Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The split between religion and science does not exist

I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of God.

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of God.

God is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand God.

Your notion of God is interchangeable with pixie dust; why have an unneeded entity to fill an unneeded role?

It is needed because it represents the unexplainable, which is an entity in its own way. However I don't think rigorous philosophy has a place in religion. The more you try to understand God it the further away you get. That is why we have turned away from religion the more we have understood science and tried to apply it to religion. Science requires understanding, God requires pure and simple faith.

Again, pixie dust. Unrealities and unbeings aren't justified by their own non-existence and allowing them to do so permits black boxes and magical entities to enter an argument, reducing everything to absurdity. Worst of all, God isn't even an explanation, just a regression and leads circular arguments.

"Why am I here?"
"God wanted me here"
"Why did God want me here?"
"Because I'm here"

"Where did I come from?"
"God"
"Where did God come from"
"Supergod"
"Where did Supergod come from?"
etc

Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

Again, pixie dust. Unrealities and unbeings aren't justified by their own non-existence and allowing them to do so permits black boxes and magical entities to enter an argument, reducing everything to absurdity. Worst of all, God isn't even an explanation, just a regression and leads circular arguments.

"Why am I here?"
"God wanted me here"
"Why did God want me here?"
"Because I'm here"

"Where did I come from?"
"God"
"Where did God come from"
"Supergod"
"Where did Supergod come from?"
etc

This is philosophy and science, not religion.

Why are we here - realm of science
What should we do once we are here and why - realm of religion

Of course, you can explain the second one philosophically or by practical reason, but this is looking upon ourselves as an observer rather than simply being ourselves and having faith. I've found the latter to be superior.

I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of God.

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of God.

God is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand God.

This shadows my take on science, religion and philosophy - they are in essence the same thing. I also like this concept of God - the ultimate reality, the most basic form of understanding, the overarching consciousness that functions through a logic that science is trying to assimilate. Being a subset of God, one can never understand God completely.

Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

Language is an entity, and as such so is scientific terminology. Language, civilization, and ethics are not required for survival, and the justification process of these things as necessary is something I think is exemplary of modern, reductionist thinking. God is a celebratory entity, much like music. Music conveys an experience, it isn't necessary. Thus, music that teaches a lesson directly or is a personal accessory becomes functional and boring. The best music, and spirituality, is just a form of unnecessary appreciation for the mechanics of life, and our unnecessary study and harnessing of these mechanics to create our unnecessary empires.

Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

Language is an entity, and as such so is scientific terminology. Language, civilization, and ethics are not required for survival, and the justification process of these things as necessary is something I think is exemplary of modern, reductionist thinking. God is a celebratory entity, much like music. Music conveys an experience, it isn't necessary. Thus, music that teaches a lesson directly or is a personal accessory becomes functional and boring. The best music, and spirituality, is just a form of unnecessary appreciation for the mechanics of life, and our unnecessary study and harnessing of these mechanics to create our unnecessary empires.

pwned...

sorry, couldn't help myself

Rampant atheism is ridiculous.  Reaching towards that which is greater than the individual ("Tribe", "Nature", "God") is fulfilling.

Reality itself fulfills all requirements of Godhood - it is all-pervasive, all-knowing, all-powerful, the Creator and Destroyer of all things, and the designer and deliverer of the patterns and paths of existence.

Most Atheists I've met simply do not get modern the point of religion and/or faith, even as it pertains to themselves.

I'm  not a religious guy, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the correlation between social cohesiveness and religion, as faith is not unlike rounding up food or building a fire.  I mentioned this to a professor-in-training friend, and his immediate response was the USSR's lack of advancement, as if that was completely a result of faith.

I wonder how Newton managed.  Or what about Riemann?

In this case, I think the interpretation - and not the unyielding belief - is what makes the difference with regards to avoiding mass hysteria and the nothingness it provokes.

Smart people should learn what they can from everything that they experience, and this includes religion.  Morans should follow smart people, which tends to lead them into following the same rites and rituals.

Rampant atheism is ridiculous.  Reaching towards that which is greater than the individual ("Tribe", "Nature", "God") is fulfilling.

Reality itself fulfills all requirements of Godhood - it is all-pervasive, all-knowing, all-powerful, the Creator and Destroyer of all things, and the designer and deliverer of the patterns and paths of existence.
No it's not. There's no reason why you would ever need to be a slave to anyone other than yourself. These same ideas are the similar to those espoused by the Nazis which coerced millions of idiotic sheep into committing the holocaust, going to war and dying pointlessly for imperial gains. The whole idea of owing anyone anything from birth, I suspect, is rooted in the concept of original sin. You owe no one anything, ever. You came into this world completely guiltless and the only obligation you will ever have is to yourself.

I'm  not a religious guy, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the correlation between social cohesiveness and religion, as faith is not unlike rounding up food or building a fire.  I mentioned this to a professor-in-training friend, and his immediate response was the USSR's lack of advancement, as if that was completely a result of faith.
Similarly, there's a correlation between social cohesiveness and war, should we go around committing wars as to bind together as a community? (At least, this was true of the first and second world war). Besides, cultural and social cohesiveness implies nothing more than group think and conformity. Religion very easily does that because you shift the focus of metaphysical inquiry away from the individual towards oligarchies and the hegemony of society.

Quote
I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of the Universe

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of the Universe.

The Universe is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand the Universe
Remove God from the equation and you still have equally valid beliefs based on a reductive understanding of physical reality.

Language is an entity, and as such so is scientific terminology. Language, civilization, and ethics are not required for survival, and the justification process of these things as necessary is something I think is exemplary of modern, reductionist thinking. God is a celebratory entity, much like music. Music conveys an experience, it isn't necessary. Thus, music that teaches a lesson directly or is a personal accessory becomes functional and boring. The best music, and spirituality, is just a form of unnecessary appreciation for the mechanics of life, and our unnecessary study and harnessing of these mechanics to create our unnecessary empires.
God is still an unnecessary entity.

Music is an organic reflection of metaphysical experience based on a physical universe. God is a magical entity based on fairy tale thinking and cultural traditions. Music has a function as enjoyment and communication, God on the other hand robs people of important life experience in trade for ontological security.

To quote Freud: "Religion is mass neurosis".

Music is an organic reflection of metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

Tick.

Quote
God is a magical entity based on fairy tale thinking and cultural traditions.

Which in turn is based on metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

And it goes beyond enjoyment and communication to bind communities and inspire individuals.

Why on earth would you quote Freud of all atheists?