Science and God (One and the same?)

Published on April 11, 2009 By Gh0st_Note- In Everything Else

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.

Comments (Page 24)

346

CocaColaAddict

on May 06, 2009

Leauki

reply 19

With respect, to believe in something just because you parents told you, its a big mistake

No, it is not. But it is a mistake to doubt your parents' words if you have no reason to do so other than the knowledge that there is no evidence for what they said and no evidence against it. When in doubt, trust the people who did everything for you. That's the basis of society.

My parents were right on the toilet issue. I assume they knew what they were talking about in general.

The older I get the more I notice how often they were right. Why doubt one of the most important teachings now?

family tradtions got a devastating effect on progress, not all of them ofcourse.
For excample my dad keeps telling me that trading shares is like a game at the casino
the house always win, while in fact i trade shares and only for the past 4 months i earned about 20.000$
with innitial invesment of 50.000, it took me 4 months to pay back about 40% of the innitial investment.
and remember we are in a middle of a crisis here, where shares have a high tendancy to drop

I think it is stupid to invest in shares to make quick profits. MOST people are not as lucky as you were.

Your dad was right.

Incidentally, short-term investments are not "progress". And advice to stay out of risky share gambling does not have a "devastating effect on progress".

The fact that my dad as most of other people dont know how to abuse the trading shares sistem
and end up with high proffits, dosnt mean that he is right!
While if i would of listened to him, then i couldnt get richer by 20K (and still gaining)

The truth is that the best thing to do is to question everything in your life
so if you parents told you that there is GOD, first you must question them and check the facts
in case you didnt found any facts about the excictance of god, then your parents are wrong.
same thing with alcohol, while people drink alcohol, they are strictly against drugs such as weed
the reason for that is education that told them that weed is illigal and bad, while nothing was said
about alcohol, but the facts are that alcohol is the most addictive and devestating drug in the world
and its a fact that weed have no addictive elements and the only damage it dose it the smoke damage
same as cigarettes, yet cigarettes are also legal and have deep roots in the traditional life.
another fact is that every year people die from car accidantes due to alcohol WAY more then due
to driving under the effects of drugs, same thing with cime, many peple who commited murder
were under the effect of alcohol, and those are facts that not many know
because no one question the laws and restrictions, people just accept them as they are
just as you accepted that there is god only because your parents told you so.

347

mommie4life

on May 06, 2009

No, it is not. But it is a mistake to doubt your parents' words if you have no reason to do so other than the knowledge that there is no evidence for what they said and no evidence against it. When in doubt, trust the people who did everything for you. That's the basis of society.

I think you missed the part where he said that there was no evidence against it.

As for stocks, if you do it right there's a lot less risk, but there's always risk, but then such is life.

348

CocaColaAddict

on May 06, 2009

mommie4life

reply 22

So, if i cant see it, cant hear it, cant smell it, cant taste it, cant feal it, then it DOSNT excist!
now i bet will come the smartass that will say "can you see atoms?! no? so they dont excist?"
well... yes you can... you only have to find a powerfull electro microscope
cant say the same about god...

349

mommie4life

on May 06, 2009

Sorry, misread what you said. But it's the same for all religions, that's part of what makes them a religion, belief in the unseen or unexplained. If it was seen and explained then it's fact, not religion.

350

Leauki

on May 06, 2009

Using that logic humanity would have been eaten by tigers hundreds of thousands of years ago when children decided that believing their parents was stupid and that one's attitude towards tigers should only be developed once the tiger is visible.

351

Leauki

on May 06, 2009

Religion is a set of practices. It is not the opposite of facts.

If G-d appeared before my eyes and proved to me every single aspect of Judaism, my religion would still remain a religion.

352

mommie4life

on May 06, 2009

Okay, you misread what I said. Facts are facts, they can be proven they can show evidence for them, they are always true. Religions are based off of beliefs, beliefs are not founded on facts they are based off of what cannot be proven, if it is proven it is therefore a fact. Disbelief is when you do not believe in either another belief or a fact.

If G-d appeared before my eyes and proved to me every single aspect of Judaism, my religion would still remain a religion.

It would remain a religion because you cannot prove it to anyone else. Religion and beliefs are very personal and change from person to person.

