We have smatter of topics on religion here, but we haven't had this widely discussed topic up to now.

What do you think about Science vs Religion? Do we have to bring these two anyhow?

What do you think?

Discuss

Religion is the brain of from human bc ad to 20th century. Science is for 21st century onward for the go to long future toward. Well luckily you know my thoughts, Metalstorm, metal is music of darkside. but darkside is not real, its just half moon shadow on night, fairy tales or religions or anti evil problem is brain imagination, in the end of 20th century, and 21st century begining, there is no God. Live free dude. You lose nothing. Everyone same. Only Science remains.

Having studied theoretical physics for the better part of my last 10 years, I have to say that the more I learn about science, the more I understand religion. Science is... fucking fucked, man, and equally, if not even more, incomprehensible, inconceivable, and mindfucking than any religion out there. Science and religion are two approaches to the same question, and they both arrive at entirely ridiculous answers. It's just that the scientific answer is actually useful.

Consider quantum mechanics, for instance. Werner Heisenberg said "if someone claims to understand quantum physics they clearly haven't understood the first thing about it". He's entirely correct. The really fucky thing about this is that we can actually use the irrational, illogical and unreasonable aspects of quantum theory for practical purposes while simultaneous not understanding the first thing about them. Quantum cryptography, computing, everything builds upon reality not being reality until we actually observe it.

This brings into question the role of consciousness into the picture, but we don't have to go that far. It suffices to determine an observation as an interaction, it can be as simple as two particles colliding; they will exchange information and encode in their quantum states properties about each other, which we can then use to perform previously impossible calculations as long as we do not observe these particles and decohere their superpositions. Sort of like the"improbability drive" in the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.

Compare this to religion which has a clear answer to everything, in theory, but in reality only begets further questions. Just like science. Every answer leads to a fuckton of further questions and you never ever reach an end to it. There is no answer. There are only questions. Questions, questions, questions. Learn to appreciate the mystery and incredibility of it all, or stop asking questions altogether, or you'll end up in the psych ward. Allahu Akbar, Sefer Yetzirah Netzach, the cat is both dead and alive.

As for whether there is a god or not, Einstein was a panentheist. If consciousness can exist outside of neural pathways, nothing says that the entire universe itself cannot be one single great consciousness. We might just be partitions of consciousness evolved to observe the universe from inside itself so that it might learn about itself from various perspectives as it cannot be observed from the outside.

Shouldn't this topic be in "Serious Discussions", by the way?

@Netzacha: you really scientist, im no physics knowledgeable, i have only one degree in business. Thats enough 4 years fucking up my brain and body. But as I have been 10 years of researching religion, and astrology. The answer advice: is you live your life as human creature in this world, you need to be careful not to die in mental jail, or prison. Dont feel bad when you have less, or you weak, or negative. Be watch out someday you will be powerful and die fighting the world in mental jail or prison. hard time always there.

PS: cuz there is no GOd save you when actually you are GOD.

Written by [user id=172292] on 04.09.2023 at 10:21

PS: cuz there is no GOd save you when actually you are GOD.

That is true, I suppose. We are all gods of our own lives. I do not believe in any higher power as such. There might be higher powers, but I don't give a fuck about what they'd want me to do. Non serviam. And I've already been in a psych ward for a short time and had my fair share of mental issues, so no need to lecture me about that

Science and religion are both man-made, so they're bound to be imperfect.

I don't believe they have to be incompatible, though. Science describes our world to the best of our knowledge, but there are some things that can't be tested and therefore can't be proven as true (sorry, string theorists).

Think of the Big Bang. Sure, we can recreate some conditions in particle accelerators for picoseconds, but will we ever truly know how that initial spark happened? Looking into space, we can only see with EM waves back to 380,000 years after the Big Bang (for those curious, look up cosmic background radiation). Maybe gravity waves will be measurable from that time before 300k years, but I think Science has no hope to definitively explain the Big Bang. That's where belief can only deliver answers.

