Both science and religion are guilty of exclusion-ism, and to truly learn something, you must examine all information.

The scientific method, as per Basic Chemistry did not exist until relatively recently. Greek origins of “indivisible” particles, Plato, Aristotle, (alchemy in general) did not use the scientific method, but the discoveries and models built in those times are still used as part of the models today. Science doesn’t throw away the previous model, it just modifies it. Concepts do not die, they just change. Speculations , however do die, often before they reach conception. The atom we know today still explains evaporation, just as Democritus did in 500 B.C.

Every concept that has been perceived has someone that disagrees with it. This is the same in both religion and science.

There is no real “proof” in science. I refer back to the recent hype over string theory. So many “proofs” came out of string theory math that the reflections started to revert back to previous questions. Some amazing concepts about the universe came out of it. None have been dis “proven”, because mathematically they work. However, Logical they cease to make sense next to one another. (there is more to this, such as variables set as constants to find answers that got nowhere, but I have limited space, and Lee Smolin already wrote a book on it) many proofs have been dis proven with new discoveries

There is no real “proof” in religion. I refer to the hype over (–insert religion here–) Every religion has a whole theory about how it works, and each part works with every other part. If you present a contradiction in a religion, someone will tell you, with their own logic, why it is not a dispute, but a compliment. Kinda like Microsoft telling you its a “feature, not a bug.” The scientific method is not denied by religion, it is adapted to fit it. Note that religions today (with a few exceptions) are different than they were years ago, because people think, apply new knowledge, and change the model. Predictions are made, tested, and revised using the religious information available per religion.

You are hopefully seeing a fault here, as per my intention. A religion does not usually look at the “secular” to gain information, and this is seen as why it is a failure. But, hang on a second here. Is it not possible that science does the same thing by neglecting religion? Religion has been around a lot longer than science hasn’t it? Isn’t there more data?

Quantum mechanics eventually showed that “God actually does throw dice” when we see Planck’s constant and the “probabilities” of atomic particles.

Someone or something somewhere threw something, otherwise there would be nothing.

Just for a second here, just for this example, suspend your belief that the bible is a religious book, and look at the story of creation as a man many years ago, seeing nature in his own eyes, and trying to explain what he is seeing. Look at what this man said about creation, the order in which things were “spoken into being” and you should see something interesting just as I did.

The first thing created was “a heaven and earth without form and void” to have a something we need first mass and energy. Then came light, which was divided into day and night. Scientifically, light is known as an electromagnetic wave/ particle of energy. even if only a small part of it. In order for this, there must also be time. Both the bible and science agree that without time, there is no physical realm, and it must exist to allow anything physical. The first chapter of Genesis continues with creation, but when you read it, don’t look at it as a divine thing, look at it as the forming of the laws of physics. The layers in which they work are the same order as “the creation.”
After a while you can see what I saw: a man with no knowledge of science trying to describe the results of a major event. (big bang?) I often wonder what we can learn by incorporating religion into science. Not as an absolute, but as a perspective that will show us what we have not yet seen. People have been looking at and studying our planet a heck of a lot longer than “science” existed, there must be something in those old Indian, Mayan and eastern religions. To deny this is just as bad as religion denying science.

Posted on October 12th, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Uncategorized