Science, Religion, and the ultimate question.

[weeman]

Now that I am nearing the end of my Astronomy class, I find myself pondering our existence so much more. One day in class, one of my classmates asked our Astronomy teacher if most scientists do not believe in God. He replied saying that many do not, but there are still a handful of them out there that do.<br /><br />I myself am not a very religious person. Since astronomy has been so interesting my entire life, I turn to the studies of science to find my answers rather than religious texts. Is it possible that religious texts are outdated? Religion can still be used to guide people through the hardships of life, but I think in our modern time, it falls short of science for answering our ultimate questions.<br /><br />Why are we here?<br />How did we get here?<br /><br />This is not to imply that relgious texts are useless. However, most were written in the days of early man, when the world and universe were so incredibly unknown. Now that science has come so far, we are inching closer and closer to these types of questions that might one day be answered.<br /><br />It is my personal belief that life here on Earth is not God's only precious creation. Humans, life on Earth, our solar system, and the Universe beyond, are all here for the same unified purpose. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

this thread will be locked or moved to Phenomena and someone is going to get warned for ad hominem attacks. watch. <br /><br />two main things may happen:<br /><br />1) this thread will attract all of the hard-boiled empirical atheists as well as spiritual humanists. if the thread catches, it will ramble on in circular debates until a moderator visits and threatens to ban someone unless an apology is officially stated on public record. <br /><br /><br />2) the alternative will be that the thread simply fades away and attracts few takers or mostly newbies who want to try their hand at debate tactics. <br /><br />and by the way, since this is my last post in here, we are no closer to the answers than we were thousands of years ago. so you can lock the thread now. <br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

Science and religion is a scientific study.Religion is part of civilisation as well as science.Science means physical science.Religion is also real.Most of the persons in the world has a religion.There are different outlooks.Scientific results are repeatable.Not religios experiences.We may discuss the process.

 

[mikeemmert]

Hi, weeman, I'm one of bonzelite's "hard-core empirical atheists".<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why are we here? <br />How did we get here?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I don't think there's a "why", we just are. There need not be any reason "why". However, since evolution has created a creature curious, loving, and with a sense of pleasure and enjoyment, we should take these things to be the reason "why".<br /><br />But anyway, science does not address the question of "why", just "how". When the first religious texts were written, nobody had the foggiest notion, "how". It has taken thousands of years to get just a few of the "how's". The people who first wrote books felt some obligation to the kids to give some kind of a "how", and since they didn't know, they made it all up. Their answers plainly made an appeal to a chain of command of authority, inventing a god for the how and things to influence behavior as to the "why".<br /><br />The scope and sweep of the truth is much grander and more awesome than the pitiful attempts of our ancestors, encompassing billions of years and unfathomable energies. The various bibles are just science fiction by people who had not yet invented science.<br /><br />"Why" is simple. Just enjoy yourself, even just indulging your "vulgar" curiosity.<br /><br />Edmond Hillary's answer is the best; "Because it's there." I don't understand people who have to ask "why".<br /><br />You ever seen a dog sniffing around in a field? I don't believe they are looking for anything specific. They are simply curious. They know the reason better than sophisticated reporters who asked "why" we were (for instance) going to the Moon. Anybody who has to ask that question has less intelligence than that dog. <br />

 

[vogon13]

----------------------------<br />Why are we here? <br />How did we get here?<br />----------------------------<br /><br /><br /><br />42<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[witgenestone]

If you want to be happy, don't ask. <br />If you want to confirm that we can't possibly attain an answer at present, study philosophy.<br /><br />I'm certainly not happy with no purpose, but it turns out that at least an objective purpose is harder to get to today then it was in the good old days.

 

[witgenestone]

And what's the deal with 42? 42 degrees??

