Indian Readers discussion
Debatabase
>
If given a choice, what would you choose to live with-science or religion?!
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Aditya
(new)
Dec 20, 2014 09:29AM
Found this on the da vinci code page...seems interesting!
reply
|
flag
Is there a religion that expressly gave humankind divine permission to systematically discover how the natural world really works and then use that knowledge to improve the human condition?
But, religion also paves the way for curiosity and discovery;scriptures are filled with references to advancements in science, isnt it?
Yeah, absolutely science is religion with explanation & true religion is pure science with explanation, waiting for somebody to discover it one day.
Aditya wrote: "But, religion also paves the way for curiosity and discovery;scriptures are filled with references to advancements in science, isnt it?"Hi Aditya!
Let's see...as to your question: In religions that teach that spirits reside in objects,from trees to rocks to rivers, how does one fulfill curiosity by examining or testing without offending the spirits in those objects? How can it be done without being severely punished by the offended spirits for this impudence?
Would a culture that is formed by this sort of religious belief promote new discovery and new invention or would it encourage people to fear changing, and stick with what is known and 'safe'?
I think it depends on what kind of examination or test you are doing, whether it is beneficial for mankind & environment or simply exploitation.
Mod
But I wouldn't give up on religion 100 percent. I feel believing in some higher power is essential for mental peace and prosperity.
T.K. wrote: "Aditya wrote: "But, religion also paves the way for curiosity and discovery;scriptures are filled with references to advancements in science, isnt it?"Hi Aditya!
Let's see...as to your question: I..."
Hello T.K.!
I believe that it depends on one's perception. Religion only presents things in a manner which people interpret in their own(sometimes unhealthy) way. Religion never curbs curiosity. It is upto us to use the gifts. Maybe, religion only meant us to know our limits and not hurt nature beyond a certain extent. See? It all comes down to interpretations. Religion is meant to make us god-loving, not god-fearing……
PSmith wrote: "science preferable to religion, to a greater extent.But I wouldn't give up on religion 100 percent. I feel believing in some higher power is essential for mental peace and prosperity."
very courageous putting it like that, ma'am! It is, i think, very difficult to decide on one option solely
Bhabani wrote: "I think it depends on what kind of examination or test you are doing, whether it is beneficial for mankind & environment or simply exploitation."i agree, to an extent……
Aditya wrote: "But, religion also paves the way for curiosity and discovery;scriptures are filled with references to advancements in science, isnt it?"Hmm. I can't think of any scriptures that have references to science. There are plenty of ancient scripture observations that are in harmony with scientifically-described processes. For example, Ecclesiastes 1:7.
"All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full."
Its funny ...I just finished Angels and Demons...and I was thinking the same. :) I believe in god but not in religion. And I also believe in science but both, Science and religion cause destruction of humanity.
Anushka wrote: ":) I believe in god but not in religion. And I also believe in science but both, Science and religion cause destruction...""It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man."
T.K. wrote: "Aditya wrote: "But, religion also paves the way for curiosity and discovery;scriptures are filled with references to advancements in science, isnt it?"Hmm. I can't think of any scriptures that ha..."
The gita is filled with reference to weapons and planes. The writig is a bit exaggerated, because that was the technique years ago, but there is definitely some grounded truth in them. Also, our religion mentioned thousands of years ago that boiled water is better than the normal one, and that the rocks act as natural filter for well-water. Is this knowledge possible without the essence of science?
Anushka wrote: "Its funny ...I just finished Angels and Demons...and I was thinking the same. :) I believe in god but not in religion. And I also believe in science but both, Science and religion cause destruction..."Hi anushka!
I would just like to reiterate what I said before. It all comes down to a dependency on us. How we choose to use the refuge of science/religion. Religion has given a reason to live to
many. When it is so powerful, we cannot deny its role in one's life. Destruction is in human hands. Humans can even turn a teddy into a weapon of mass destruction!
It's true that it all comes down to human beings...we are the ones who created science and religion and we are only fighting over it. science has made our life easier, much easier. But again humans want to depend on something...and they find it easier to depend on God and religion. So it is really tough to decide between religion n science.
Religion for me. Science can make me comfortable, but it won't bring me happy. When people disparage religion, they point out sectarian wars, Inquisitions, superstitions and ignorance. However, while science has brought us greater yields of food and cures for such things as polio and cholera, it's also brought us nuclear weapons and huge pollution problems. Science changes the world around us, but religion, TRUE religion, the inner journey that internally harmonizes us, is the path to bliss.
