Religion Versus Science

[nestingwave]

What of the rest of creation and things like dragon flies. Isn't the "One" experiencing awareness through their perceptual devices as well? Is my world view and perceptions any more important than that of the myriad of other species that enjoy our planet?

Not "more" important .. but ... equally important. The difference is that you and I have the capacity to tend the garden and be care-givers.

Namaste

[Br. Josef]

The more you know of science and of religion the more they seem less mutually exclusive. Both attempt to explain the universe we live in and both frequently reach a point at which one must say I just do not know.

Neither wishes to admit that one often justifies the others existence.

[nestingwave]

The more you know of science and of religion the more they seem less mutually exclusive. Both attempt to explain the universe we live in and both frequently reach a point at which one must say I just do not know.

Exactly. I do not know. However, I continue to seek with even more fervor.

Neither wishes to admit that one often justifies the others existence.

Here you are speaking of the institutional dogmas on both sides. Individuals on both sides of the issue, however, are waking up to the fusion. The separation was an artificial one to begin with. There is a history behind it. It is called the "Cartesian Split" which took place during the time of Descarte. Those who wised to follow scientific pursuit made a deal with the Roman Church to prevent being burned alive on a bonfire. The Church insisted -- "All spiritual matters are to be left in OUR hands and OUR hands alone. Your scientific pursuits are confined strictly to the physical realm."

So ... thus began the material/realist paradigm that has dominated science for centuries. However, the latest discoveries of quantum physics determines the Universe to be ... IDEO-MATERIAL -- that is THOUGHT -- MATTER. However, what they are talking about here is different frequencies of ENERGY. Like Einstein said, "there is NO SUCH THING AS MATTER ... ALL IS ENERGY."

Yep. Some of it is a little more "solid" than others. (more "materialized") Even the solid part (matter) is made up of bundles of energy (particles) that have FAR MORE space between them than substance. For example: if the nucleus of an atom was represented by a golf ball at one end of a football field -- the nearest electron, represented by a ball bearing, would be located CLEAR AT THE OTHER END OF THE FOOTBALL FIELD. There is far more SPACE and TIME than substance in the quantum fields we call "matter." But that SPACE and TIME is NOT EMPTY, but a seething field of energetics where subquantum particles pop in a out of existence. This is the "background" scalar field of energy behind the entire Universe.

All that is arises from this primal "soup." It is INTELLIGENT ENERGY carrying discrete INFORMATION. And ... through a specific process of Creation, the worlds of time and space emerge and evolve though cycles upon cycles, cycles within cycles and cycles colliding with cycles.

And it does so with a single intention -- to live and evolve and know itself through experiment and play.

Those who insist that it is all a "random accident" are simply misinformed and frozen in the old material/realist paradigm -- now breathing its last breath trying to find the Higgs Boson (the "God" particle") which Stephen Hawkings, being fully aware of the new discoveries in quantum physics, predicts WILL NEVER BE FOUND.

Yes, I agree with him because what they are looking for and wasting trillions of dollars attempting to find is not a "particle" at all ... but ... the spaceless/timeless and OMNIPRESENT UNIFIED FIELD which is the ONE SOURCE of ALL and EVERYTHING.

So, the vain hunt for the "God Particle" is the last dying breath of the old material/realist paradigm.

Namaste

[Rev. Red]

I always thought of religious stories of creation as something much deeper. Think about Jesus in the New Testament if you will. He always spoke in parables. In essence the principle of the issue as far as he was concerned was not that one grasped the story in a literal sense, word for word; rather it was that people understood the main point to which the story was pointing. In that instance, the story really wasn't important at all. What was important was whether or not humans came to terms with the point of the story and gained a deeper internal understanding of their relationship with God. And I think that this is what is happening in stories of creation, particularly in the book of Genesis. I don't think that literal interpretations can be taken seriously, nor do I think that one should attempt it. What I perceive to be the case is that God is trying to relay to us some key facts about our existence. The first one is that we are here because of Divine will. Secondly, that our existence on this planet is imperfect because of errors on the behalf of man. And third, it is only when one attempts to re-connect with the rhythms of God that we can become whole again.

Aside from these points in the story of creation, I am not entirely certain that the details of everything else matter, much like they wouldn't in a parable. And, I think when one considers these points, it is hard to find a conflict between science and God because it opens up the possibilities that perhaps things did happen the way that science thinks about many things.

