.  or even done because either for fear of god, or because god told them to. 

 

I recall being enthralled at the neurochemistry and neurophysiology of godness in our brains.  how you can both point to, and dose for.  marvellous.  that just makes the curiosity, wonder, intrigue, so much more grand.  how can we know?  if indeed both/either are to find knowing and/or convince of knowing, whether science or religion, are we back to just that level playing field of humility in the socratic "all I know, is I know nothing"? 

 

some religions are more open about their use/origins of psychedelic god-brain ticklers.  and interestingly this seems another of those strong overlaps/unifiers, where such substances have proved helpful with numerous leaps in science.  one might wonder who these other actors are, who behave so contrary to these interests shared across religion and science.   ... and whom if any might seek to wear god/religion stephenHawking*/science as a puppet?

(* or whomever else becomes the science pop hero of the times)

 

wearing the puppets of either in our own minds, to play out some theoretical bucket experiments, we find entertaining questions, like going down the road of imagining god's will, in our capacity to love science and finding out more about her/creation.

 

anyhoo, to re-answer the original post, I don't know what kind of scientist Francis Collins is (nor in what manner he's religious), so I can't answer to that specific, but more generally, it's still acceptable to me, for me or others, to be religious and a scientist.  In a large part, it's acceptable to me, as an extension of my own having accepted I threw the baby out with the bath water early on, and still need be sympathetic and patient with those who've thrown the baby out with the bathwater too and maybe not even realised yet.  or perhaps worse, not even realised the bath-water is that dirty yet.   ... I'm not sure how well my mangling of a Victorian metaphor gets it across, but if you like, for simplification (and without confusing with the complexity of it working both ways), picture the baby like the sun baby from teletubbies, an immortal golden god baby, so it's still alive n well when you run outside to retrieve it from the gutter you accidentally threw it in.  (get it?  got a better, clearer, more concise depiction I can use?

 

well, i'm glad i didnt come in here only to say "no" or tell it how it is (like a tyrant).  arent the questions so much more interesting? 

(if you think yes, i suggest picking religions and fields/labs that think so too, or at least welcome you thinking that... actually, wait, no... scrap that... be courageous, and pick the ones that dont, and try convert them to curiosity and learning  hehehehe.)

 

Welcome back.

[Guest bazzad9]

On 17/02/2019 at 8:06 PM, harvestreaper said:

i thought science was a way of proving truth ,,i see no reason to make a  diffrence between proving spritual or physical truths ?? 

 

 

the difference is one is observable and testable ,falsifiable the other is not in any way shape or form ,im yet to find a good definition for "spiritual" let alone a test for it 

[Hir]

18 minutes ago, bazzad9 said:

 

 

the difference is one is observable and testable ,falsifiable the other is not in any way shape or form ,im yet to find a good definition for "spiritual" let alone a test for it 

 

The whole point of metaphysics is that it is beyond physics, try Supernature by Lyall Watson a respected biologist.  I'm reading it again at the moment.

 

Dip into Lyall Watson's astonishing book SUPERNATURE ... It is a pot pourri to amaze and startle
us. Dr Watson guides us through the maze and makes us realise how little we know about our world ...
The result is fascinating, even scary - what we understand as supernatural'
The Times
'To read this fascinating and well-documented book is to be shaken by the sheer piling-up of evidence
that things are not what they seem, not by a long way'
Daily Mail
'Very stimulating ... instructive'
Sunday Telegraph
'SUPERNATURE is not simply an omnibus of psychic or natural phenomena but a scholarly
examination of a science which could revolutionise the medical and psychological attitudes of
mankind'
Evening News
'What the book does accomplish is a redefinition of the frontier. Instead of the old borders, there is a
kind of demilitarized zone into which scientists and occultists may go without clubbing each other
into insensibility'
Los Angeles Times
'A stimulating and unusual book'
Daily Telegraph
The book explores virtually the whole field of the occult and succeeds in illuminating many of its
darker areas
Psychic News
'A store house of off-beat happenings'
Observer
'Carefully selective and well documented'

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Hir

[Dodgee]

Thanks for the recommendation @Hir

 

Another for the reading list thatw

[Hir]

Just now, Dodgee said:

Thanks for the recommendation @Hir

 

Another for the reading list thatw

PDF loads of places

[Guest bazzad9]

not understanding everything doesnt mean the supernatural exists ,as soon as we can observe and test it it becomes natural ,the super part just tells us its pure speculation and anyone can make up anything 

 

the time to accept something is when we can observe and test it by definition the supernatural cant be tested 

 

which is in my reply originally ,the difference between falsifiable or not 

[Guest bazzad9]

" In 1973 he shared a television studio with the fork-bending psychic Uri Geller, whom he claimed to have discovered, and who was making his first live TV appearance. It had been Watson's suggestion, in the wake of Supernature, that the BBC fly Geller from the United States to demonstrate his apparent powers of psychokinesis. "

 

from the telegraph

 

tells you something

[Hir]

Open mind there Bazz as per fuckin normal, condemning before reading.

[Cursed]

Good to see you posting baz

 

[Guest bazzad9]

Just now, Hir said:

Open mind there Bazz as per fuckin normal, condemning before reading.

assuming i had never heard of him .......

 

my mind is open to anything you can show me ,a well known crank is nothing new im afraid 

 

the question was why are science and religion not treated the same and my answer still stands firm 

 

 

[Hir]

well had you!