Isn't Religion Just a Science or History?

You know, I get really bored with people who cite the Bible as "proof". It doesn't work in school, it doesn't work in research, why should it work in life?

Oh, and if you hadn't picked up on that earlier, ask Jesus for a brain.

""In the beginning, Man created God""

Getting behind here - sorry about that.

quote:

---

Religion: system of faith. Usually a worship-based system detailing a way/ways of life. This requires blind faith - belief without proof.

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Also bored.

Science does require blind faith, but that is only in the beginning. In the hypothesising stage. Then, scientists go about proving their hypotheses using observations gained through experiments. Science changes only because advancements are made in the observations.
Religion is static. Both morally and spiritually. It is based on the beliefs of those over 2000 years ago - to fulfil their need for something bigger. "Truths" in religion are archaic and do not always relate to the world today.
"Do unto others", the so-called Golden Rule, need not be a religious thing. It is quite easy to come to a conclusion that you wouldn't want something done to you, so you wouldn't do it to someone else. Why do people NEED religion to dictate their morals, when they are separate entities? Morals and religion evolve at different speeds. One is used to live a life of "good", and the other to fulfil a person spiritually.
Surely, people can follow the set of morals that their religion sets out, if they are so fundamentalist in this day and age, but they have no need to impress this onto others.
Personally, I have no problem with religion as a spiritual system. I believe it can do so much good in consoling people and helping them to grow. It is only when religion is paralleled to morality that I find fault.
Now, the truths in religion may never change, but is this a good thing? In an ever-evolving world, is not change needed to keep up? How many people stay virginal until marriage nowadays? how many people divorce? How many people have extra-marital affairs? How many people gamble, and drink to excess, and use prostitutes? And legally, might I add. This may very well be against religious teachings, but in a modern society, people no longer see these things as severely taboo.
Science is ever in motion, just like society's morals, and both will continue to move forwards without religion. The only good that can come of this, is if the religious institutions of the world recognise that they are no longer the holder of morals. People are wise enough to decide for themselves what is right for them, and if they make a mistake, they either learn from it or continue to fail because of it. Unless religion and morality are separated, people will forever lose faith in their faith.
The same must be realised of science and religion. They must be separate, for they deal with completely isolated entities. Science with the real (not to say that religion isn't dealing with real life) and Religion with the spiritual. Their intermingling can only cause more problems and segregation.

I am aware I left the science/religion topic for quite a while, but it was relevant.

""In the beginning, Man created God""

"Believe it or not - so does science. I don't have the exact figure, but most of science is based on THEORY. It might be good theory, because it might make a lot of sense. But that is based on what we know now, and that can change 2morrow."
Absolutely!
Science NEVER claims absolute truth. All scientific theories can be disproved. A true scientific theory is in fact REQUIRED to have some guideline as to what disproves it.

That is why science is the 'most true', because it doesn't pretend to be absolute.

Compare this with religion, it claims absolute, unchanging truth. There are a million religions all claiming this, all claiming the other is false. It makes the claim seem a bit overbloated don't you think?

Without even considering all the obvious reasons science has been right (from guns to vaccines), I think that science is true if only because it, in itself, accepts that it might be wrong.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

I will agree that religion is broken. It has been broken for centuries for the most part. There have been and are small religious groups that deserve honor, but for the most part its broken. I have my theories and ideas and I have shared them in the past.

Science however is not the solution. If its broken, you don't leave it for something else, you fix it. A solution however maybe science and religion together. And why not? Not all religious people condemn science and not all scientists throw out religion as non sense. Einstien was one of them.

For instance: Lets say we prove the theory of evolution, why would it be non sense to believe that we would now have a better understanding of how God creates things. This is how Einstien saw it. To him, science was learning and exploring the mysteries of God.

I think where science and religion meet we find a greater good.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

" If its broken, you don't leave it for something else, you fix it."
Well then, tell me when it worked.
In fact, what do we even mean by worked. What is religion supposed to do? Religion has worked fine for giving strength and will to everything from Boer farmers to the American troops in Iraq. Do you want it to go beyond that?

"I think where science and religion meet we find a greater good."
They rarely agree.

They are not the same. One is a way of life ingrained in our Western culture, it is a relic of our past and it is our heritage. It is part of our civilization. To give it to much importance, on faith, is like dismissing every other culture's religion. As if because this is the white man's faith, it is the right faith.
The other is a way of explaining things, it is new, fast changing and also allows to create.

And they are both incompatible.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

Well, I will agree that science and religion are different, but there are times when they can join together. Whatever we learn, we are learning about God (I believe). You the non-believer may just call it truth rather than God.

Personally religion has done a world of good. Attend any AA meeting and you'll hear individuals tell you their story of how they found (religion/God/salvation). They won't all tell it the same and they'll even dissagree with each other. AA is just one example of many.

Community wise - for the exception of the Amish and maybe a few other small groups, it doesn't do very good. You have large religious groups who would destroy this world in self indulgence and claim they have a right and not even share the crumbs off their table to the hungry. I know this is true and I don't know how to fix it except to distance myself from it, and that's about what I do.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

"Personally religion has done a world of good."
And its done a load of crap too. I could make a long list of wars and persecutions but that would be boring.

What I am saying is that religion and science are fundamentaly different. Science is based on observation, experimentation and, most important, never claims absolute truth. Science is constantly improving its view of the world, becoming closer and closer to the truth.

Religion, I'd like a believer to define.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

quote:

---

Religion, I'd like a believer to define.

---

quote:

---

"I think where science and religion meet we find a greater good." They rarely agree.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

quote:

---

Religion, I'd like a believer to define.

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Science does not recognise things which have no apparent effect on that which they study. If it did, science would recognise purple elephants, tachion particles and foot-long dongs.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

*replying to first page jesus photo guy) we can ask why for everything, but we can still know how it wroks even though we dont know why anything (occurance (lighting strike) matter (lighting matter exists in the first place.. but we can see that things are there and how things are caused.. why.. thats just the way it is we dont know the deep why

"no quote until i copyright it.."

Dumteen - being a little narrow minded arn't we. Actually there is a careful scientific study being conducted concerning reincarnation. To reincarnate, one must pass through the spirit world. Also - Dark matter (I think its called) has been discovered that passes right threw the earth. If I did a search I could find the links to these scientific studies.

There is a lot we don't know about what we can see. Imagine what we don't know about what we can't see. Just because we don't see something, that doesn't mean that there isn't anything there. Could you imagine proving the existance of the atom.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

quote:

---

To reincarnate, one must pass through the spirit world. Also - Dark matter (I think its called) has been discovered that passes right threw the earth

---

quote:

---

Science does require blind faith, but that is only in the beginning. In the hypothesising stage. Then, scientists go about proving their hypotheses using observations gained through experiments. Science changes only because advancements are made in the observations.

---

quote:

---

Religion is static. Both morally and spiritually. It is based on the beliefs of those over 2000 years ago - to fulfil their need for something bigger. "Truths" in religion are archaic and do not always relate to the world today.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

Thanks - I read this article in wired magazine. Some government agancy was trying to track this stuff believing that chunks of it, about the size of an automobile would pass right threw the earth on a regular basis.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."