What I do know is this: however you refer to God (I like the Great Spirit), he/she/it is more complex, more complicated, more intelligent, and more sophisticated than anything we mere humans could ever imagine. And secular science likes to reason that since there is no proof of a God, there isn't one. My argument to this is that if God does exist, what makes us humans think we are even close to smart enough to grasp a speck of the intelligence needed to know it? God could be staring me in the face as I type this, and I fully expect that I would not have a clue because of how complex of a being would be required to place a universe like ours into function.It kind of reminds me of the scene in the Mothman Prophecies when Richard Gear asks that crazy journalist why, if this Mothman really existed, didn't he just stop and communicate with us like a rational being, whereupon the crazy journalist emphatically replied "You're smarter than a Cockroach.......you ever stop to explain yourself to one?" I wonder if perhaps that statement isn't closer to the truth regarding how God functions in the capacity of our intelligence.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Rev. Red

[nestingwave]

I always thought of religious stories of creation as something much deeper. Think about Jesus in the New Testament if you will. He always spoke in parables. In essence the principle of the issue as far as he was concerned was not that one grasped the story in a literal sense, word for word; rather it was that people understood the main point to which the story was pointing. In that instance, the story really wasn't important at all. What was important was whether or not humans came to terms with the point of the story and gained a deeper internal understanding of their relationship with God. And I think that this is what is happening in stories of creation, particularly in the book of Genesis. I don't think that literal interpretations can be taken seriously, nor do I think that one should attempt it. What I perceive to be the case is that God is trying to relay to us some key facts about our existence. The first one is that we are here because of Divine will. Secondly, that our existence on this planet is imperfect because of errors on the behalf of man. And third, it is only when one attempts to re-connect with the rhythms of God that we can become whole again.

Yes, I certainly agree. Perhaps the re-connecting is a matter of remembering.

Aside from these points in the story of creation, I am not entirely certain that the details of everything else matter, much like they wouldn't in a parable. And, I think when one considers these points, it is hard to find a conflict between science and God because it opens up the possibilities that perhaps things did happen the way that science thinks about many things.

Exactly.

What I do know is this: however you refer to God (I like the Great Spirit), he/she/it is more complex, more complicated, more intelligent, and more sophisticated than anything we mere humans could ever imagine. And secular science likes to reason that since there is no proof of a God, there isn't one. My argument to this is that if God does exist, what makes us humans think we are even close to smart enough to grasp a speck of the intelligence needed to know it? God could be staring me in the face as I type this, and I fully expect that I would not have a clue because of how complex of a being would be required to place a universe like ours into function. It kind of reminds me of the scene in the Mothman Prophecies when Richard Gear asks that crazy journalist why, if this Mothman really existed, didn't he just stop and communicate with us like a rational being, whereupon the crazy journalist emphatically replied "You're smarter than a Cockroach.......you ever stop to explain yourself to one?" I wonder if perhaps that statement isn't closer to the truth regarding how God functions in the capacity of our intelligence.

Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Amazing the species communication possible when one simply gives it a chance and approaches such communication believing it is possible. We are all energetic fields, including the cockroach. These energetic fields intermingle. They are communicative.

For example, if my intention is to kill the cockroach, it is well aware of it and fear drives it to run away. However, if my recognition of the cockroach is that of appreciation of its purpose for being and an understanding of its place in the web of life, then it will cooperate with me to be moved from my premesis because it senses my intentions. Scientifically proven.

I just did the same thing with a wasp yesterday. Instead of smashing it, I talked to it. "Okay, Mr. Wasp, please cooperate with me as I move you outside so you can continue your existence." So, I got a paper towel, picked up the wasp gently, who fully cooperated, and then opened the screen and let him fly away.

Several years ago I would have leaped up in fear that I would be stung, grab a weapon and turn that wasp into paste as quickly as possible. But .... having gained some insight into energetics and our Universal l Interconnectivity, my attitude has greatly changed. I also have begun to appreciate Life in all its manifestations.

Now, this seems insane to our cultural social consensus reality. However .... Buddhists fully understand.

So, if I can listen and appreciate a cockroach or a wasp .... Almighty God has no problem appreciating me. Really. Cats, dogs, birds, squirrels, deer, horses, elephants, lizards, turtles and cobras are VERY interesting to communicate with also. The Dolphin is one of the most intelligent species on our planet, rivaling homo sapiens sapiens. Species consciouness exists in different metaphors and precepts. However, energetic resonance (tuning into the various wavelengths) is telepathy. Our mental processsing grids sense the raw energy of another beings energetic emissions (aura) and then the energy is transduced and translated into understandable concepts. All life has similar needs, fears and the basic intention to survive, interact with its environment and improve its situation. So, the entire web of life has much in common. Due to these common interests, telepathy takes place -- a kind of intuitive understanding.