There's also the question about the existence of souls. I'd like to believe that there is more to us than just a self-aware brain. And perhaps that soul escapes to another parallel universe called Heaven (or Hell) that living beings will never be able to access. Maybe God is a four-dimensional being that can reach into our 3D world and make divine actions appear to us as miracles (see the book Flatland from 1884, which uses an analogy of a 2D world being visited by a 3D object).

All those things, at least to my knowledge, can't be answered by science (yet). Religion will have to give us those answers for now.

Written by F3ynman on 04.09.2023 at 12:42

There's also the question about the existence of souls. I'd like to believe that there is more to us than just a self-aware brain. And perhaps that soul escapes to another parallel universe called Heaven (or Hell) that living beings will never be able to access. Maybe God is a four-dimensional being that can reach into our 3D world and make divine actions appear to us as miracles (see the book Flatland from 1884, which uses an analogy of a 2D world being visited by a 3D object).

All those things, at least to my knowledge, can't be answered by science (yet). Religion will have to give us those answers for now.

You are 22 physicist student. You better than me now in 22 years old because you see me now I'm nearly 36. When I'm 22 I do believe in something power higher one, but now after years I realize there is no God. Now looks at what have found: (and luckily you know my thoughts), as I care about young generation for not getting pain like me. :
1. Christian god is god n jesus, but years ago some in Asia worship Buddha and not known about Jesus god, contrary Christian don't know god like Buddha. Look at native in Papua new guine they know non god. That means all god is imagination by some group of ppl then being spread.

2. Dogs know shit about god, they understand human command, means dog doesn't get god or god doesn't rule or affect dogs. Same as lion, they are living creature,eat, sleep,shit, fight, kill. God no exists for them.

3. Religion exist becuz long ago, we don't understand ourself, body, environment, everything so we worship and then spread it.... look at animal, dogs lion cat, all have heart and liver lung etc, we all are EVOLUTION. looks at the dinosaurs living before us...where is god...

4. Everything in religion is imagine. You would think gods of Indian is true, no all are imagine.

5 . All jesus, Buddha, allah have dick and need to shit. They just smart in brain. They scratch dick when itchy too. We are all alike. Just they were smart. So they lead us. No god. They were truly initiation.

6.read godfather or the scicilan, all Pope monk,nun priests, bunch of them have sex, they are no god nor Jesus or buddha.

7. Bible is real, it's just experiences lesson of life teaching, like verse who live by sword die by sword. Just teaching, but not god. Those whose write the Bible is human.

8. Actually all are human brain. I've seen a lot of mental patient got obsessed with Jesus, some with buddha. It's all what they believe. Not true, or reality.

9. Religion is for us to believe in higher supernatural or transcendent, no that.

10. Thats all.

P.s : even dark side n all horror thing is imagined origin from darkness n fairy tales. Dark simply is half side of the earth without sun shine. Not means dark bad,

Written by F3ynman on 04.09.2023 at 12:42

Think of the Big Bang. Sure, we can recreate some conditions in particle accelerators for picoseconds, but will we ever truly know how that initial spark happened? Looking into space, we can only see with EM waves back to 380,000 years after the Big Bang (for those curious, look up cosmic background radiation). Maybe gravity waves will be measurable from that time before 300k years, but I think Science has no hope to definitively explain the Big Bang. That's where belief can only deliver answers.

Well, both religion and the Big Bang Theory ends up at the prime mover question. Sure, the Big Bang is based on observation and extrapolation (and we could in theory see it with a telescope reaching far enough out into space) but it doesn't answer at all where it all came from. "The universe began as a singularity" Umm... Okay? It answers nothing, it explains nothing, it is just an assumption based on our observations of galaxies travelling further and further away from us the further they already are from us. Religion tries to explain this with "God made the universe" but then cannot explain where God came from (if He's eternal, why did He create the universe when he did and what the hell did He do for an eternity before that?). Likewise, science cannot explain this Initial Singularity and where it came from and why anything exists at all rather than not. Attempts have been made to explain it with quantum vacuum fluctuations and Penrose's conformal cyclical cosmology (which just extends the prime mover question an eternity backwards in time)... So yeah, I agree with this in essence, and I think we shouldn't look for answers but be content with questions that lead to more questions. If you look for answers, you're in the wrong place. It might be that we're even asking the wrong questions....

