Q2. What Is The Science Of Religion?

[spnadmin]

Some people think that religion is contrary to science because
religion insists on faith, while science stresses reasoning and
proof. But there is something like the science of religion. It
includes two things: a general history of religions and the
developments of a particular faith. While the science of
comparative religion seeks to assess the varieties of religious
experiences and a systematic analysis of their development, the
history of a particular religion reveals the special features
and deeper issues of an individual faith. It studies in depth
the change in the forms and expression of a particular religion,
the psychological development of particular communities in the
matter of dogma and ritual. Connected with the science of
religion are the sociological studies of the influence of social
forms on the development of religion and psychology of religion
which determine the palce of religion in human life.
Theology must be distinguished from the science of religion.
While the first is the pursuit of knowledge in the interests of
a creed, the latter is a factual study of religious experience.
Theology is based on the church, on the dogma. The religious
scientist is objective and dispassionate. Religious science in
its braodest sense is a history of ideas and therefore, has to
find general answers to the common problems of life. One of the
important ideas is holiness: what is holy as opposed to profane?
Holiness creates reverential awe: The fear of God. An
understanding of the basic concepts of religion has to be linked
up with the practical demands of active and purposeful living.
Metaphysics and the supernatural are beyond the realm of
evidence. Their appreciation will largely depend on the widening
of the frontiers of human knowledge and experience.

The inter-relationship between science and religion has been
summed up by Prof. A. Toynbee as under:


"Science must be based on religion and religion must include
scientific rationality. I think that the words of Albert



Einstein. 'Science without religion is lame and religion without
science is blind', are of even greater importance now than when
he uttered them".

 

[Archived_Member5]

Science is the study of the physical world. Science seeks to collate data and facts to form theories and then constructs methodology to find evidence to those given theories. The physical is not solely made of matter; there are gases, air, energy and force prevalent interacting and causing differentiation and contortions to matter.

Example biology is the study of life forms. Man consists of matter, a body, created by two physical cells. Yet there is atmospheric energy breathing life and consciousness into him, causing behavioural patterns and waves of thinking and thought cycles. He is not solely matter.

Religion studies the spirit of man. Religion is the philosophy of the journey and path of expanding consciousness and spiritual awakening. Man is an emotionally and wilfully unstable being. He requires discipline and conditioning of his mind to gain control of this erratic mind and body that without an awakening merely exists sleeping, eating, reacting against the elements as they arise. The dimensions of consciousness are on four differing planes. The enlightened and spiritual know this, Science seeks to quantify this intuited perception into provable evidenced fact.

Its faces a higher dimension that will not allow ascent until man has the requisite intellectual maturity and moral mettle to be solely focused, self sufficient and autonomous is his perception, detached from the material world. Time and again it is evidenced that there exist demonic forces surrounding God in times of darkness when mankind in constrained and entrapped within his own basal consciousness. Mankind face a battle against earthly ignorance and outer dimensional demons of darkness hindering his journey.

Guru Nanak too was tormented and would babble at times to himself, so we know they exist. Many philosophers, prophets and great thinkers, scientist were labelled insane when gaining proximity to truth. We are in the age of Kalyug from whence we move forth to the age of Satyug, whereupon Science, Spirituality, Philosophy and religion combine forces to liberate man from his eternal struggle. Earthly detractors and doomsayers led by the will of demonic ignorance place obstacles, confusion and complexity. Religions task is to extricate man from the entangled web of deceit and entrapment and free him from the cycle of eternal death and rebirth and repetitive life cycles...

 

[pk70]

The inter-relationship between science and religion has been
summed up by Prof. A. Toynbee as under:

"Science must be based on religion and religion must include
scientific rationality. (Quote from Quest ji’s post)
Science finds truth by giving evidence to prove its findings, how it can be based on religion to do that? Findings of science can be used in prospect of religion but science cannot be based on any thing but evidence.

