Science/religion

I always get a hoot out of the science vs religion thing (Tom said "I have nothing against religion, except when it tries to replace science"). First, this is an artificial dichotomy; there is no clear cut dividing line between what is called "religion," and what is called "science." Actually, so called science can explain very very little about the ultimate nature of the Universe, starting with how/why everything was created in the first place...much of science is theories about what the scientists think MIGHT be happening, not what IS happening. There is absolutely no way "science" can explain how energy became matter, or what energy is in the first place, or what energy is made of on a deeper level...or why everything in the Universe rotates, or why matter is concentrated in groups of stars which we call galaxies. The "Big Bang" is a theory, and can never be "proven" in any sort of scientific way; in fact, most of astronomy, which I love dearly, is just conjecture and ideas; great fun stuff, for sure, but not provable. I am reading "Parallel Worlds," by Michio Kaku, and the word that appears very often, in relation to what physicists know about reality, is theoretical...they don't know much, and are aware they don't know much. And when scientists can build a planet, or maybe even a star, then I'll be impressed.

Throughout most of history, every culture I am aware of, including the Greeks and Romans, had a great and powerful belief in the Gods, and their societies were structured around those beliefs. It's only in the last few years, really, that the imaginary split between science and religion occurred...and if folks don't want to believe there is a Creator, no biggie. But, Isaac Newton sure did, and besides his many scientific accomplishments, he was a very religious man as well. Science is good for some things, obviously, but extremely limited if one wants to make it able to explain the Universe in which we live on many many levels. And, of course, science is a religion for some people as well. For myself, I am in awe of the Universe, and from many hundreds of personal experiences, which cannot be explained scientifically, I am convinced there is indeed a Creator behind all of this, and that the Universe is filled with a spiritual force; indeed, the Universe itself IS alive, a living being, and this is certainly not any sort of unusual view...in fact, it is a very very ancient view, common in all cultures around the world. I think our "modern" culture is suffering from what I call a spiritual amnesia...we have forgotten from whence we originated, and thus have created science to try and explain what we have forgotten. And, it can never do that...Hstick
(BTW...I belong to no organized religions, and think they are as blind, for the most part, as those whose religion is science...we can have a direct relationship with the Universe itself, but it ain't so easy to achieve)

myspace.com/microstick

microstick@msn.com wrote:
> I always get a hoot out of the science vs religion thing (Tom said "I have nothing against religion, except when it tries to replace science"). First, this is an artificial dichotomy; there is no clear cut dividing line between what is called "religion," and what is called "science." Actually, so called science can explain very very little about the ultimate nature of the Universe, starting with how/why everything was created in the first place...much of science is theories about what the scientists think MIGHT be happening, not what IS happening.

You're entitled to your opinions. But consider for a moment: can religion explain any of these things, or does it just seem that way? And what does this have to do with tuning?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>First, this is an artificial dichotomy; there is no clear cut
>dividing line between what is called "religion," and what is called
>"science." Actually, so called science can explain very very little
>about the ultimate nature of the Universe, starting with how/why
>everything was created in the first place...much of science is
>theories about what the scientists think MIGHT be happening, not what
>IS happening.

Okay, I shouldn't do this. I really, really shouldn't do this. I
promised myself: no more online debates. But this viewpoint rankles
me to such a degree that I cannot stop myself.

There IS A VERY CLEAR AND DEFINITE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND
RELIGION. It's called "the Scientific Method." Google it. Wiki it.
I'm not going to define it here. If it follows the scientific method
properly, it's science. If it doesn't, IT'S NOT. The vast majority
of what passes for religion does not follow anything even CLOSE to the
scientific method.

>The "Big Bang" is a theory, and can never be "proven" in any sort of
>scientific way; in fact, most of astronomy, which I love dearly, is
>just conjecture and ideas; great fun stuff, for sure, but not
>provable. I am reading "Parallel Worlds," by Michio Kaku, and the
>word that appears very often, in relation to what physicists know
>about reality, is theoretical...they don't know much, and are aware
>they don't know much.

Guess what, Neil? ALL KNOWLEDGE IS "THEORETICAL". Don't make me dig
out my old logic textbooks and prove it. Do you know what I theory
is? It's not just someone saying "I have this idea of what might be
going on, but it's really just a sort of guess." A theory is a
formalized model devised to do two things, primarily: fit a set of
collected data, and predict what data will be recorded in the future.
Theories that fail to do either of these (that is, theories that
either fail to describe accurately a set or subset of our experience
of the universe, or theories which produce incorrect predictions of
our experience of the universe) are systematically (though sometimes
slowly and painfully) modified or discarded under the scientific
method. Any knowledge that is referred to as "theoretical" has the
distinct advantage of being amendable in the face of future
conflicting experiences...science is "flexible". While religion does
drift and change too, it does not have this inscribed in its nature;
religion, for the most part, presents itself as "certain", not as
"theoretical"; and it changes and evolves not in a systematic way, but
according to the emotional whims of its adherents.

>But, Isaac Newton sure did, and besides his many scientific
>accomplishments, he was a very religious man as well.

He was also an alchemist. I suppose you'd take his belief in alchemy
as evidence for its credibility, as well?

And as a parting word, let me add the one very tangible benefit
science has that religion lacks: science WORKS. It does what it
claims to do. Maybe it cannot give us objective truth about the
universe; maybe NOTHING can. But science is useful in ways that
religion is not. Scientists may not be able to tell us where we came
from, or even necessarily where we're going; but it can tell us an
unlimited amount about what's going on NOW, and moreover it can tell
us that in a way that we can make practical use of. Sure, that's
dangerous without a moral compass; but historically, religion and
morality were pretty separate until the advent of Judaism. Greek
morality sure didn't come from divine commandments, I'll tell you that
much. If anything, the Greek gods were an outgrowth of Greek
morality. Perhaps many humans, even the majority, are not ready to
embrace morality without religious justifications, and to that end
religion is still useful. But please, please, PLEASE (and I say this
not just to you, Neil, but to the whole world) STOP confusing science
for superstition! There's a well-defined difference, both in theory
and practice!

And for the love of "Bob", can we PLEASE not discuss this HERE? I'm
already angry at myself for replying to this. So please, let's just
not take this any further, except perhaps off-list.