Science is evolving every second. The answers science could not answer 300 years ago is common knowledge today. You cannot predict what scientific fieldss or discoveries man will be able to accomplish in another two thousand years or twenty thousand years. Science is always trying to answer the unknown based on what is known and try to iteratively improve our knowledge. For all we know the meaning of life could be expressed in a complex equation one day.
Yep, and science and religion are at odds....because science ultimately questions dogma.....and that erodes the power bases of religions. People are less likely to believe in a book that is 1200 or 2000 years old, if a lot of what is in that book is proven to be false through science. Now that doesn't erode the humanity side of the religious argument, you could argue all day that the 10 commandments hold up in any day and age....and you would be right.... Science is marching forward.....and as long as religion can stick to the human nature portion of the equation, the two can coexist.....at least somewhat peacefully. DD
I don't see it like this...you're shocked! I don't think science and religion are seeking to answer the same questions. That's why I don't find them at odds. Careful what you ascribe to the Ten Commandments...about half of them are dealing directly with man's relationship to God...like "have no other Gods but me." I'm happy you're calling that truth, but I don't think you mean it. If you believe in a creator God...then the whole concept of science marching forward without Him or in spite of Him is laughable. There is no coexist by default from that perspective. He just is. Understand what I'm saying?
If science advanced to the stage where man could time travel, will we be able to prove or disprove that Jesus, Budda etc are gods or not?
Just seeing Buddha sit under a tree wouldn't tell you if his teachings are "true" in any relevant way. God works all the time and we pass it by as happenstance and coincidence. We write away the miraculous and the wonder because we can explain in detail the leaves growing back each spring.
Buddha was not a god and never claimed to be a god. He didn't even claim to have a closer connection with god. His claim was that he knew the key to happiness and enlightenment (getting it) and was willing to share it. Buddha was more of a philosopher. The way to see if Buddha's teachings are correct are not is to apply it and see if it holds water just like a scientific theory. Its people inability to let go of previous beliefs that made Buddhism into a religion.
I see science as the pursuit of God. I see religion as man's attempt at explaining the unexplainable. DD
I agree with you as to science. I'm just not sure scientists see it that way. I think those who are honest in faith will tell you that God is ultimately beyond explanation, but for glimpses. When religion seeks to take the mystery and wonder out of God, it becomes something I'm not comfortable with. But I do think there is much we can know about God.
Very insightful, I completely agree, more of a "path of enlightenment." This is why Joel Osteen's teaching reminds me so much of a mixture of Eastern religion and humanistic psychology: wisdom about how to succeed in life and enrich the experience. Not much about life's ulitimate questions, hard issues seem to be avoided. I stand to be corrected, but I have heard people of many different faiths attend Lakewood's services and seem to relate to Joel's teaching. I don't live in Houston, so I am not certain that is true.
I think the fundamental flaw here is that while Science will never truly explain the "why" neither can religion. Religion can only over up ideas on the "why". I don't think a scientific mind can say there is no deeper meaning - only that this deeper meaning is simply unknowable to us. Why try to fill it with something as a means to explain it? It could be wrong it could be right - but there's no way to know. Anyone who says there is no deeper meaning and nothing higher is not a scientist or an atheist anymore - that's a belief in and of itself that becomes in fact a religion of sorts.
Instead of thinking in terms of religion think in terms of the spiritual side of man. For example all men have a conscience. If a dog steals something without anyone knowing it there is no conscience to be violated. But if a man steals something even if no one sees him he must find a justification or a rationalization to appease his conscience. Spiritual ideas work at spiritual levels. For instance man also has reasoning. Reasoning is necessary to make moral choices, what is right and wrong actions towards others. Another spiritual idea unique to man is will. Where an animal acts instinctively man must choose based upon conscience and reason. Whereas religion in itself doesn't explain spiritual ideas, spiritual ideas expressed can certainly be seen as religious in nature. To discount a spiritual answer to 'why' is simply to be in personal denial since the root issues of the meaning of life, why we are here, and where are we going are the result of a spiritual dimension in man. If you have no reason, no conscience and no will then there is no 'why'.
Not sure if this has been covered in 9 pages, but it may also be worth remembering that there is no such thing as god. Where my smarties at ? Huh? Huh ? Can I get a WOOT ?
Dogs have been known to run into burning building and fetch babies of their owners out of cribs - dragging them out to safety. Still want to argue that a dog doesn't have a conscience?
Being that dogs don't demonstrate that "conscience" each day, I think you decribing a miracle, errr...an act of God.
What's more maddening, not knowing "why," or making up stuff to delude yourself into thinking you do know "why"? Sometimes, we simply just don't know "why." "I don't know" is often times the best answer. Answering the question of "why" with the absurd and supernatural is worse than not having an answer at all. Even worse is proceeding to then proclaim those absurdities to be the absolute truth, with no verifiable evidence. And as far as we know animals do have morals. Of course, theirs is not as fully developed as ours, but plenty of animals demonstrate adaptive traits like altruism, reciprocity, kin selection, etc. which are elements of or at least likely evolutionary precursors to morality.
I'm not in total disagreement, and I'm very unpersuaded by faiths finding their basis in solitary revelations to one person alone in a cave or something like that.
Miracles are for people who are unfamiliar with the Law of Large Numbers. For me, Heaven is Man's way of dealing with the fact that there is no Heaven.
I am guessing God(s) want to be worshiped by huamans. He could accomplish that easily by appear in the sky to all humans for a few minutes, easily done for God(s), but none of the gods have ever done that for ages if ever.
1. Loving a totalitarian authoritarian dictator in the sky is not an ethical statement or deed. God doesn't talk to people (when he "does", bad things usually happen). You read a book that desert people wrote 2000 years ago and you pick and choose which parts you want to say is the word of God. Slavery was the word of God not too long ago. Consensus changes. Why is that? Was God wrong? 2. Non-believers frequently revisit their bad deeds. It's a product of our innate conscience. It's how we've come this far. Anyway, you're saying non-believers don't regret. 3. Again, innate conscience. Altruistic behavior and civil societies have a function regardless of the existence of a divine being. There's a reason his challenge ha never been answered. It can't be. Religion or a concept of God does not define morality. And solid, its funny that we're opposites when it comes to Hitchens. I think he's right on about religion and god, but on foreign policy (he's an American citizen as of about a couple years ago) I disagree with him. I have gleaned a lot of interesting useful information from his talking about Iraq, but we part when it comes to his temporary alliance with the neo-conservatives and reasons for supporting them (for the sake of eliminating "fascism with an Islamic face"). If you asked me if I wished all the social backwardness that derives from religious dogma would go away quickly (womens rights issues mainly), I would easily say yes. I don't think an invasion is the way it will or should happen. The western world has had and continues to have our own learning curve. They should be entitled to theirs too, as long as its not past a certain line I'm personally not able or qualified to draw.
