The Question of God

[Art-Toyon-Aga]

please tell me what you think ^.^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElbaFhBW9Yk
(perhaps I dabble in religion for far too long...)

 

[BigApplePi]

please tell me what you think ^.^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElbaFhBW9Yk
(perhaps I dabble in religion for far too long...)

I like her. She is charming and takes her time. Everything she says is true ... or perhaps should be taken for its truth, not to be critiqued via analysis. I'd have to play it again for a 2nd opinion.

 

[Cognisant]

It's a video where text should be.

 

[BigApplePi]

It's a video where text should be.

Is that a moral dictum, lol?

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Yes, I enjoy looking into the past for wisdom as well.

Yeah, the whole point of spirituality is to transcend the physical reality. Naturally, it would go beyond science as you say. On the other hand, perhaps with sophisticated enough technology, we could somehow break the barrier between our reality and the hypothetical spiritual one. In this scenario, Science and spirituality could be compatible.

Religion and Science however are not compatible. Science is about expanding human knowledge while religion already has all the answers. A religious scientist is an oxymoron.

Science is not a "belief system/religion" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Instead of saying that science has become a religion, perhaps you should say that people don't question what they are told to a degree satisfactory enough for you? I don't think it's fair to call it a religion. It doesn't have all the answers.

Since when did religion ask any questions? It already has all the answers. Science is asking the questions.

I don't think it's accurate to say that god encapsulates the impossible. Everything that exists is possible. God cannot be more than everything that exists or something that doesn't exist, right? Therefore, god only encapsulates the possible. Speaking of god, I really wish we could start using a different word without the religious connotations that the word "god" has.

I don't agree with the personification of god being necessary. People aren't that dim-witted.

 

[Art-Toyon-Aga]

On the other hand, perhaps with sophisticated enough technology, we could somehow break the barrier between our reality and the hypothetical spiritual one. In this scenario, Science and spirituality could be compatible.

but technology is limited in it's physical roots, so to speak

Religion and Science however are not compatible. Science is about expanding human knowledge while religion already has all the answers. A religious scientist is an oxymoron.

hmm... i see your point >.>

Since when did religion ask any questions? It already has all the answers. Science is asking the questions.

yeah... the meanings of terms do change ~ the ideas of "darwin" have become answers that are generally not re-asked inside a different framework

I don't think it's accurate to say that god encapsulates the impossible. Everything that exists is possible. God cannot be more than everything that exists or something that doesn't exist, right? Therefore, god only encapsulates the possible.

i'm looking at the term definitionally (of the past few centuries mostly although god referred more to goodness before) throughout the whole video

Speaking of god, I really wish we could start using a different word without the religious connotations that the word "god" has.

me too

I don't agree with the personification of god being necessary. People aren't that dim-witted.

it is sort of a crutch to some others maybe

 

[BigApplePi]

Yeah, the whole point of spirituality is to transcend the physical reality. Naturally, it would go beyond science as you say. On the other hand, perhaps with sophisticated enough technology, we could somehow break the barrier between our reality and the hypothetical spiritual one. In this scenario, Science and spirituality could be compatible.

Religion and Science however are not compatible. Science is about expanding human knowledge while religion already has all the answers. A religious scientist is an oxymoron.

Science and religion operate in different dimensions as do up and down versus sideways. Up and down are compatible with sideways.

Science is not a "belief system/religion" but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality. Instead of saying that science has become a religion, perhaps you should say that people don't question what they are told to a degree satisfactory enough for you? I don't think it's fair to call it a religion. It doesn't have all the answers.

Since when did religion ask any questions? It already has all the answers. Science is asking the questions.

Science is about the Earthly world. Religion is about the concerns of man's meaning and where he is going.

I don't think it's accurate to say that god encapsulates the impossible. Everything that exists is possible. God cannot be more than everything that exists or something that doesn't exist, right? Therefore, god only encapsulates the possible. Speaking of god, I really wish we could start using a different word without the religious connotations that the word "god" has.

Sounds like you're saying God is possible. If we're going to talk about God, as difficult as that is, why are we talking about what can or cannot be outside of God?

I don't agree with the personification of god being necessary. People aren't that dim-witted.

Agreed. If religion is about spiritual things, our spirit can be many things. We don't have to be specific.

