Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Not quite so. We are often taught (or learn through experience) what to fear. As we are raised we go from an age where we are under constant supervision not only because we cannot provide for ourselves but also because we do not understand what is threatening.in life. We learn what to fear, what might be threatening in life over time and as we grow older we require less supervision because we can provide more and more for ourselves and also because we are constantly learning more about what may be threatening to us, which is the basis for what we fear.
There are many things we do not understand and which of these things certain people fear or do not fear differ due to what they have learned in life (along with an individuals physiological differences).
Protocept00; concerning the title of the post ... Science and God (One and the same? ... the answer is NO … and is supported with all the above comments.
Hrm, mammals and humans may be similar, but what makes people different from mammals?
Hint: there are multiple things, and one you are doing now...
Our universe existing exactly as it is--with stars, evolution, physics and we human beings our perception and intellect is so statistically improbable to occur in any single universe as to be considered impossible by our current measures of such things to exist here and now as we are.
Yet the fact that there are infinite probabilities and possible realities make it completely probable that we should be here--just as we are.
Hawking, Dawkins and many other scientists all believe there is an excellent chance that life exists elsewhere within our own universe and in our present time. Professor Hawking believes it so much that he states he feels it is inadvisable and risky to try to reach out to our neighbors as they may be exponentially more advanced than us. Some of his peers have gone on to state the dangers may be more than merely encountering lifeforms more technologically advanced than us but that we might encounter lifeforms more naturally advanced than us--beings who see and experience reality(s) in ways that are not only unfathomable to us but would be--in fact--not even possible for us.
All of these thoughts have been expressed by mainstream, secular thinking scientists--no theology required. Professor Dawkins has even allowed as a "thought experiment" that more advanced lifeforms could rationally be imagined to have created our universe and that their handiwork could be conceivably found if means were developed to recognize it.
All of these things are considered plausible by science.
Yet the concept that there may be a Creator completely different from life within our own universe influencing and interested in it and that It has left evidences and measures of It's existence that can be observed by sentient minds here is considered scientific anathema...even though our own existence is as statistically absurd and unlikely as the existence of such a creative being.
There is no less chance of a Creator existing as there is for humans to exist. There are no mathematics or scientific principles that limit the existence of intelligent life to only our dimension and space-time. There is no scientific argument to demand that a being must be material as we are, function as we do or "be like us" or be as limited as we are.
If in fact some experiences we call "religious" or "spiritual" or "supernatural" are evidences or veiled perceptions of "another" it may prove that we have been limited in our methods of looking for a "God". By relying on "science in this universe" and "only as we understand it" we may be making it actually impossible to ever see beyond where we are now.
Scientists have answered, "Well this is all we know--we have to stick with it." My response is, "Really?" I happen to believe individuals may very well "see" beyond what is simply on the paper in front of us and we just haven't recognized it fully. There are many others who feel this way as well--including some scientists.
I say, "I have had an experience" and if someone objects and says, "We can't test it" my suggestion is, "Then change your methods". If individual, internal perception has any validity, then we may already be floating in a sea of "evidence"--we just don't have the means to collectively process and quantify it all. If beyond this there are beings who can process and understand and manipulate these things we aren't currently able to do ourselves, why is it "impossible" in an infinite set of realities, that some may have reached our way and touched us?
Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and L.Ron Hubbard have all had "experiences as well". My method is to say prove it. You simply say believe me because I said so. At least the Bible uses an interesting myth filled with the mythology of prior societies to try to make people understand something that has nothing to do with science. If somebody can't even get past the reality that religions use myth to explain immaterial things because it is hard to put words to immaterial things, then they don't even come close to understanding what the concept of God is all about.
43 pages when a simple no would have been enough.
There is no god, gods or pantheons, no supernatural beings no boogie-man that goes bump in the night.
There certainly are. Anyone can make one up at a moments whim or through philosophical thinking as has been shown throughout history. The Gods of myth...what wonderful meaningful stories they tell. The question is is there one that is a supernatural being that actually created the universe. I say no to that one.
What exactly do you feel I am asking you to believe?
I think you have a simplistic view of what it is you imagine I believe.
Believe in what? Why don't people believe in Loki any more or Zeus? People are atheist towards most gods that have ever been part of human history, why not take it one step further? If people stopped believing in supernatural beings they may take more responsibility for their own actions and start respecting the wonder of the natural universe. It is amazing enough as it is without conjuring up supernatural answers to your questions.
"God" or "Gods" is a human construct.
Whether anyone wishes to conform similarly or not is up to them.
There is no empiric truth one way or another so the whole premise of the thread is baseless, meaningless and irrelevant.
It is exactly like a crossword.
One person comes up with it....and thousands [or millions] of man-hours are WASTED in the solving.
Debate at your leisure...but it is probably the greatest waste of human time you can possibly EVER undertake.
Nothing. It is simply not something that can be proven through someone else experiences. People have singular experiences which lead them to religion but finding the fine line between believing or not has more to it than a single experience.
Actually Jafo, most people believe in a God or gods because of empiric evidence.
That's exactly correct (in my view at least). A person's own experiences don't prove anything for another person any more than a lack of experience disproves anything.
The question is, within individual experiences could there be a commonality that can be known collectively? (aside from well established things we generally accept). I think there can be--nothing more assertive than that is all I have been saying.
And then again maybe some will take less responsibility. Take a look at some of the Native American mythology. They used it to teach their people to respect the land and nature that surrounded them. Seems to me some people simply need to realize that their own religion is no different from all the others that use mythology to teach a lesson. Taking something literal that wasn't meant to be is where some of the problem lies.
No. Times change and all people have their own set of circumstances. Even where commonality appears to exist ,for example killing others there will always be a discussion as to what circumstances allow such action (such as defending ones self) and what is an appropriate punishment.
Not so. You cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell things which are immaterial. With or without the use of scientific instuments.
It's quite possible to perceive things outside of the five senses and to limit "reality" to only them is pretty contradicted by the entirety of quantum science.
We live in a quantum universe yet have no possibility of any sort of common quantum perceptions--outside taste, touch, sight and hearing? I'd completely reject that as an ad hoc limitation. It's a contrivance to set boundaries we can "measure" and thus more easily grasp and understand. It doesn't imply "all understanding and perception" must be confined within strictly material parameters.
Mathematics describe matter and energy--the things our senses can sometimes perceive--but it also describes far more things that are beyond our senses. Does math simply describe physical objects or is the observation of physical object described by the observer and perceived mathematically and processed mentally as a "sense"? If the latter is tru in any way, then mathematics is a common quantum perception/interaction with reality.
There is a lot more we don't know about reality than what we do at present.
Certainly but that is usually called imagining,dreaming,speculating, or hallucinating.
"Usually".
Glad we cleared that up.
That is why I don't put huge amounts of time into my posts.... It isn't worth it. Besides, my views sofar match Sinperium's quite well.... So I'll let him do the talking
I'll just drop my little one liners that totally screw you all's thinking
And on that note....
If "god" is a human construct, is it a defect of human nature then? And if it is, how come it hasn't been "evolved" away, like by natural selection and such? It seems from the time of humans ability to communicate, there has always been a strong focus on a deity. Interesting, no?
religion is just an evolution of superstition. All humans are superstitious it is a simple behaviour modification concept.
No it is:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
ChungasRevenge; A right to the point man ... I like that!!! We could use a little more of that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