353

Leauki

on May 06, 2009

No, I didn't misread what you said. I merely corrected you.

Religions are rituals which might or might not be based on beliefs.

You keep talking about the difference between belief and fact, even though that difference has nothing to do with what I said.

It would remain a religion because you cannot prove it to anyone else. Religion and beliefs are very personal and change from person to person.

It would remain a religion even if G-d personally told everyone on earth that it was all fact.

It would remain a religion forever because it is a set of rituals.

Beliefs are very personal, religions are not at all personal.

I believe (or do not believe) in G-d (or pink unicorns).

But I observe (or do not observe) the Jewish religion (or some other ritual).

It is perfectly possibly to believe in absolutely nothing and yet strictly follow certain religions. I myself know Jews who follow the Jewish religion (or parts of it) but who don't believe in G-d. (This is independent from people who are Jewish but neither believe in G-d nor follow the Jewish religion.)

Many people in the west are completely honest atheists yet celebrate Christmas and often Easter too. They observe (parts of) the Christian religion but do not share the Christian faith. The Christian religion exists independent of Christian beliefs. You can celebrate Christmas without believing in G-d and Jesus.

I think the most common such religious observances are the celebration of Halloween (by people who do not actually believe in evil spirits and witches) and the celebration of New Year's Day (which is done by almost everyone in the world despite the fact that the majority do not believe that year 1 was special in any way).

The Hebrew word for "religion" is "dath". It also means "rule" and "law". It originally referred to Jewish law as defined in the Torah ("instruction"). Jewish law is Jewish law, independent of a belief in G-d. It's a historic fact that some guy wrote down the code of law called "Torah". There's your fact.

Following Jewish law can be done by anyone, regardless of their beliefs. The religion and the associated beliefs are independent.

I myself do believe in G-d but certainly don't follow all aspects of the Jewish religion. How's that for religion and belief being the same thing?

354

CocaColaAddict

on May 06, 2009

Leauki

reply 25

Lol...
Only kids use this "you cant give evidence AGAINST it nither" thing...
2+2 is 4 right? why?
and and if its 2 cars + 2 house, then how can it be 4? no its just remain 2 cars and 2 houses
or you can say that 2+2 is 22...
yet, we all know that 2+2=4!!!!

So, if i cant see it, cant hear it, cant smell it, cant taste it, cant feal it, then it DOSNT excist!
now i bet will come the smartass that will say "can you see atoms?! no? so they dont excist?"
well... yes you can... you only have to find a powerfull electro microscope
cant say the same about god...

Using that logic humanity would have been eaten by tigers hundreds of thousands of years ago when children decided that believing their parents was stupid and that one's attitude towards tigers should only be developed once the tiger is visible.

You see that is the excact sort of ignorance im talking about
Lets take your excample, if kids dont listen to thair parents then they are beein eaten by tigers...
due to long evolutionary process, humans developed a natural fear of all that is unknown
when a child see a tiger, his sub consiosnes forces him to retreat, if you want to tell me otherwise
then try to explain the natural fear people have to rats, spiders, and so on...
rats are disiese carriers, while those who didnt had the protection mechanism died of desieses
thos who had it survivde, and here we have the natural selection.
some developed fear, others immunity to desies, both surivide while the third died.
you dont need your parents to tell you that tigers are dengerouse to avoid tigers...
just take a 5 year old and leave him in a wild forest, after 3 days you will find him in a cave or on a tree
not because he know its safer but because he feel that it is safer.

355

Fuzzy Logic

on May 06, 2009

If I were some all powerful creator, I would, after reading all this tosh, wipe the Earth clean and start again.

356

Leauki

on May 06, 2009

You see that is the excact sort of ignorance im talking about
Lets take your excample, if kids dont listen to thair parents then they are beein eaten by tigers...

Actually, it is you who is ignorant. You didn't even get that my example was a summary.

The point is that it is a good strategy to believe what your parents tell you even if you don't have evidence for it (and cannot see it). Evolution is not the only mechanism by which we learn. If you think that it is, you are an idiot.

