Re: Pitfalls of science. . .

From: Garbi (jeremyh_at_bdssc.com)
Date: 11/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:45:17 -0500

I can agree with much of what you said. I have already read the Elegant
Universe and many, many other books on relativity, quantum mechanics, and
string theory. I am very familliar with current scientific progress. In
fact, I am a man of logic following the attempts of science to understand
our Universe. I embrace science.

However, I would like to make the point that RELIGION has not brought wars.
PEOPLE have started wars in the name of religion - but most such events were
brought on by people not truly following the basis of their own belief
system.

And, some religions and unscientific belief systems are definitely
detrimental to humankind. Religion, like science, is a search for
understanding. Some ideas lead down the wrong path - just like in science.
Religion doesn't follow logical methods. And I would also agree that some
people can be blinded to scientific reality by religion. But I am not one
such person.

I would agree that science is a much more accurate search for understanding.
But in the end, after we've uncovered all the physical laws of our Universe,
and we understand the events of the Big Bang we are still left with the
question of "WHY?" Even if there are parallel universes, and a collision
sparked our Big Bang, the question remains of "How is it that these other
universes exist?" "Where did they come from?" "How were they created?" We
can't just say, "That's just the way it is." That isn't a good enough answer
for science - like you said, that was Einstein's mistake.

Science insists that something cannot come from nothing. Everything has a
cause and a reason. But where does it stop? At some point, logically, there
had to have been an ultimate starting point. Literally "something from
nothing." Religions (virtually ALL religions) explain this as God's will. I
can't see science ever being able to refute this ultimate conclusion. No
matter how much science can learn, it will never truly be able to explain
existence completely. In science, there will always be the question of
"Why?" until the end of time (figuratively speaking).

I'm not saying science is pointless, and we should all focus our attention
on religion. Science is our key to understanding as much as we are capable
of. Science offers solid answers and discoveries that greatly help mankind.
In fact, I would agree that science offers much more tangible physical
answers and solutions than religion most of the time. But there absolutely
remain many phenomenon that science may never be able to explain. There may
be phenomena described by religion that science can shed light on. And
there may be phenomena that science currently dismisses, but may find
scientific evidence of in the future. So religion should not be dismissed
so easily as an answer for the "weak minded."

"chaching" <orrj81@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6e2a2c43.0411162342.6777aa12@posting.google.com...
> Ok, I read the posting and I couldn't help myself.
> Jeremy, I understand that you are confused and would like to think
> there is some meaning in what you said. However, and not to be obtuse,
> Science is not a Logical search for God. The entire concept of "God"
> and religion are great. They provide a hope or reason for the weak
> minded (not to say that I am intelligent). However, religion is a
> blinding force that causes those who follow it to shun ideas that
> oppose their religion. Most of the Greats did just that. Einstein
> could not fathom the idea of a constantly expanding universe, so,
> contrary to his equations and logic, created an arbitrary cosmological
> constant and added it to his General theory of Relativity. After Edwin
> Hubble discovered the red shifting of very distant stars, thus proving
> the expansion of the universe, Einstein stated that the constant was
> the greatest mistake of his life.
> My point is simply this: people are by nature afraid of the
> unknown. It is an innate reaction to something we aren't sure won't
> hurt us. So, someone, most likely a very intelligent person, started
> religion and put all of the unknown answers to very insightful
> questions, into a very narrow minded box called religion. For
> thousands of years, religion has reigned, and under that rule we have
> seen more war, famine, pestulence, disease and illiteracy as a direct
> result.
> Ask yourself this: Do you believe everything you read on the
> internet just because it makes you feel all warm inside? Or do you
> research it from several different points of view and take the average
> and logical vantage point? I will assume you take the latter. And if
> so, what makes that different than the books of religion. I can't
> believe for a second, that because one person was "saved" that they
> are going to heaven and an aboriginee who has never seen a crucifix,
> will burn in hell. It just doesn't make since to me.Do yourself a
> favor Jeremy and go grab a book called "The Elegant Universe" or try a
> book called "Euclids Window". Grab a different perspective. Science is
> a tool to discover answers to unknown questions. In 2000 years, what
> advances in medicine, and technology has religion brought us? If
> religion hadn't persecuted so many good scientists like Copernicus and
> Galileo, would we be living on the moon right now? Science doesn't ask
> us to tithe, or to understand it blindly, in fact it invites us to
> understand it as deeply as possible. Thousands of men and women have
> proven the same theorems over and over again to make sure they are
> right. Who is double checking religion?
>
>
>
> Hatunen <hatuunen@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<ggbip0pv3caf38pseahh7911021hia36rj@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Nov 2004 10:26:01 -0800, jeremyh@bdssc.com (JeremyH) wrote:
>>
>> >The pitfall of putting too much faith in science is that no one person
>> >can ever hope to have a full understanding within his/her lifetime.
>> >And science can offer no reasons (other than simple probability) for
>> >our existence.
>>
>> Nor does it try to.
>>
>> >Without higher purpose, our actions are meaningless.
>> >Without the hope of something else - knowing that we are all going to
>> >die at some point - we lose all initiative.
>>
>> some atheists are the most goal driven people I know of.
>>
>> >Why bother trying to
>> >uderstand through science if science is all there is?
>>
>> There is a huge difference between understanding science, an
>> completely understanding a particular science.
>>
>> >The purpose of
>> >science is to gain understanding and find the causes. Science can
>> >only define the WHAT, but never the ultimate question of why.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> >In a sense, science is the logical search for God.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>>
>> >Religion, however allows us to bypass the logic and find God directly.
>>
>> You're right there: a belief in God is illogical.
>>
>> >So you are right in that science and religion are two VERY different
>> >venues. But if any (or all) religions turn out to be correct (as
>> >we'll all find out when we pass on),
>>
>> Or not. Not all religions allow for an afterlife.
>>
>> >it is an undeniable logical
>> >conclusion that at some point science and religion must meet and would
>> >certainly have many intertwining truths.
>>
>> Eh? Such as?
>>
>> >.So, it may not be such a bad
>> >thing to contemplate possible parallels or extrapolate possible
>> >explanations of (supposed) metaphysical phenomenon.
>>
>> If you find it amusing...
>>
>> >That said, any parallels between science and religion (and the
>> >metaphysical) should be carefully stated as simply ideas and not
>> >presented as fact.
>>
>> Fundamentally, science deals in observation, not facts. It's
>> religion that asserts facts.
>>
>>
>> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
>> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
>> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why do you believe?
    ... Flawless Bridge between 'Science' and 'Religion' ... creation of the universe and its multifarious processes. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: OT Welcome to the New Middle Ages
    ... What was happening 10 seconds before the Big Bang (or whatever you ... It's hard to believe that the billions of stars in the universe ... I was simply looking at the larger issue of science vs. ... possibility of religion exists. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Darwin The Creationist
    ... The Starmaker schreef: ... One puts God in the science, ... Why do you insist in calling anything a religion? ... They both "explain"...that is the purpose of the universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Exaggeration reigns supreme!
    ... We want religion printed as science! ... scientific statements about the size and age of the universe, ... end, in a logically disadvantaged medium that scientists themselves, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... principles is incompatible with what science tells us about the world. ... the idea that God speaks directly to any person, ... any "is" claims must be accompanied by evidence. ... was that the proper domain of religion is "ought" claims only. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast