13
   

Religon Or Science ?

 
 
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 12:53 pm
Could some one please, help me to find answers to the following questions?

1. Why dose religion always has been against the science?
2. Why when wee look at the history we clearly see that the more human developed the more distance from the religions and traditions, and more believe in science
3. Why do all the religions leaders, governments, and terrorists have always been partners against the people?
4. ........................................
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:00 pm
@Sam Nogod,
It's the way of the world mate.
0 Replies
 
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:00 pm
@Sam Nogod,
This is why ..

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=YjZ-lSn0A3M
Sam Nogod
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:09 pm
@Deckland,
Thanks for the youtube link Decklan!
Deckland
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 01:14 pm
@Sam Nogod,
You are welcome Sam.
Actually Pat has a lot of clips on youtube that make sense.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  4  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 07:39 pm
Quote:
Jacob Bronowski Quote
From the "Knowledge or Certainty", an episode from the 1973 BBC series "The Ascent of Man", transcribed by Evan Hunt:

The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance.

But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in *any* form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.

The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty.

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. *This* is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we *can* know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*.


http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/bronowski.html


'nuff said.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 05:34 am
Religion is against science because every new discovery further erodes the fantasy of religious myths.
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 05:40 am
@Wilso,
Agreed, Wilso. But not all religious people are against science. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made by those who also profess religious beliefs. Neither Einstein nor Darwin, for example, were atheists. And during the Renaissance quite a few dabblers in scientific inquiry were also priests.
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 09:44 am
@Sam Nogod,
Speaking of the Judeo-Christian religion only, it has an antagonism with science because it unfortunately dabbles in science's business. The creation story is an attempt to explain the natural world, which is none of its business. Religion, in my opinion, should stick to metaphysical subjects.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 05:55 pm
@tycoon,
It does. When it doesn't it isn't religion.
0 Replies
 
Yahweh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 10:18 am
@Sam Nogod,
Religion is against science because religion was used to explain what science could not. As humans became more intelligent and were able to come up with new theories about how the world worked, these new theories replaced the old theories that relied on a spiritual being(s). Thousands of years ago people people thought the sun and moon revolved around the earth. They didn't know where the sun and moon came from, so they decided that a "god" created them to light earth.

Kenson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 10:51 am
@Sam Nogod,
Sam Nogod wrote:

Could some one please, help me to find answers to the following questions?

1. Why dose religion always has been against the science?
2. Why when wee look at the history we clearly see that the more human developed the more distance from the religions and traditions, and more believe in science
3. Why do all the religions leaders, governments, and terrorists have always been partners against the people?
4. ........................................



1. Why dose religion always has been against the science?

Actually, religion stands for the faith,
and the faith comes under the Spiritual Philosophy,
but, the science comes under the (world ) Physical Philosophy.

Since, these TWO Philosophies always oppose each other,
religion always has been against the science.

0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 11:00 am
@Sam Nogod,
1. Why dose religion always has been against the science?
2. Why when wee look at the history we clearly see that the more human developed the more distance from the religions and traditions, and more believe in science
3. Why do all the religions leaders, governments, and terrorists have always been partners against the people?

1. This is a absurd claim. Take Scandinavia where up till resently 90% were church members and more or less religious no one was against science. There has always been some crackpots - but I never met one.
The same is for most other Europeans countries.
2. People have gotten more secular and less religious, but they do not believe in science. People accept science and are interested in it and are happy about new developments - but believe in it as it was kind of religion - no
3. The idea is so stupid one cannot even bother answering it.
michs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 01:18 pm
@Yahweh,
ref" the old theories of spritual beings ie god angels. a creator are still the therioes today. what does that imply other than it has always been the same.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2010 01:27 am
@Sam Nogod,
Sam Nogod wrote:

Could some one please, help me to find answers to the following questions?

1. Why dose religion always has been against the science?
2. Why when wee look at the history we clearly see that the more human developed the more distance from the religions and traditions, and more believe in science
3. Why do all the religions leaders, governments, and terrorists have always been partners against the people?
4. ........................................

1) you describe fanatic religious people/leaders who demands obidience, submission, devotion ..etc, if you question their teachings you will defy "God's will, perfection and purity".
2) people realize by rationalizing things, that only naive stupid and ignorent people will belive in the superstitious teachings.
3) "live by the sword, die by the sword", if you only know violence and terror when taking power, you can't suddenly change your inner nature and begin a peaceful era, only very few has been strong and wise enough to do so.
4) usually it's group think people who will belive in dieties, your group think can overwrite other strong instincts. Group think is a psycology term.
0 Replies
 
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 10:04 am
@Sam Nogod,
The answer is in this, which I trust will find no understanding here.
In elementary set theory, there are two, and only two methods of constructing a set, enumeration and definition. These are the two elements of a two element metaphysics. Now I ask, Given one thing, I can either abstract that things form, or that things material difference. However, does the fact that there are only two possible abstractions mean I have two things? Is a thing different from itself simply because I approach it through reason or through mythology?

And, would anyone who actually understood the foundation of reason itself, be misled by a simple fallacy?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 12:00 pm
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

The answer is in this, which I trust will find no understanding here.
In elementary set theory, there are two, and only two methods of constructing a set, enumeration and definition. These are the two elements of a two element metaphysics. Now I ask, Given one thing, I can either abstract that things form, or that things material difference. However, does the fact that there are only two possible abstractions mean I have two things? Is a thing different from itself simply because I approach it through reason or through mythology?

And, would anyone who actually understood the foundation of reason itself, be misled by a simple fallacy?
Bunch of fancy rehtorical mumbujombo.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 12:04 pm
@HexHammer,
Is that the best you can do? Is that how you learned to reason, if you did?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 03:17 pm
@NoOne phil,
Anyone reasonable intelligent, should be able to put things into layman terms.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 03:39 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

Anyone reasonable intelligent, should be able to put things into layman terms.

I have never met a blind man who made his form of social discourse begging for eyes.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Religon Or Science ?
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/25/2014 at 07:51:23