hi there friends, readers, children and anyone who wants to read this, welcome again to another exciting adventure in wonderland. Just kidding, I was thinking a few moments ago something that intrigues me. you know people try to use science to prove (among other things that are good in themselves)that God does’t exist, an alternative to how we got here, where are we going, what the purpose of life is, why we die (compared to a sequoira that lives thousands and a turtle that can live 200 years) how our minds work, what is the best way to solve various problems, like health, what is moral what is not, I refer to the series’ what is the right thing to do” at harvard university which can be found on youtube.
now I watched some of that and I was amazed by something. religion, belief in god, a moral satandard set by god, physical laws, etc, is touted as out dated, not scientific, based on superstition and the like. now may I be frank, frank? just kidding, does anyone find this odd? why do I ask? well think about it what is religion? according to the dictionary it is a set of beliefs (in a nutshell) that one advocates and lives by, now man has questions and seeks answers, and wants to know how to solve everyday problems of life we all deal with no matter what generation we are living now or in the past. what sorta laws should we have, what is justice, what is truth, what is solution to economic problems and social and enviromental problems that sorta thing.
now lets compare science, what does science want? doesnt it want answers to the same questions and problems? does it not try to seek answers apart from the spiritual realm? how do they arrive at their conclusions on matters? don’t they first of all test a hypothesis, see what happens and interpret it the best way they know how? dont they confer with other science researchers too to get more ideas on how to interpret results? don’t they sometimes come to the table already with their belief (religion) with the intention for the most part to find answers in harmony with that belief? example would be, global warming, many scienctis already have their hypothesis and really believe the conclusion will fit their agenda? so do not those who stick to the belief of global warming caused by co2 despite evidence to the contrary being religious? and if you have evidence both ways and one group is advocating one conclusion and another something oppisite and debating about it, does’t that enter the realm of religious dogma then instead of so called true science?
so when they come to a conclusion, is that not a religion? think about it, how do they know the conclusion is correct? how do they know there are no more factors they have not considered yet, example, they study the sun and it is a impressive star (tho a medium star by star standards)and understand alot about magnetics, and hydrogen and helium properties and nuclear fusion and all that neato stuff, but doesn’t it stop being science and become a religious belief when they start predicting the future of what will happen to the sun and planet earth millions of years in advance? wouldnt we catagorize that as acting as a prophet (a religious realm) rather than so called nonreligious science?
And when they start studying global warming, dont they enter the realm of prophets again when they say what will happen to the earth s climate in decades from now? is that not a religion? is not religion what we call when people who look for future events who want to understand the world around them? And doesn’t science (whether economic science, physical science, political science even philosphy, etc) try to figure out what is moral correct, what is just and what laws should be made and followed? is morality and justice the realm of religion? doesn’t religion answer those questions too?
how about man’s interpertation of time and events in the earths’ very long past? is that not entering the realm of religious beliefs when they have to figure out time lines for events, guess what destroyed the dinosaurs, how long life has been here, how the earth was formed what order all things came about and why some went extinct, when they treat their conclusions as fact (I refer to a documentary I just watched, raging planet, or planet earth, can’t remember I believe it was a national geographic series) they spoke in that video series the conclusion they had about how the continents moved, how the planet formed that sorta thing, treating it as fact. how can they really know for sure? is that not based on their interepretations of what evidence they have?
so what happens in religion? well did not people in the past view their enviroment, see evidences of different things and based on what information they have come to conclusions too? Did they not look at their proof after devling into what they believe was true evidence? for example, did they not learn that when they take certain plants they would have waking dreams? did they not take that evidence and confer with others to come to the conclusions that maybe this was contact with the spirit realm?
now you and I know why they saw visions, we know about many of the ways the mind works, but won’t we be considered supersititious by people in the future as they find other explanations of what was considered scientific now? do you see where I am going with this? it is considered a scientific fact that there are mental illness that exist and needing medication to control it with their serious side affects, electro shock thearpy cruel confinement and the like, won’t people in the future consider this barbaric and supersititous when they find out that many of these conditions were just personality features (not disease at all)and nutrtional deficiencies they were unaware of in times past? dont people today consider the riturals and human and animal sacrifices as barbaric for the people in the past? would we say they at the time thought this was proper and the way to deal with problems they believed were caused by the spirit realm they believed in?
so really if religion is a belief based on evidence available to people as they understand it, is not science also a belief based on the evidence avaiable as they interpret it? are they really at odds? is it really not just how one interprets it? we say magnetism, some say magic, we say spritural realm, we say differences in frequency, we say biological funtion of giving birth, others say miracle, some say neurotranmittors affects on the mind, others say feelings, do you see what I mean?
so don’t science and religion both depend on a continuation of searching and understanding our world and adjusting as we find evidences that show us a different understanding? basically doing research and gaining more experience that shows us what we believe is either correct or not? so doesn’t it become a problem for either religion or science when evidence is shown to contradict a past view that it is a unwillingness to adjust our thinking the actual problem rather than religion or science itself? And is the only real difference between religion and science basically one is ‘man centered ‘and the other is ‘God centered’? one says man will solve all these problems and understand the universe, the other God will teach us and show us how to solve the problems the only real difference? you decide.