^ More generally, every theory out there cannot define the primary concepts.
Set theory, the foundations of mathematics is based on sets. What are sets? "Groups of elements"? And what are elements? And what are those so-called 'groups'?
Or in geometry... The axioms state that there are points and you start making lines and figures with those points. But what are the points? It's impossible to define any initial concept. You just accept that they exist and build a theory after that accepted concept.

I stumbled one of the videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson(not claiming he's a voice of Science here), where he says, "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance...." and inherently proposed that "people of faith do damage their belief when they refuse to open their minds to possibilities".

We the only civilization born with intelligence capability, strived to unravel the mysteries of the universe leading groundbreaking discoveries like laws of motion, relativity, cosmic microwave background, dark energy founded in 1998 by American and Australian astronomers that led the discovery behind the expansion of universe etc. These remarkable theories came after stringent process of exploration and revealing facts that astounded leading scientists and its peers across the world. In these development, when you come to hear about Neil's claim.

What do you really think?

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 18.08.2024 at 09:25

I stumbled one of the videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson(not claiming he's a voice of Science here), where he says, "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance...." and inherently proposed that "people of faith do damage their belief when they refuse to open their minds to possibilities".

We the only civilization born with intelligence capability, strived to unravel the mysteries of the universe leading groundbreaking discoveries like laws of motion, relativity, cosmic microwave background, dark energy founded in 1998 by American and Australian astronomers that led the discovery behind the expansion of universe etc. These remarkable theories came after stringent process of exploration and revealing facts that astounded leading scientists and its peers across the world. In these development, when you come to hear about Neil's claim.

What do you really think?

Yes, a lot of things once attributed to God(s) (weather, earthquakes, the Moon, the Sun, etc) can now be explained by science. But some things we really can't explain. For example, our most accurate theory (accurate in the sense that measurements agree with the theoretical prediction to 10 decimal places) is Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which is the basis for the Standard Model of Particle Physics. QFT is like a machine that can produce super accurate predictions about nature. But, the machine can't run without some input. This input we call "free parameters" (see this Wikipedia article under "Free parameters"). There are about 20 free parameters in the Standard Model (such as the exact masses of the particles and the interaction strengths of the fundamental forces of nature) that are literally God-given, i.e. we do not know where they come from. The universe (or God) chose those input parameters, and all we've been able to do is make a machine that takes these input parameters to predict how particles behave in nature. One "scientific" explanation is that there are infinite possible universes out there, and we're in this one with these exact parameters because only this combination of parameters allows life. This is the Anthropic Principle, but as there's no way to prove or disprove it, it's just as valid as saying God chose these parameters.

I also want to mention that there might be a danger to trust science > religion every time, so that scientists might become blind to things that are actually proof of God by writing it off as something that science could perhaps explain one day. When Neil deGrasse Tyson says "people of faith do damage their belief when they refuse to open their minds to possibilities", then an obvious counter would be that people of science refuse to open their minds to the possibility of God.

Written by F3ynman on 18.08.2024 at 14:18

The universe (or God) chose those input parameters, and all we've been able to do is make a machine that takes these input parameters to predict how particles behave in nature.

Relying on the concept of God as explanation can be seen as an easy way to reach a conclusion, but this perspective can be limiting when exploring the deeper complexities of the universe. As physicist Brian Greene and others have pointed out, the pursuit of understanding through science often involves grappling with mysteries that currently defy explanation—mysteries that might one day be unraveled through continued exploration and discovery.