Anushka wrote: "It's true that it all comes down to human beings...we are the ones who created science and religion and we are only fighting over it. science has made our life easier, much easier. But again humans..."True enough...but debatable again
Aditya wrote:"The gita is filled with reference to weapons and planes. The writig is a bit exaggerated, because that was the technique years ago, but there is definitely some grounded truth in them. Also, our religion mentioned thousands of years ago that boiled water is better than the normal one, and that the rocks act as natural filter for well-water. Is this knowledge possible without the essence of science? "
Hi Aditya! I did not that the gita references such things, this is the sort of information that makes these discussion groups so fun and informative (without being overwhelming)...(Plus that everyone here is so nice!)
The question is: what is science? It was presented as a structured process invented by man to discover how our physical world works. It is expressly to test and manipulate what is physical to collect data that allows humans to come to conclusions on how the physical world works. For example, it is provable in the laboratory that water passed through layers of rocks of various aggregate sizes (large to sand) is cleaner and (thus healthier) than water that has not been subjected to that. One village is consistently healthy, the next one drinking from a different well is consistently sickly with some illness or another. Villagers do not need science degrees to note the ground in which the wells are dug, and that ground with certain types of rock layers will consistently produce better quality water, and actively search for that sort of ground expressly for wells. They have learned this through trial and error and teach this gained knowledge through the generations, because it makes for a better quality of life for the whole village. It just never had a specific word for this field trial and error discovery.
But scientific process has four grand limits on the way from Hypothesis - Theory - Law:
First: Scientific process is constrained by the materials and equipment available to do the testing. Some things just have to wait until the machines/labs are developed to be able to do the testing needed. Louis Pasteur, called the father of modern medicine had to make all his glass beakers, grind and blend all the chemicals he needed himself by hand - all this before starting any research. He invented the words 'germs' 'pasturization' 'micro organisms' all with his feeble by modern standards microscope. He developed the vaccines for fowl typhoid, fowl cholera, and anthrax from intense observation of the behavior of these tiny living organisms when subjected to precise levels of stress, but when he went to apply all he'd learned to the problem of rabies, he discovered he couldn't see it. He was stunned to discover he was tackling a deadly organism that was so small, it was beyond the abilities of the technology of his time, 'invisible' indeed not for another hundred years more, so he had to do his work without actually seeing the rabies virus.
Second: Are not data collection and analysis only as good as the diligence and honesty of the persons conducting it? A lot of harm has been done by people who had a hypothesis they personally needed to prove, so their testing was constructed to deliver the result they wanted, not the truth, failing that, they simply threw out what didn't support their hypothesis. Soviet agriculture was destroyed by a damaging blend of politics and science, called now "Lysenkoism"
Third: Experts stubbornly insisting there is nothing left to discover. Dr. Marshall of Australia spent over ten years telling international conferences that he'd discovered the cure for stomach ulcers. The experts dismissed him, with increasing rudeness. The experts insisted that stomach ulcers were 'stress' and could only be managed. Further,they were not going to be lectured to by some unknown doctor at some general hospital somewhere in Australia. Marshall discovered ulcers were caused by an infection of the H. pylori bacteria, easily eliminated by cheap antibiotic treatment. Decades later, Marshall and his team were finally awarded the Nobel prize in medicine for their contributions to cure ulcers in hundreds of millions of people every year, but they were humiliated for years trying to spread the information to the public. The experts did not apply Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory of Disease to their hypothesis of ulcers, while Dr. Marshall did. Their unsupported suppositions suppressed scientific progress. Likewise, the human appendix has been dismissed for years as useless, but further research is discovering it's role in the digestive system. Humans have a tendency to throw something away if they don't know what to do with it. Doesn't mean that it isn't useful. Petroleum oil was known on all continents for thousands of years as annoying puddles of goo, to be avoided. Only about a hundred years ago, someone figured out what to do with the goo and the world was transformed.
Four: Science by definition can only test the hypothesis of what is observable now. A past one-time event is not testable or observable.
Well, it's time to take a break - they're playing Kal Ho Naa Ho and everyone's humm-hummm-hmm.
Hope everyone has a nice day!
I wish to keep both! I do believe in a higher power and think of it as a guiding light! Cliché :) And I need my daily dose of science as well.
T.K. wrote: "Aditya wrote:"The gita is filled with reference to weapons and planes. The writig is a bit exaggerated, because that was the technique years ago, but there is definitely some grounded truth in them..."A brilliant discourse, I would say. On he downside, I seem to agree with most of the stuff you wrote about, so there is less of debate and more of agreement. Also, you increased my knowledge by folds. Where are you, by the way, where "they" are playing kal ho na ho!! ;)
Parikhit wrote: "I wish to keep both! I do believe in a higher power and think of it as a guiding light! Cliché :) And I need my daily dose of science as well."cliche, you are right. This is the easiest path to take. ;)