I think that the words of Albert

Einstein. 'Science without religion is lame and religion without
science is blind', are of even greater importance now than when
he uttered them".( Quote from Quest Ji’s post)
Since these words are uttered by genius Einstein, we should not accept them blindly. Science is pure a way of finding truth with the evidence, often speculations fail science. How a science can be part of a religion that goes without any evidence and is based on very personal experience, in this case, evidence is there only by going through that experience. Muslims believe that the Lord revealed Himself to Mohammad Sahib, science sees it as impossible happening, to convince science, there is no evidence but hear say. Christian believe that Lord Christ was born without a father’s semen, science just cannot trust it due to any evidence. Common reasoning is necessarily is not gift of science but many religions inspire the mind to use it to know more about the nature and the society. Religion keeps the people to remain virtuous; it doesn’t practice any science at all. Are we more religious because of science than those tribes living in Jungle? Not necessarily. Science just cannot help a man to be more religious. If, as it has been said, were true in its content, scientists could have been better religious guides but they were not. Science makes understand all available and its inventions lead to use it in a broad way, religions teaches us to use it better way. Science doesn’t teach any thing but truth with evidence, religion infuses various virtues in humans to be better without giving any evidence that those virtues are right. Here comes a faith in a religion not the science. If it could have been said” Science should be used in context of religious betterment of the society and more reason should be used in religion to accept science as useful for the religion” I would have felt more convinced. Again these are my own humble views on Prof. Toynbee and Albert Einstein statements.

NOTE: My post is strictly addresses Prof Toynbee and Mr. Einstein statements[/FONT]

 

[Sinister]

The inter-relationship between science and religion has been
summed up by Prof. A. Toynbee as under:
"Science must be based on religion and religion must include
scientific rationality.
I think that the words of Albert Einstein. 'Science without religion is lame and religion without
science is blind', are of even greater importance now than when
he uttered them".

These quotes are rather vague, a little over-simplified and do seem ‘extrapolated?’/'tensioned?'/'stressed?'. In other words, they do not do justice in explaining the position of Einstein on this complex and rather sensitive subject.

What was Einstein trying to tell us? he made it clear in a famous editorial he wrote during the pinnacle of his scientific career.

Published in “The Christian Register” dated June 1948 in a section called Ideas and Opinions; titled Science and Religion: Irreconcilable?

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.
When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.

When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering, there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable importance. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many such questions, which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic" viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions.

When considering the actual living conditions of present day civilized humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow men. This competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.

There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one in the study of religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture. Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.

The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.

 

[Archived_Member5]

From the one pearl of wisdom given by Einstein flows forth a fulsome thesis, upon the understanding gained is summarised into the original pearl from where it was inspired. From a singular grain of truth, great epics are written. When studied by scholars and learned men and understood are finally surmised. It is called the journey of life. The Alpha and Omega, beginning and end are One. Such is the nature and cycle of man and his cosmos...

You will find in comparatives of Religion, Philosophy, Science it is the partially informed and unfamiliar with the other paths of truth seeking that tend to distance or disparage an institution they do not understand. Considering how much data, knowledge and information regarding man and his universe we have to hand, it would prove prudent to admit there are other hindering factors at play for the relative lack of any societal or worldly progress in real terms. That is the issues that require redressing. What was written in the Veda’s and Gita suffice to explain absolute truth and the route to its threshold and light.

Tying together, assimilating and merging these three powerful and guarded institutions is actioned rapidly by those with an understanding of the three. Life and the universe are mysterious insofar as mans lack of knowledge and limited perception and understanding. Absolute truth exists only for those who have faith in its existence. Those who dismiss the ideal of such absolutes will find validity only by their own closed mindedness. As the blind man declares there is no colour, or the man with a blocked nose cannot sense the scent of perfume, thus those who have narrowed minds constricted with anger impacted with ingrained resentment and defiant refusal to listen will be find a reflection of their stance in the universe about them.