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

but technology is limited in it's physical roots, so to speak

I guess I don't really believe that, if it exists, the spirit world is really all that transcendental. What grounds do I have to say this? None, really. It's just a feeling.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Art-Toyon-Aga. Further comments.

but technology is limited in it's physical roots, so to speak

Science has its own troubles in physical roots. See some of gthe threads on quantum theory.

hmm... i see your point >.>

Neither has all the answers. Science continues to explore. Religion is not too hot in getting into technology details.

yeah... the meanings of terms do change ~ the ideas of "darwin" have become answers that are generally not re-asked inside a different framework

There is no reason why religion can't install an update to keep up with the times. The Pope apologized to Galileo I think.

i'm looking at the term definitionally (of the past few centuries mostly although god referred more to goodness before) throughout the whole video

God/gods are useful to handle what mere man cannot do. Existence is a separate issue. Why bother to deny a useful existence unless one is pissed off at what God/gods have done/do.

me too

Want a different word? How about omnideliverance? No such thing? Well man has hir's arrogant moments thinking he/she can handle it by hirself.

it is sort of a crutch to some others maybe

Yeah. Man don't need no stinkin' crutches when he/she can handle the fortunes of this world hirself.gg

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Science and religion operate in different dimensions as do up and down versus sideways. Up and down are compatible with sideways.

Science and spirituality/god might be compatible. Science and religion aren't. Can you agree with that?

Science is about the Earthly world. Religion is about the concerns of man's meaning and where he is going.

I'd prefer to replace religion with spirituality in that sentence.

Sounds like you're saying God is possible. If we're going to talk about God, as difficult as that is, why are we talking about what can or cannot be outside of God?

I was just addressing a statement she made about god possibly encapsulating the impossible. Do I think god is possible? Sort of. I'm thinking that once you remove the personification from the different views on god then what seems to be left is an eternal, omnipresent, something. No need to worship it or call it divine or whatever but I suppose that if you really appreciate life you could just kind of appreciate that it somehow exists/that you exist/that everything exists. I think that kind of "god" exists. I still have to think about this some more, I'm debating with myself the possibility of this something having consciousness and what the implications of that would be.

Neither has all the answers. Science continues to explore. Religion is not too hot in getting into technology details.

Well, I didn't mean that literally. You get the point, right? The difference in principles is too great.

 

[BigApplePi]

Science and spirituality/god might be compatible. Science and religion aren't. Can you agree with that?

Not sure. You mean when each tries to meddle in with the other? There are many different religions, all are social organizations. Voodoo is a religion. Practitioners of that religion tend to not to be interested in science so they ignore relevant conflicting issues. Christians take Jesus Christ as divine so they ignore problems such as a virgin birth. Why should scientists bother with that? Sometimes my wife and I have an incompatibility. Does that mean we should divorce? Republicans and Democrats have incompatibilities. Shouldn't they try to get along without merging into one party?

I'd prefer to replace religion with spirituality in that sentence.

N.C. at this time.

I was just addressing a statement she made about god possibly encapsulating the impossible. Do I think god is possible? Sort of. I'm thinking that once you remove the personification from the different views on god then what seems to be left is an eternal, omnipresent, something. No need to worship it or call it divine or whatever but I suppose that if you really appreciate life you could just kind of appreciate that it somehow exists/that you exist/that everything exists. I think that kind of "god" exists. I still have to think about this some more, I'm debating with myself the possibility of this something having consciousness and what the implications of that would be.

Interestingly enough do you want to say this thread has no meaning because none of the squiggly letters in it have any meaning? We can say we detect God or gods as an emergent phenomenon. Personification to me seems a convenience for us humans. The INTP Forum is a helluva forum. Did I mean that literally or symbolically? Who cares?

Well, I didn't mean that literally. You get the point, right? The difference in principles is too great.

No. I missed the point. What principles? Is consistency a principle? Is accepting inconsistencies a social principle?

 

[Art-Toyon-Aga]

If we're going to talk about God, as difficult as that is, why are we talking about what can or cannot be outside of God?

in defining an entity, it is reasonable to first know what it is not... maybe

What grounds do I have to say this? None, really. It's just a feeling.

i admire your humility ^.^ (& wish i had it more!)

Neither has all the answers. Science continues to explore. Religion is not too hot in getting into technology details.