For example pandas are taught by their mothers not to eat certain leaves. Evolution did not teach them not to eat the best-looking leaves. They learn it from their parents. And they better believe their mothers, even if they cannot see that those leaves are bad for them. (If they see it, it's too late.)

357

mommie4life

on May 06, 2009

You seem to be under the impression that religion is ritual. Actually, it isn't.

re⋅li⋅gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.     a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.     a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.     the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.     the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.     the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.     something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.     religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.     Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.     get religion, Informal.
a.     to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.     to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

"usually involving" not always. Atheism is a religion, however they do not have a set of rituals pertaining to that religion.

rit⋅u⋅al
/ˈrɪtʃuəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rich-oo-uhl] Show IPA
–noun
1.     an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite.
2.     a system or collection of religious or other rites.
3.     observance of set forms in public worship.
4.     a book of rites or ceremonies.
5.     a book containing the offices to be used by priests in administering the sacraments and for visitation of the sick, burial of the dead, etc.
6.     a prescribed or established rite, ceremony, proceeding, or service: the ritual of the dead.
7.     prescribed, established, or ceremonial acts or features collectively, as in religious services.
8.     any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner.
9.     a prescribed code of behavior regulating social conduct, as that exemplified by the raising of one's hat or the shaking of hands in greeting.
10.     Psychiatry. a specific act, as hand-washing, performed repetitively to a pathological degree, occurring as a common symptom of obsessive-compulsive neurosis.
–adjective
11.     of the nature of or practiced as a rite or ritual: a ritual dance.
12.     of or pertaining to rites or ritual: ritual laws.

Brushing your teeth in the morning is a ritual, but that doesn't mean it is a religion. Rituals can be connected to a religion, but aren't always part of a religion.

358

Leauki

on May 06, 2009

You seem to be under the impression that religion is ritual. Actually, it isn't.

Actually, is is.

The definition of religion as a set of beliefs is rather new and completely useless as it is, as I said, possible to follow a religion without believing the associated beliefs.

"usually involving" not always. Atheism is a religion, however they do not have a set of rituals pertaining to that religion.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is simply the belief that no gods exist. There are atheist religions, but atheism isn't one.

Brushing your teeth in the morning is a ritual, but that doesn't mean it is a religion. Rituals can be connected to a religion, but aren't always part of a religion.

If you brush your teeth religiously, the ritual becomes a religion.

Can you name a "religion" without rituals?

359

lulapilgrim

on May 06, 2009

For it to be as you say, there would have to be proof of Aaronic lineage. It would be possible if there were distinctive tribes in existance such as the tribes of Judah and Levi and houses therein of David and Aaron as existed in pre-Christian Isrealite times. Without proof of lineage no Jew can claim that he belongs to any one of these tribes or distinctive houses.

Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesised most recent common ancestor of many of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim (singular "Kohen", "Cohen", or Kohane). In the Hebrew Bible this ancestor is identified as Aaron, the brother of Moses. Research published in 1997 and thereafter has indicated that some contemporary Jewish Kohanim share Y-chromosomal Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) with a set of genetic markers, known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which may well derive from a single common ancestor. Later, in 2007, the same team announced that they found another common set of genetic marker related to present-day traditional Kohanim families in Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA).

...

The Cohen hypothesis was first tested by Prof. Karl Skorecki and collaborators from Haifa, Israel, in 1997. In their study, "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests," published in the journal Nature, they found that the Kohanim appeared to share a different probability distribution compared to the rest of the Jewish population for the two Y-chromosome markers they tested (YAP and DYS 19). They also found that the probabilities appeared to be shared by both Sephardi and Ashkenazi Cohens, pointing to a common Cohen population origin before the Jewish diaspora under the Roman empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

I am assuming that you want to argue that this is the purest of coincidences?

Ha, for starters I'll quote from unkn0wnx....

Unkn0wnx posts #121

Lol. So in other words, your evidence is limited to wikipedia????

I am sure wikipedia is credible. Hahaha.

360

Leauki

on May 06, 2009

Ha, for starters I'll quote from unkn0wnx....

Have you followed the sources Wikipedia gave?

The Y-chromosomal Aaron is widely known. It's been on the news years ago.

Here's science supporting a story from the Bible. What a pity that it's a story you don't believe in.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!