 

[spnadmin]

by jeetijohalji,

Tying together, assimilating and merging these three powerful and guarded institutions is actioned rapidly by those with an understanding of the three. Life and the universe are mysterious insofar as mans lack of knowledge and limited perception and understanding. Absolute truth exists only for those who have faith in its existence. Those who dismiss the ideal of such absolutes will find validity only by their own closed mindedness. As the blind man declares there is no colour, or the man with a blocked nose cannot sense the scent of perfume, thus those who have narrowed minds constricted with anger impacted with ingrained resentment and defiant refusal to listen will be find a reflection of their stance in the universe about them.

I agree completely.

 

[Archived_Member5]

I have seen the suffering of many, the good struggle as the sinful cackled with laughter, I have witnessed those who professed to be followers conspire against the faithful, witches prosper and adulteresses be glorified whilst the devoted and abandoned were stained with the iniquity of the sinful and cast into defamation and ruin. I have seen the proud shorn and shackled whilst the cunning tricked and distorted their words, I have heard the lamentations of souls so cast into hell by evil whilst God remained in proximity without assisting. I have yet to find Gods grace and beneficence to any but the bow towers and corrupt of heart and mind, the loud and vocal praise singers with black hearts and viler blood. Please don’t misconstrue my words. I was referring to the atheists and their ilk who sit on grand thrones and elevated seats of power, so graced by ‘’God’’, whilst the reputations of teh wise and respectable lie in tatters. I belive in reason, truth, of Love and Wisdom. I belive in no God. I would not like to be mentally assaulted gain for this heinous crime. I have a need to assist any who would listen to escape the web of treachery and deceit of the praying mantises that trail the good and drink of their good and pure blood, torment with their deceptive devices into a senseless and tormented stupor. Religion is a path, and Sangat a communing of souls. I have yet to see Gods fidelity or grace bestowed upon the Guru’s, Saint, Prophets let alone ordinate man. Statistics determines a fifty percent chance of any individual enjoying good fortune. I bleed for other good souls who suffer with such dignity. Please don’t agree with me, we are two woven of very differing fabrics and bloodlines. Those with peace of mind are able to smile at the public tortured angst of ones such as I. :inca:

You have taken my words out of context ....

 

[pk70]

It is a beautiful article, thanks Sinister ji for posting it here. I have tried to comment where I felt, please do not feel I have said against it as the article deserves nothing but all the praise
Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."
They not only differ but firmed in their beliefs and beyond bending to any proved truth. I call them real source of the conflicts.

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.
No one should expect it from science any way. It provides facts with evidence, after that it is left to the receivers for use of its results. Science is informatory in context of truth with evidence.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science.

Here Mr. Einstein is pointing at the bone of content: Religious leaders’ having stagnant views and the progression of science towards the ultimate truth
Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.
Stagnant thought is a frozen thought in old times, conflict will continue, not because it’s a fault of a religion but due to unreceptive mind towards the truth brought before by the science and preset minds that follow the obsolete idea.
When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe.
It is not myth that differentiates them, it is their approach, and many times it confuses the believers. Religions are not based on myth either, myths might have added in them, and otherwise, souls go through the same experience as a scientist goes through an experiment practically. It is like understanding high quality of joke, who understand, smile, others don’t. Who do, have no evidence to prove how funny the joke was because the mind that was unreceptive fails to experience that. Rational mind some times acts like a stagnant mind and fails to experience truth that was experienced by others, subsequently declares it as hallucination or other mind disorder
And this is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish.
That is the point honorable Einstein is trying to promote
A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.
Not exactly, looking at history or before that up to where science takes us back, negative element kept subsisting in all circumstances.

When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering, there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable importance
. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness?
A million dollar point, if any one paying attention!

There are many such questions, which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic" viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions.

When considering the actual living conditions of present day civilized humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow men. This competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.
I would like to add a few words to support the author that without civility and passion, only rationality becomes the cause of this going on terrible conflict, fuel is added by religious stagnant approach towards the beautiful creation of the Lord.


The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.
A factual statement, it has all support from the history. Religion itself is to eradicate conflicts, unfortunately, the ones who are in love with the name of the religion than in love with the fundamental principles of the religion, are causes of bringing bad name to the religion and unquestionably roots of destruction of the society.

 

[Sinister]

These are all high quality posts we are making! i agree with everyone here...i think

where do science and religion overlap?...my thoughts:

This is the practice of rational science;

Truth must be learnt. And the process of learning requires the act of listening or observing. To attain a truth a person must listen and translate in order to learn. Truth in science does not involve attaining certainty but rather realizing the reliability of an observation with respect to details and as a hole. But in order to listen, truly listen, we must start listening without a definitive conclusion, before the communion starts (listening with a simple end goal, which; is simply to comprehend not judge). We must shed our certainties and become absolutely uncertain. But in order to be in a state of absolute uncertainty one must be absolutely certain that they are indeed in a state of absolute uncertainty. Hence, absolute certainty and absolute uncertainty are different agents, yet symbiotically connected so that they cannot exist apart or else both states become ‘disingenuous?’. Genuine listening, be it to an idiot or a sage, can only occur through this path and it IS the rejection of giving labels/conclusions before the communion has occurred.

The practice of good science resting entirely on this;

Science is an art…each discovery like a brush stroke making it finer and more detailed but never complete. Art is NOT directionless but when science is APPLIED as technology it can be misguided, especially when it is used to satisfy greed, the urge for social power.

SIMILARILY,

The Practice of Religion.

Very personal…a definition…unlikely

There are self-proclaimed ‘faithful’ (be they atheist, Christian, Sikh etc) that nail their colors to a mast before they even realize if a ship is attached to it. Usually clamoring for others to climb aboard, luring them with words we do not understand or comprehend. Verbally or intellectually trying to interpret ‘religion’ for mere entertainment or even for manipulation...it could be a type of social greed or just simply an act of social maneuvering (ego; creation of the self).

Whenever we fall into this mess we become nationalistic, tribal, insular, isolated, without a global relationship, constantly fighting. ‘Religion’/Morality (with a capital M) driven by a false convictions/faith, just like perverse technology, becomes that wedge between humanity if we are not careful.

For a concept that is so often misunderstood, Faith is given far too much authoritative respect, just like science.

Absolutism or caste iron certainties becomes a disease for both religion and science. For the ‘true?’, certainty is not an issue...there is only strong pervading feeling of reliability (as used above to describe the process of science…an experience...a realization).

Tough to explain in words…but truthful science and truthful religion although not the same thing,are practiced identically through an identical 'discipline'.


PS:
Buddha said it fantastically
“Simply hold the present.”

Listen Learn Live…you cant go wrong.

 

[Sinister]

I would like to distinguish reliability from certainty and uncertainty.

Certainty and Uncertainty are two opposite polls…in linguistics this is the standard English dichotomy.

Reliability lies in middle of Certainty and Uncertainty. Certainty or Uncertainty do not stir the need for constant Awareness….thus they are dead psychological states. That in all likelihood probably lead to a nihilism.

A feeling of reliability is only attainable through constant awareness, observation, diligence and discipline.

The practice of Religion/Morality should act to increase the consistency/reliability of a social contract.
Through discipline and diligence, true religion seeks to enhance the reliability of not only our thought but also our actions. Likewise science/technology should act to increase the reliability of our physical environment.

Another relationship.

Reliability; dependability, trustworthiness, steadfastness, consistency.

Meh.
Just a thought

 

[spnadmin]

sinister ji

This thread did indeed turn into a very sophisticated discussion that is stimulating. Makes it exciting to turn on the computer and see what happened in the thread.

 

[pk70]

Science is an art…each discovery like a brush stroke making it finer and more detailed but never complete. Art is NOT directionless but when science is APPLIED as technology it can be misguided, especially when it is used to satisfy greed, the urge for social power(quote Sinister ji)
Very impressive expression stretched to a practical reality.
SIMILARILY,
The Practice of Religion.
Very personal…a definition…unlikely
There are self-proclaimed ‘faithful’ (be they atheist, Christian, Sikh etc) that nail their colors to a mast before they even realize if a ship is attached to it(quote Sinister ji).
True but funny too!
Usually clamoring for others to climb aboard, luring them with words we do not understand or comprehend. Verbally or intellectually trying to interpret ‘religion’ for mere entertainment or even for manipulation...it could be a type of social greed or just simply an act of social maneuvering (ego; creation of the self).
Very true, possibly it might be against the religion being used as a base.