Quantum Field Theory (QFT), for example, is an extraordinary tool for making precise predictions about the natural world, yet it relies on "free parameters" that we don’t yet fully understand. While some might attribute these parameters to divine choice, others argue that science is a continuous journey, one where what seems inexplicable today could be understood tomorrow through the expansion of our knowledge.

It's been suggested that embracing uncertainty and pushing the boundaries of what we know are central to scientific progress. The Anthropic Principle, which posits that the universe’s parameters are fine-tuned for life, is just one of many theories that science explores "without necessarily invoking divine intervention". While it doesn't dismiss the possibility of a higher power, it emphasizes that our understanding of the universe is still evolving, and that closing the door on scientific inquiry in favor of a definitive divine explanation could hinder the very progress that has allowed us to make such remarkable discoveries thus far.

In the end, it’s not about denying the possibility of God but about maintaining an open mind and a relentless curiosity. Just as people of faith are encouraged to explore new ideas, so too should people of science continue to investigate the unknown, resisting the temptation to settle for easy answers.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 18.08.2024 at 15:06

Relying on the concept of God as explanation can be seen as an easy way to reach a conclusion, but this perspective can be limiting when exploring the deeper complexities of the universe. As physicist Brian Greene and others have pointed out, the pursuit of understanding through science often involves grappling with mysteries that currently defy explanation—mysteries that might one day be unraveled through continued exploration and discovery.

Quantum Field Theory (QFT), for example, is an extraordinary tool for making precise predictions about the natural world, yet it relies on "free parameters" that we don’t yet fully understand. While some might attribute these parameters to divine choice, others argue that science is a continuous journey, one where what seems inexplicable today could be understood tomorrow through the expansion of our knowledge.

It's been suggested that embracing uncertainty and pushing the boundaries of what we know are central to scientific progress. The Anthropic Principle, which posits that the universe’s parameters are fine-tuned for life, is just one of many theories that science explores "without necessarily invoking divine intervention". While it doesn't dismiss the possibility of a higher power, it emphasizes that our understanding of the universe is still evolving, and that closing the door on scientific inquiry in favor of a definitive divine explanation could hinder the very progress that has allowed us to make such remarkable discoveries thus far.

In the end, it’s not about denying the possibility of God but about maintaining an open mind and a relentless curiosity. Just as people of faith are encouraged to explore new ideas, so too should people of science continue to investigate the unknown, resisting the temptation to settle for easy answers.

First off, this response sounds 100% AI-generated. If you want to have a real discussion, please use your own words. But ok, I'll address your post.

I agree that science has bested religion in explaining most observations we have of nature. And I agree that scientists should strive to explain things that we do not understand today (like dark matter, dark energy). There is also the hope that these free parameters of QFT will be explained one day by a more general theory. But, currently, there are certain things like the Big Bang and the fact nature seems to be fine-tuned to create life that can't be explained by science. They can only be explained by philosophy or religion.

Written by F3ynman on 18.08.2024 at 15:21

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 18.08.2024 at 15:06

Written by F3ynman on 18.08.2024 at 14:18

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 18.08.2024 at 09:25

that are literally God-given, i.e. we do not know where they come from. The universe (or God) chose those input parameters, and all we've been able to do is make a machine that takes these input parameters to predict how particles behave in nature.

lol, that's my reply based on the mingling of God's card with understanding the complexities of universe. Been avid reader of works of Brian Greene, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, I'm versed about these facts. I don't know how you have reach to the conclusion of AI. Nevertheless, you understood my perspective.

Quote:
I agree that science has bested religion in explaining most observations we have of nature. And I agree that scientists should strive to explain things that we do not understand today (like dark matter, dark energy). There is also the hope that these free parameters of QFT will be explained one day by a more general theory. But, currently, there are certain things like the Big Bang and the fact nature seems to be fine-tuned to create life that can't be explained by science. They can only be explained by philosophy or religion.