 

[MeteorWayne]

Nope, just 42<br /><br />It's the answer.<br /><br /><br />What is the question?<br />Aye, there's the rub, mate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

42! Ah yes, thats it, how could I forget! haha<br /><br />and to quote my favorite character, " I told you this would all end in tears."<br /><br />Replying to Bonz's post, this thread is not to bash one's beliefs of our origin; but to simply gain my own knowledge of our existence through the minds of other people on this board. To ask "why" is certainly pointless in many aspects. <br /><br />Science hasn't necessarily brought us closer to the ultimate answers, but has given us an open window into a universe of opportunities. Even if science can tell us what happened trillionths of a second after the big bang, it still has no way of telling us how it got there, or what happened before it. This is where religion comes into play, because we as humans almost have to believe that something put it there for some specific purpose.<br /><br />Religion deals more with a person spiritual beliefs of our existence. While science's effort is to bring us closer to those particular answers, even if they are never solved, or they seem to take an infinite amount of time to solve. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[observer7]

As Authur pulls tiles from his rabbit skin sack...<br /><br />W-H-A-T D-O Y-O-U G-E-T W-H-E-N Y-O-U M-U-L-T-I-P-L-Y S-I-X B-Y N-I-N-E?<br /><br />"I always though there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">"Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" </font></em><font size="2">Albert Einstein</font> </div>

 

[qso1]

To put it quite simply, if thats possible:<br /><br />Religion addresses largely philosophical and moral issues that science is simply not equipped to answer.<br /><br />Science addresses physical processes and phenomenon that can be measured, and in many cases proven which religion generally doesn't go into a great deal of detail on, if at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

The journey.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br /> ...and dont forget to stop and smell the roses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Religion encompssed truth at a certain era.Bible was written on flat earth and geocentric concept.Unless theory of relativity was discovered we could not have thought of world without aether.We could not have thought of black holes.You cannot expect a religion to contain truths of black hole.Science is dialecting in nature.There is no absolute truth.

 

[qso1]

This is true but my point is that the Bible was not written as a scientifically accurate document. It was written to address the human condition. Even if one does not believe in a supreme being, much of the morality found in the Bible is as true today as it was when written.<br /><br />It could be said I could expect religion to contain at least the idea black holes exist if there is a God and God wants us to know of black holes in which case, discovering these black holes long after the Bible predicted them would be in favor of a God. But the Bible as actually written, it's either not addressing black holes because the writers of the Bible didn't know they existed, or God didn't let the writers of the Bible, who were presumably writing Gods words...know about black holes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Science may think it found where the Cat Crept into Concept and Crapped. CCCC. From there the universe becomes mathematical without any cause. But the religious, philosophical, and metaphysical questions remain, and always will. Science is out of it’s element in this arena and so very little of it is valid in true understanding. Science is the process of measurement and has great power in this part of its work. But science cannot measure the origin of the universe and beyond because math cannot give cause, only the other related fields can give some clues.<br /><br />When this subject is discussed we should allow these issues within science so that we don’t get the impression that science, especially math, has all the answers. I think the emphasis on math is the major reason so many of these same questions keep popping up because everyone, including the experts, are very confused.<br />

 

[six_strings]

Not to be an arse, but bonzelite's words were actually <font color="yellow">"this thread will attract all of the <b><i>hard-boiled empirical atheists </i></b> as well as spiritual humanists. if the thread catches, it will ramble on in circular debates until a moderator visits and threatens to ban someone unless an apology is officially stated on public record."</font><br /><br /><b><i>Not</i></b> as mikeemmert quoted<font color="yellow"> 'Hi, weeman, I'm one of bonzelite's <b><i>"hard-core empirical atheists".'</i></b></font><br /><br />I think they have different implications <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

About 10 minutes in boiling water <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Not to be an arse, but bonzelite's words were actually "this thread will attract all of the hard-boiled empirical atheists as well as spiritual humanists. if the thread catches, it will ramble on in circular debates until a moderator visits and threatens to ban someone unless an apology is officially stated on public record." <br /><br />Not as mikeemmert quoted 'Hi, weeman, I'm one of bonzelite's "hard-core empirical atheists".' <br /><br />I think they have different implications </font><br /><br />no. they're the same. <br /><br />but mike gets credit for his sense of humor and being a good sport about it. he makes good points.

 

[six_strings]

mmk, my interpretation was different, heh! Hard-boiled=hard headed, but to each their own <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

no prob. <br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

Methods of science are comparitively new.Started with Francis Bacon.