Whenever we fall into this mess we become nationalistic, tribal, insular, isolated, without a global relationship, constantly fighting. ‘Religion’/Morality (with a capital M) driven by a false convictions/faith, just like perverse technology, becomes that wedge between humanity if we are not careful.
Doubtless a proved fact, literally we cease to be religious

For a concept that is so often misunderstood, Faith is given far too much authoritative respect, just like science.
It is not given, it is taken as Science is taken for misuse with less or more for the same goal

Absolutism or caste iron certainties becomes a disease for both religion and science.
That is the essence of the article of Mr. Einstein
For the ‘true?’, certainty is not an issue...there is only strong pervading feeling of reliability (as used above to describe the process of science…an experience...a realization).

Tough to explain in words…but truthful science and truthful religion although not the same thing,are practiced identically through an identical 'discipline'.
I wish and pray for it

PS:
Buddha said it fantastically
“Simply hold the present.”
I disagree, there is no such thing “present”, and it’s a little moment between the future and the past, a merging point. One literally is bound to float less or more on the both.

 

[Sinister]

I'd like to start by saying Polkaroo was the guy steve! thats why steve never met polkaroo, because he was polkaroo and it was always the lady that met him. anyways...random enough?

I THINK:

The greatest tension that will come between science and religion will not be in the traditional physical sciences; inorganic chemistry or physics. (to which, I think, Einstein's message was tilted..with the entire atomic age that was coming into being)

I see a tension cloud arising when there is a better understanding of neurology, psychology, cognitive and behavioral sciences. Somehow we have allowed the fact that we are social beings to obscure the biological foundations upon which our behavior ultimately rests. Science had a very dry fixated view of the operation of the brain (which is now changing with the newest ideas focusing on Neuroplasticity). With recent discoveries the barrier that once existed between the Mind and Brain is becoming fuzzier. That entire notion that the Mind is software and the Brain is hardware is becoming outdated.

The debate is; does there exist a difference between the Body and the Soul (mind)? Are they at all correlated?
Who you are could be nothing more than a pack of neurons. With the entire idea of afterlife made meaningless one would hardly expect spiritualists, theologians even the general public to settle with such a belief.

Will it trump the Darwin vs. Church debate humanity had in the 19th century? Everything from the most primal emotions, sub-consciousness and self-awareness being explained through chemical and neurological pathways would be interesting…but scary and a little dry. (IF IN FACT IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE to get rid of the concept of “mind”)

I was re-reading a journal; Gallup, Gordan G. 1982 “Self Awareness and the emergence of Mind in Primates” American Journal of Primatology. Volume 2:237-248

It was a very interesting read and it had laid out a case for the motivation of an action. In, summary, they concluded that every motivation is geared toward the long term emotional satisfaction of an animal. And the Mind’s emergence (which they measure with self-awareness) is the result of an increasing complexity in neurological pathways…in primates translating to… an increased cranial capacity (brain). They go into an in-depth study with various credible references of their own…

There are a lot more on the subject as well…to those that have access to scientific e-journals…can probably look all of them up. (provided you have time...ugh)

what does a brain do when it sees a freind across the street?
...it gives a brain wave teee heee

Cheers.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

SCIENCE OF RELIGION.

Probably we are required to understand the correct meaning of the word Religion.There can be Science of a phylosophy of any religion .The main object of any Philosophy of any Religion is to enable anyone to unite with the infinite consciosness of the UNIVERSE and this is also reffered as SPRITUALITY.Religion is extension of Philosopphy to be part of the practices to be followed to acieve the objective.
Religion also encompasses different codes of particular group of people to be recognised as followers of particular philosophy.
Religion is more WIDER than the SPRITUAL aspect of the philsophy..
Therefore all the basic concept of any philsophy of any religion are supposed to meet the scientific principles of the UNIVERSE.
Prakash.s.Bagga