|
as an experiment i decided to open the long debated subject of god versus science, in a room which was speaking of anything but that in the last few days. this debate will never be ended for there is too much resistance on one side and too much acceptance on the other. the debat goes as thus, a person says something, gives a few examples, and leaves it as thus. comes back a few days later to notice that not only have both sides been covered, but that most dont know whether or not they are fighting for one side or another.
follow this: no human can make the statement that they know everything about science or that they know everything about religion. thus they are left with the choice that they make, do i have more questions about science or religion? there answer is based off of their subjective and objective view of their life. there's no subjective evidence necessary for the scientist to resonably say that he still has questions about the universe, the brain, or cancer. and there is no objective evidence necessary for the religious to say that they have questions about their beliefs.
what i mean is that no matter what the scientist reads (concrete), it is still what he or she believes (cognitive) which will inspire further questions about the world. and no matter how many recorded sundays in a row the religious goes to church, service, or meditates (concrete, that they attended such events), there is no lack in their ability to say that they still have questions unanswered by their faith.
Further, if one were to look at science as a convention of answering questions, which i presuppose it to be, and is generally accepted (no need to quote for it was said by another under my original argument, read for yourself), then science stable testing and retesting to see if there are relationships between objects and to view these relationships. out of such recorded results after repeated experiments, hypothesis and theory can be derived through accepted scientific steps. do i really need to write all the rest... so i will skip to the accepted laws and rebutle years later found with new machines, tools, and instruments.
ok, so process goes as such: things are discovered, found not true, and either reestablished or they remain, and are further prooved through other experiments based off of the initial results.
now we can all pretty much accept that science is a means of answering questions. though i forgot in the scientific process the question is the most important part, it begins the search for answers and relationships.
now about religion. need i even go and delve into this process. ok, a child is born raised in a religion, they reach teenage years, and begin to find incongruities in their beliefs, or their supposed religious beliefs. now what do you do but ask questions. you ask everyone. you read other books from all religions. you find others who have written these books and died, but lived what looked like a happy life. so you take note of those who lived their life according to an existing philosophy, and you find that is just it. you like the philosophy not the religion. or maybe not, you like the religion. there are about a billion and one ways in which you can be affectively influenced by religion. it is endless. very much unlike science, no one finds the same things happening to the same people in their religion. religion encompasses too much of an area.
if it is accepted the previous statement on religion, then why are there so many? does anyone really have the answer. i am guessing no, but people find peace in knowing that others have similar beliefs as they do, and that those who have had families and are about to die, can offer a searching traveler an repersentation of what they believe and stand for. so religion is a comfort. it gives example of a life lived, of ideals held, of the existence of a superior entity, or god, or creator, or whatever...versus the lack there of. religion does not give answers. it only gives examples of what could be and what others have found to be true, subjectively through their lives, or through their age and wisdom, what they have found disproved over the years.
to shorten this i have found hundreds of things which link science and god. and only the borderline nihilists or extreme skeptics who pull apart my arguement should even attempt to say otherswise. as time goes on, religion and science are slowly melding together. you could also say that they are getting farther apart. so let me not finish and state that if science lacks emotion, why are we all so angry or full of "emotion" when writing our thoughts with scientific language.
science is a way of answering questions about things that we dont know. but considering how often accepted scientific data is disprooved and rewritten, then really science is just something which gives us an example of the relation between one thing and another. being that science covers all things from the human body, to the environment, to the stars, i would say that science gives us an idea of what really is there. so does religion. So taking into account that there are a number of branches under the broad term of "science", it can easily be said that like the many different religions, each branch of science gives us a little piece of the puzzle, but we need them all, the religions and the sceinces to answer all the questions.
you would think that i am done, but i am not, for metaphysics is a branch of science that totally opposes nuclear physics. they dont work with eachother. one says that an electron is there, the other says it cant be measured but its location cannot be pinpointed only said to be in a relative "empty" cloud the size of a football field (relatively speaking). with buddhism, it would be the same, we think that we are here, and we can measure ourselves here, but actually we can only guess, for all is nothingness.
i could keep going but i have made my point. twice. now its time to make a rebutle or to agree.
with tired fingers,
andrew |
