Not quite so. We are often taught (or learn through experience) what to fear. As we are raised we go from an age where we are under constant supervision not only because we cannot provide for ourselves but also because we do not understand what is threatening.in life. We learn what to fear, what might be threatening in life over time and as we grow older we require less supervision because we can provide more and more for ourselves and also because we are constantly learning more about what may be threatening to us, which is the basis for what we fear.

There are many things we do not understand and which of these things certain people fear or do not fear differ due to what they have learned in life (along with an individuals physiological differences).

 

Protocept00; concerning the title of the post ... Science and God (One and the same? ... the answer is NO … and is supported with all the above comments.

Hrm, mammals and humans may be similar, but what makes people different from mammals?

 

Hint: there are multiple things, and one you are doing now...

Our universe existing exactly as it is--with stars, evolution, physics and we human beings our perception and intellect is so statistically improbable to occur in any single universe as to be considered impossible by our current measures of such things to exist here and now as we are.

Yet the fact that there are infinite probabilities and possible realities make it completely probable that we should be here--just as we are.

Hawking, Dawkins and many other scientists all believe there is an excellent chance that life exists elsewhere within our own universe and in our present time.  Professor Hawking believes it so much that he states he feels it is inadvisable and risky to try to reach out to our neighbors as they may be exponentially more advanced than us.  Some of his peers have gone on to state the dangers may be more than merely encountering  lifeforms more technologically advanced than us but that we might encounter lifeforms more naturally advanced than us--beings who see and experience reality(s) in ways that are not only unfathomable to us but would be--in fact--not even possible for us.

All of these thoughts have been expressed by mainstream, secular thinking scientists--no theology required.  Professor Dawkins has even allowed as a "thought experiment" that  more advanced lifeforms could rationally be imagined to have created our universe and that their handiwork could be conceivably found if means were developed to recognize it.

All of these things are considered plausible by science.

Yet the concept that there may be a Creator completely different from life within our own universe influencing and interested in it and that It has left evidences and measures of It's existence that can be observed by sentient minds here is considered scientific anathema...even though our own existence is as statistically absurd and unlikely as the existence of such a creative being.

There is no less chance of a Creator existing as there is for humans to exist.  There are no mathematics or scientific principles that limit the existence of intelligent life to only our dimension and space-time.  There is no scientific argument to demand that a being must be material as we are, function as we do or "be like us" or be as limited as we are.

If in fact some experiences we call "religious"  or "spiritual" or "supernatural" are evidences or veiled perceptions of "another" it may prove that we have been limited in our methods of looking for a "God".  By relying on "science in this universe" and "only as we understand it" we may be making it actually impossible to ever see beyond where we are now.

Scientists have answered, "Well this is all we know--we have to stick with it."  My response is, "Really?"  I happen to believe individuals may very well "see" beyond what is simply on the paper in front of us and we just haven't recognized it fully.  There are many others who feel this way as well--including some scientists.

I say, "I have had an experience" and if someone objects and says, "We can't test it" my suggestion is, "Then change your methods".  If individual, internal perception has any validity, then we may already be floating in a sea of "evidence"--we just don't have the means to collectively process and quantify it all.  If beyond this there are beings who can process and understand and manipulate these things we aren't currently able to do ourselves, why is it "impossible" in an infinite set of realities, that some may have reached our way and touched us?

Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and L.Ron Hubbard have all had "experiences as well". My method is to say prove it. You simply say believe me because I said so. At least the Bible uses an interesting myth filled with the mythology of prior societies to try to make people understand something that  has nothing to do with science. If somebody can't even get past the reality that religions use myth to explain immaterial things because it is hard to put words to immaterial things, then they don't even come close to understanding what the concept of God is all about.

43 pages when a  simple no would have been enough.

 

There is no god, gods or pantheons, no supernatural beings no boogie-man that goes bump in the night.

There certainly are. Anyone can make one up at a moments whim or through philosophical thinking as has been shown throughout history. The Gods of myth...what wonderful meaningful stories they tell. The question is is there one that is a supernatural being that actually created the universe. I say no to that one.

What exactly do you feel I am asking you to believe?

I think you have a simplistic view of what it is you imagine I believe.

Believe in what? Why don't people believe in Loki any more or Zeus? People are atheist towards most gods that have ever been part of human history, why not take it one step further? If people stopped believing in supernatural beings they may take more responsibility for their own actions and start respecting the wonder of the natural universe. It is amazing enough as it is without conjuring up supernatural answers to your questions.

"God" or "Gods" is a human construct.

Whether anyone wishes to conform similarly or not is up to them.

There is no empiric truth one way or another so the whole premise of the thread is baseless, meaningless and irrelevant.

It is exactly like a crossword.

One person comes up with it....and thousands [or millions] of man-hours are WASTED in the solving.

Debate at your leisure...but it is probably the greatest waste of human time you can possibly EVER undertake.

Nothing. It is simply not something that can be proven through someone else experiences. People have singular experiences which lead them to religion but finding the fine line between believing or not has more to it than a single experience.

Actually Jafo, most people believe in a God or gods because of empiric evidence.

That's exactly correct (in my view at least). A person's own experiences don't prove anything for another person any more than a lack of experience disproves anything.

The question is, within individual experiences could there be a commonality that can be known collectively? (aside from well established things we generally accept).  I think there can be--nothing more assertive than that is all I have been saying.

Semantics ... just as Jafo said. If you have any empirical truth ... why not just show us instead of making it a statement to the fact? Just because one wishes to argue for theology … they cannot arbitrarily make their own definitions up. Evidence in this case is just another word for “your argument (or mine)” … so I am much more interested in the EMPIRICAL part … which doesn’t include a private viewing by the way.

Sinperium, evidence and the truth have little in common because one is fallible and the other ‘is not’. We have no business in the "is not" side ... and yet here we are, all of us on the right side, pretending we actually know some truth hahaha. This could go much smoother if we could just stay away from this "I know everything shit" because it says so right here (blaa, blaa, blaa) IMO. Unfortunately, science doesn't deal with absolutes, why should they? ... it rather ignores them except when needed to promote one theory or another. Science is public knowledge and can be found everywhere (but in the bible(s)) and is available to everyone anytime. There are no secrets, no mandates that need to be adhered to, no secret interpretation limitations, no rules to follow besides the physical constraints we all have to work under, no restrictions or blasphemy to be fearful of besides maybe being ridiculed if you are in gross error. If one is learned enough, they can interpret the data themselves … many of us seem to think we are humm… At some point, I have to rely on the experts because I am not one … what options do I have?

The answer is NO … As long as we have theological or secular or racial views insisting some people are just better than other people for whatever stupid reasons.  This silliness doesn’t allow us an even playing field to get started in. The topic of this post was a no brainer from the very get-go … yet here we are with over a thousand posts, amazing??? You are not talking science and I am not talking theology … so what are we doing??? And don’t try to say we are actually communicating here; not as I see it anyway.

 

And then again maybe some will take less responsibility. Take a look at some of the Native American mythology. They used it to teach their people to respect the land and nature that surrounded them. Seems to me some people simply need to realize that their own religion is no different from all the others that use mythology to teach a lesson. Taking something literal that wasn't meant to be is where some of the problem lies.

No. Times change and all people have their own set of circumstances. Even where commonality appears to exist ,for example killing others there will always be a discussion as to what circumstances allow such action (such as defending ones self) and what is an appropriate punishment.

Not so. You cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell things which are immaterial. With or without the use of scientific instuments.