Where science & religion (spirituality) meet?

[paigetheoracle]

If we use analogies/ synonyms for what are terms usually separated out into distinct areas of life, then what we should find is an underlying similarity at base I believe.

 

For instance spirit in religion is I believe equal to energy in science and black holes/ absorption = depression as elation = white holes or stars/ radiation.

 

Soul is another disputed word that I believe simply equals character in psychological terms or the effect of time on matter/ mind (knowledge)/ awareness (experience).

 

Religion also talks about separation as the real problem in the universe and destruction is separation of the bonds of matter as hate is its mental equivalent.

 

Anybody else out there see similar connections or is it just me, in here (my brain/head/body) that does?

[rodeosweden]

In my opinion the two rarely meet. Let’s pick on Christianity for instance, as science has progressed throughout the ages it has taken back ground rather then concurred with religion: A round Earth, Evolution ect.

 

Which leads me to the conclusion that religion is merely a higher institutionalised myth; myths such as the Greek God of Apollo were invented to explain phenomena which could not be readily explained by the peoples of the day, Apollo took the Sun across the sky.

 

Well in religion again like Christianity, some of the questions which are "answered" in doctrine are the big questions which science still can't answer and may never be able to, but if science can then the trend would be that the answers are away from those taught by religion.

 

I'm completely new to this forum as well so if this is to inflammatory I’d like to know to avoid repeating mistakes. Also I respect the spirituality of all people as long as it doesn't impede my daily life.

[sanctus]

No this is not too inflammatory at all, don't worry.

[paigetheoracle]

In my opinion the two rarely meet. Let’s pick on Christianity for instance, as science has progressed throughout the ages it has taken back ground rather then concurred with religion: A round Earth, Evolution ect.

 

Which leads me to the conclusion that religion is merely a higher institutionalised myth; myths such as the Greek God of Apollo were invented to explain phenomena which could not be readily explained by the peoples of the day, Apollo took the Sun across the sky.

 

Well in religion again like Christianity, some of the questions which are "answered" in doctrine are the big questions which science still can't answer and may never be able to, but if science can then the trend would be that the answers are away from those taught by religion.

 

I'm completely new to this forum as well so if this is to inflammatory I’d like to know to avoid repeating mistakes. Also I respect the spirituality of all people as long as it doesn't impede my daily life.

 

I suppose I should have clarified - I'm mostly on about Eastern Religion. Also the spiritual basis of a religion is not necessarily what it becomes in the hands of officialdom i.e. followers as opposed to the leaders or creators of a movement, some of (the latter) whom could be classified more as hangers on, fans or at worst con-men, jumping on the bandwagon: I wouldn't listen to the pope when it comes to birth control for instance but weigh up population growth against resources.

 

In Zen you should follow nobody as there is nowhere to go and nowhere to be but here. In Christianity you should follow your conscience. In a dictatorship you should follow orders and obey the leader. Put in simple terms it's individual awareness versus collective (un)consciousness. Military Intelligence versus individual intelligence. Science demands proof - spirituality asks for awareness - neither says do as you're told without question.

[cotner]

If we use analogies/ synonyms for what are terms usually separated out into distinct areas of life, then what we should find is an underlying similarity at base I believe.

 

For instance spirit in religion is I believe equal to energy in science and black holes/ absorption = depression as elation = white holes or stars/ radiation.

 

Soul is another disputed word that I believe simply equals character in psychological terms or the effect of time on matter/ mind (knowledge)/ awareness (experience).

 

Religion also talks about separation as the real problem in the universe and destruction is separation of the bonds of matter as hate is its mental equivalent.

 

Anybody else out there see similar connections or is it just me, in here (my brain/head/body) that does?

 

The way I see it, there is no opposition between science and religion, but the opposition is between people who would lead in religion and people who would lead in science, and each kind of people want to dictate on the other.

 

The trouble apparently between science and religion is the power-play between the lead people in religion and the lead people in science.

 

You see, religion was the science of the primitive mind which had not yet mastered abstract language, so everything was said in concrete language.

 

Science at present has reached the policy of not going into territories where there can be no observation and experimentation possible, not even with mathematical modeling.

 

Genuine scientists who are not insecure about their business of science, don't go about attacking religion which in reality is attacking the lead people in religion.

 

So also lead people in religion who are secure with their religion business don't go about attacking science, which is in reality trying to control the lead people of science.

 

 

I said that the primitive mind was communicating in a concrete language, meaning in words which are connotative of specifically graphical items, like blood, goat, wheat, big father; by the time of the discovery or invention if you will of one supreme deity, the language of religion has attained the empyrean height of abstract concepts, like goodness, mercy, justice, evil.

 

But lead people in religion prefer to keep their sheep continuously sheepish, and persist in inculcating a concrete language in their sheep, for their own self-importance and command over their sheep.

 

Science goes beyond the graphic to the physics, chemistry, and mechanics, bios of animals and plants, but it is limited or it limits itself to the observable and the experimentable, at least if only on mathematical modeling, which mathematics is also the most abstract of language.

 

Beyond the concrete language of religion in primitive peoples and the categories of science which as I said is concerned exclusively only with what can be observed and experimented on, are the eternal and transcendental truths and laws of existence, which are common to both religion and science.

 

 

Summing up: there is no conflict between religion and science, but only between ambitious peoples in religion and in science, who just love to practice power grab to enhance their own sense of importance and control over the other group.

 

 

 

cotner

[InfiniteNow]

Or perhaps intelligent people (who just happen to love the method of science) concurrently see religion as a cancer on society and a definite obstacle to our further advancement as a global civilization.

[cotner]

Or perhaps intelligent people (who just happen to love the method of science) concurrently see religion as a cancer on society and a definite obstacle to our further advancement as a global civilization.

 

In other words, each side is trying their darnedest worst to gain, i.e., control, the hearts and minds of mankind.

 

Who is winning?

 

 

Science in technology is good at making life better on this side of the grave; but it has no answer to the other side of the grave, except that there is no sense asking the question, or it is silent.

 

Religion is good at answering the question about whether and how and why the other side of the grave.

 

I for my own part also ask myself what of the other side of the grave? And I have my own self-made answer, which for myself is to my own assessment doing myself a good psychological plus on this side of the grave.

 

 

This is not proselytizing, but if you are resourceful and want also to have answers in regard to the other side of the grave, on whether, how, and why; then use your own personal cerebral mass to formulate your own answers and play the drama of your own faith.

 

 

cotner