It will explain by the Science when our understanding expanded by our knowledge. Look at the timeline theories develop, the very best of our humans collectively exhausted the best resources to unravel scientifically proven theories. As in what we discover, we get to decode more about the facts. For instance, Big Bang has become interesting chapter for scientists, astrophysicists and theoretical physicists pretty much covered that's so far clinically discovered. Dark Energy has become a modern day work for explorers to get onto the bottom of what tremendously expanding Universe. Is it that we are part of the universe is one of like a bread loaf of raisin bread?! Or what are witnessing is leftover of previous universe preceded? These are the questions of starters package. So much to explore, so much to discover, yet pulling a divine intervention card right upfront is an easy excuse.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 18.08.2024 at 17:22

It will explain by the Science when our understanding expanded by our knowledge. Look at the timeline theories develop, the very best of our humans collectively exhausted the best resources to unravel scientifically proven theories. As in what we discover, we get to decode more about the facts. For instance, Big Bang has become interesting chapter for scientists, astrophysicists and theoretical physicists pretty much covered that's so far clinically discovered. Dark Energy has become a modern day work for explorers to get onto the bottom of what tremendously expanding Universe. Is it that we are part of the universe is one of like a bread loaf of raisin bread?! Or what are witnessing is leftover of previous universe preceded? These are the questions of starters package. So much to explore, so much to discover, yet pulling a divine intervention card right upfront is an easy excuse.

Yeah the Lambda-CDM Model, which is the current cosmological consensus, combining Hubble's Law, General Relativity, dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang, and inflation, is a very successful model that agrees with several observations (Cosmic Microwave Background, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, data from Supernovae, etc). I agree that it's an easy excuse to just say the rest that we don't understand is just explained by God and call it a day. Science should definitely continue exploring further.

For example, there's also a project to measure the Cosmic Neutrino Background, which is like the CMB, but was when neutrinos decoupled from the primordial plasma about 1 second after the Big Bang. This means, if we could measure these neutrinos, we could learn about the universe 1 second after the Big Bang, which is insane! Even though about 300 of these neutrinos go through your thumb every second(!), they have such low energy now that they're really hard to measure.

And maybe we'll even eventually measure the Big Bang itself one day. So, you're right, we shouldn't lose hope that someday even that initial spark that caused the Big Bang could be explained.

Written by F3ynman on 18.08.2024 at 17:52

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 18.08.2024 at 17:22

For example, there's also a project to measure the Cosmic Neutrino Background, which is like the CMB, but was when neutrinos decoupled from the primordial plasma about 1 second after the Big Bang.

Neutrino is different in terms of temperature estimation while microwave does accurately predicts the timeline. Big Bang is another speck of the matter in the cosmic universe that we know all about, but that's not the point here. I'd also like to bring in what Newton said at the end of his observation about the omnipresent and infinite space and he quoted "saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation." But he left for future explorers to interpret. I do have reservations when it comes to religion fanatics invoking narrowing down the interpretations to their mere likes and compatibility. This happens a lot in country like India.

And now for something completely different, from a non-scientist...

I have always found the teleological argument to be a weak rationale for the existence of an intelligent creator, particularly for a Supreme Being. A while back, I constructed a teleological argument against the existence of a Supreme Being or Intelligent Designer. I haven’t given it too much thought and it’s more of a playful concept than anything serious, but here’s how I’m currently presenting it:

Premise 1: Competent designers prioritize simplicity over needless complexity.

Premise 2: A Supreme Being that is omnipotent must possess the capability to create designs of infinite simplicity.

Premise 3: The biological systems on Earth are complex and not infinitely simple.

Conclusion: The biological systems on Earth were not created by an omnipotent Intelligent Designer/Supreme Being

While I acknowledge there may be dozens of holes in my argument, I believe it is a reasonable rebuttal to William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, which is already a weak argument.