0.0 ...i can't help but wonder how religious technology would be if it was ~

Interestingly enough do you want to say this thread has no meaning because none of the squiggly letters in it have any meaning? We can say we detect God or gods as an emergent phenomenon. Personification to me seems a convenience for us humans. The INTP Forum is a helluva forum. Did I mean that literally or symbolically? Who cares?

good points ~ i think i'll have to think on these more ^.^

 

[Hadoblado]

A religious scientist is an oxymoron.

I disagree. It's entirely possible for someone to have religious beliefs and to be an effective scientist. Whether you can reach God through science is an entirely different matter.

It's also possible for a religion to propagate science.

@OP
Science does ask the huge questions, it's just that it is restricted in the tools it can use to answer them.

As for (science = knowledge) + (religion = understanding)...
Could you please elaborate? What does religion bring in the way of understanding that philosophy can't? Isn't religion just philosophy but with assumptions that are baseless? Sorry, that wording is aggressive, but I'm having difficulty expressing the point (suuuuper tired).

 

[Hawkeye]

Science and spirituality/god might be compatible. Science and religion aren't. Can you agree with that?

Religion is no different than spirituality in the context you are using it in.

I agree with Hadoblado, religious scientist is not an oxymoron. Religion and science are not polar opposites.

Many of the top scientists had religious beliefs.

and of course... there is Religious Science ^^

 

[redbaron]

I think what ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε meant by the religious scientists oxymoron, is that religion is irrelevant to scientific study.

E.g. if I want to study the behaviour patterns of ants, it's irrelevant whether or not a god exists. All that matters is how. Same goes for learning about the universe. It doesn't matter, 'why' in science, it only matters how. Why questions are often an intellectual dead end anyway, and so are mostly pointless to consider.

Yes it's possible for there to be effective religious scientists - so long as religion doesn't get in the way of the science. Which I think is what is being meant here. The two concepts are irrelevant to each other.

In religion, empirical evidence is irrelevant to the teaching of a god/gods.
In science, the teaching of a god/gods is irrelevant to empirical evidence.

 

[Rook]

The interesting fact about religion is that it exists. The universe is truly strange, for through the laws of physics subjective beings exist who can convince themselves that the the laws of physics are false.

Science and religion are both human endeavors, and both are rife with subjectivity. The main difference between science and religion is that science aims to break this subjectivity, while religion embraces it.
This is why they are not compatible, for in one to be subjective is to err, in the other it is redemption. Religious scientists do exist, but they enter the voyage towards objectivity with a subjective agenda, witch clouds their judgement.
I expand redbaron's example: To be a religous scientist is like studying the behaviour patterns of ants to prove that they worship the same god as we do. So to does a religous cosmologist search for god's signature in the big bang, and a religous neuroscientist for the divine spark of life.

The two worlds can co-exist, but one will always have to budge for the other in the end. The cosmologist may jump to rash conclusions in his search, or he may release himself of religous folly.

 

[OldCoyote]

Nature and religion go together like a "Square peg in a Round hole".

The Native American medicine wheel consisted of a Quartered Circle.

Philosophers stone = Squared Circle

Square & Compass= Circle Over Square

It's an Old Question..

 

[redbaron]

.

I don't think you really understood the example if that's what you got from it. Considering that there are hundreds of fields of science, many of which hold no implication towards asking any kind of religious questions, your selective, 'expanding' is moot if not entirely null.

The point of the example wasn't to highlight that there's anything wrong with being a religious scientist.

The point actually, was to demonstrate that it's perfectly fine to be both religious and a scientist. Since the two don't overlap at any point (irrelevant to each other), it makes no difference if a scientist believes in a god/gods.

Not everybody is religious, however everyone does have personal beliefs and ideologies. Keeping personal ideology out of science is something all scientists are expected to do, regardless of being religious or not - and there are plenty examples of scientists falsifying data for the sake of monetary or prestigious gain. Possibly even moreso than the amount of scientists doing the same with the intent of supporting their own religious ideology.

So maybe I need to rephrase it:

All personal beliefs and ideologies are irrelevant to science.

 

[Rook]

"All personal beliefs and ideologies are irrelevant to science."

They are indeed irrelevant to science, but not to scientists. As I stated, all scientists have subjective natures, for they are human. Thus it is reasonable to assume that if a scientist chooses to follow a form of spiritualy, this will influence his science to some extent.