All people who have success talking with animals know this well. Bill Nothern is a prime example.

Great intelligence does not make one emotionally and intuitively "cold" aloof and uncaring. Just the opposite. Great intelligence makes one appreciative of the holistic nature of All That Is. And Great Intelligence is creative. Such Great Intelligence energetically supports and takes care of its Creation because that Creation is the Creators handiwork and fine musical instrument through which the Creator can be expressed to the All.

And, since Almighty God is infinite energy and intelligence, the Hollywood view of intelligence as hierachical (high/low) is perceptually shallow because we are already ONE with THE ONE and only have to become consciously aware of it. All intelligence is of the One Being and all aspects equally important to the function of the All.

Namaste

[Reverend V]

True freedom of religion, as professed in the U.S. Constitution, by the founders of this country, will only become a reality when Christian-dominated newspapers permit the detailed public discussion of the sources of biblical stories, their controversial scriptures and dogma.

The religious freedom espoused by the founding fathers of the United States was meant for the purpose of religious equality. There are far more news papers presenting secular ideas than Christian. There is a reason it is called "freedom of religion" and not "freedom from religion". The purpose was not religious eradification.

Hopefully, someday, compassionate citizens will fully understand and practice the precepts of secular humanism.

Are you implying compassionate citizens cannot be religious? Secular humanism is an atheistic ideology. I am sure there are many compassionate citizens that "fully understand and practice the precepts of secular humanism" as you put it. I get the idea you are referring to the majority believing this way. So much for you bringing up religious freedom.

†?†

[Ex Nihilo]

Freedom from and of religion are both protected by the first amendment. State actors may neither restrict or compel participation in religious activities and may not use tax money for the benefit of a faith group working in a solely religious capacity

Edited November 29, 2013 by RevRattlesnake

[Enkidu]

I agree Rev V. Atheists try to use the freedom of religion to get rid of all religion. That was not the founding fathers intended purpose. As far as we know the majority of the founding fathers were all religious. Atheists fail to realize when they force atheism on people it becomes a religion itself.

[panpareil]

Science supports agnosticism but not hard atheism. The belief that deity does not exist, or that a certain animal is extinct are both unsupported by science. They are both untestable and unprovable. All that can be said is there is no evidence of the existence of something yet.

Soft atheism, where there is no belief in deity, does not conflict with science.

I would think that those who have emotions beyond perplexity, or incredulity when confronted with the religious views of others, are facing their own religious beliefs in the nonexistence of deity.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

It is an old problem. Atheists seldom define the god that they don't believe in. Theists often can't define the God they do believe in. All that arguing and no clear terms. So much heat and so little light.

[mererdog]

Science supports agnosticism but not hard atheism. The belief that deity does not exist, or that a certain animal is extinct are both unsupported by science. They are both untestable and unprovable. All that can be said is there is no evidence of the existence of something yet.

You sure about that? It seems to me that, scientifically speaking, not knowing how to test something is not the same as it being untestable, and not having proof is not the same as proof not existing. Or to put it another way...

There is a test that proves a certain animal is extinct. Prove me wrong.

[Fawzo]

There is a test that proves a certain animal is extinct. Prove me wrong.

Ah but you're the one making the claim, isn't the onus of proof squarely on your shoulders.

[mererdog]

Ah but you're the one making the claim, isn't the onus of proof squarely on your shoulders.

While I should not expect my claim to be accepted until proven, challenging pan to disprove my claim was simply a way of challenging him to prove his earlier claim... Edited December 18, 2013 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

A negative can not be proven. Science or otherwise.

[mererdog]

A negative can not be proven. Science or otherwise.

Nonsense. I can easily prove that there is not an adult African elephant in my living room.

[Fawzo]

Nonsense. I can easily prove that there is not an adult African elephant in my living room.

I thought it looked like an Asian one the smaller ears were a dead giveaway

[mererdog]

I thought it looked like an Asian one the smaller ears were a dead giveaway

Good eye. I did not notice that. I just figured the Care Bear footy pajamas ruled out the possibility that it is an adult.

[Fawzo]

Good eye. I did not notice that. I just figured the Care Bear footy pajamas ruled out the possibility that it is an adult.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Fawzo:

So, this is the elephant in the room?

Seriously, how would you disprove the existence of God; which can not even be defined?

Edited December 30, 2013 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

Fawzo:

So, this is the elephant in the room?

Seriously, how would you disprove the existence of God; which can not even be defined?

Why can't it be defined?