Yet you are correct that some spheres of science can exist co-dependably with religion to some extent, such as the study of ant behaviour or zebra migration patterns. But the spheres of physics, cosmology and many parts of biology will contradict religion at many turns, and thus the scientist will have to make a subjective choice between the two. Just as religion may cloud one's scientific reasoning, so to will greed and patriotism.
In the end it boils down to deep-seated emotions coming in conflict with the scientific drive.

 

[redbaron]

Thus it is reasonable to assume that if a scientist chooses to follow a form of spirituality, this will influence his science to some extent.

You can substitute the word, 'spirituality' with just about any other term relating to personal ideology or philosophy. This is completely redundant.

 

[Hawkeye]

I think what ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε meant by the religious scientists oxymoron, is that religion is irrelevant to scientific study.

Be that as it may, it still isn't an oxymoron.

 

[BigApplePi]

The interesting fact about religion is that it exists. The universe is truly strange, for through the laws of physics subjective beings exist who can convince themselves that the the laws of physics are false.

Yes religion exists ... in people. The study of ants is one kind of science. The study of people and their behavior is another kind. It's called, "psychology." It might ask the Q, why do some people take to religion and others poo-poo it? It might take statistics on same. It might evolve into sociology which is also a science.

Science and religion are both human endeavors, and both are rife with subjectivity. The main difference between science and religion is that science aims to break this subjectivity, while religion embraces it.

Science is rife with non-scientists who betray their trade, cheat, falsify evidence and compete with other scientists for government grants no matter what. This is hardly objective behavior.

This is why they are not compatible, for in one to be subjective is to err, in the other it is redemption. Religious scientists do exist, but they enter the voyage towards objectivity with a subjective agenda, witch clouds their judgement.
I expand redbaron's example: To be a religous scientist is like studying the behaviour patterns of ants to prove that they worship the same god as we do. So to does a religous cosmologist search for god's signature in the big bang, and a religous neuroscientist for the divine spark of life.

The two worlds can co-exist, but one will always have to budge for the other in the end. The cosmologist may jump to rash conclusions in his search, or he may release himself of religous folly.

As long as science is in the hands of scientists who have not proven their trade over time, I remain a little suspicious and would ask if religion (some religions) seek to save us from ourselves.

 

[Hawkeye]

I remain a little suspicious and would ask if religion (some religions) seek to save us from ourselves.

It reminds me of this:

Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

 

[Art-Toyon-Aga]

As for (science = knowledge) + (religion = understanding)...
Could you please elaborate? What does religion bring in the way of understanding that philosophy can't? Isn't religion just philosophy but with assumptions that are baseless? Sorry, that wording is aggressive, but I'm having difficulty expressing the point (suuuuper tired).

(I know that the meanings of terms change with time >.< & this is an issue for me... but)To know is to perceive without need of constant sensing, while to understand is to integrate as in meta-knowledge (synergy of knowledge with knowlege[). For example, as suppposedly stated by Confucious, “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” Kinda as redbaron mentioned -

E.g. if I want to study the behaviour patterns of ants, it's irrelevant whether or not a god exists. All that matters is how. Same goes for learning about the universe. It doesn't matter, 'why' in science, it only matters how. Why questions are often an intellectual dead end anyway, and so are mostly pointless to consider.

Although, why questions are not dead end ^.~

 

[ℜεмїηїs¢εη¢ε]

Sorry for the long absence.

Not sure.

No. I missed the point. What principles?

Science seeks answers; religion already has them. Religious answers must not be questioned. How are you supposed to think objectively when you have already accepted answers on faith to such important questions as where did humans come from, or how did the sun come to be?

i admire your humility ^.^ (& wish i had it more!)

Either that, or I am overestimating human potential.

I disagree. It's entirely possible for someone to have religious beliefs and to be an effective scientist.

Sure, I guess that person could have a successful career testing the effects of drugs on animals but that person is not a truth seeker at heart, only a scientist by occupation. You can compare it to a doctor with no interest in actually helping sick people.

Religion is no different than spirituality in the context you are using it in.

I'm not sure how it is being perceived but I meant that the search for what our ancestors called sacred can be scientific and if something like "the spirit world" exists, then perhaps it is possible to punch an entrance into this mysterious place with technology.

[FLV][/FLV]

Be that as it may, it still isn't an oxymoron.

Fine, it isn't strictly an oxymoron.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Religion is the parasite of Spirit.

 

[Brontosaurie]

the god of question

i love how you can just reverse all the titles and they make more profound allusions. nifty feature.

woahhaha dat post count; am now one lap ahead of satan