Science vs. Religion

[Someone here]

If you read any holy book like the bible or upanishad or quran etc you will surely find ridiculous myths which reflect the primitive scientific understanding at the time of these books being written (thousands of years ago). Like that the earth is flat or that human beings came from Adam and Eve or that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun and other planets orbit around the earth instead of the other way around etc.

Now we know by now scientifically that this is not the case. And any religious person can read about the contradictions between modern science and their religion. Yet still the majority of people all around the globe do subscribe to various religions like Christianity..Islam..Buddhism..Sikhism etc

Now don’t get me wrong..I still think that science should be challenged.. that’s what science is all about..challenging theories with other concrete ideas to form another theory or possibly a fact. But if religion has no place what so ever in challenging scientific theories and ideas..then why does religion exist today ? And why do we need religion?  Why we can't rely on science to answer the big existential questions? I recently been into islam a lot and i find semblance of peace whenever i practice Islamic practices.

If religion was created because humans are inherently afraid of the unknown..like We didn’t know where the sun came from and what the stars were so we came up with the most convenient answer: God. God created the sun and stars...along with humans. This answered all of our questions..but now we have science and technology that can answer these questions and when it comes to answering questions.. religion should be our very very last resort..because we now know definitively that religious cosmology and biology is wrong. I still believe that religion can be used as a moral backbone for people or as a meaning to life . I read that religious people are more happy than secular atheistic people. 

2 questions:

1-can we live without religion? Can we find existential comfort without ideas like afterlife ..heaven ..God is keeping a close eyes on us and will help us ?

2-can science and religion coexist for centuries to come or will science completely kill religion and its only a matter of time before all religions die out ?

Thanks !.

[Alexop]

Most people in the world need religion or some kind of ideology because they are premodern/even illiterate so science is no option for them, in order to be able to use science as guide in life you need to be trained into rationality. Most people are not trained into rationality, we even see postmodern leftists who jump over rationality directly to postrationality, ending up in serious trouble. 

SO... if sceince does not function for them, they use religion or an ideology that does not require you to be rational or literate. Religion is very important, it unites people, makes them behave better and gives a purpose. This is why they are happier than atheists. Atheists lack menaing in life, especially postmodern dummies.

Edited January 28 by Alexop

[Atb210201]

Well, you need both.

Science as rationality and religion as a way of living a meaningful life to overcome suffering and move towards unity and Oneness.

Any way of rational thinking is called science, and any way of meaningful living is called religion.

They better complete each other rather than being in war with each other.

Religion is science and science is religion.

They should be in service of each other.

And they both need to reject fanaticism.

Edited Thursday at 06:29 PM by Atb210201

[Hojo]

Science dosent take in account anything metaphysical. It says there are tiny robots that make everything up, and deny that 'you' as an identity actually exists.Science says that we are essentially projectors screens the body has that project reality somehow in the mind and that you dont exist but somehow are witnessing the projector screen. They dont act or feel like this when they teach their science cause they are completely ignorant of anything that is happening.

Religions are based around books that tell us that and people that say, hey I dont think I am a robot I can feel and  we are not tiny robots and we actually have a thing in us that is running our body and it tells us how to use our body, and thats me the soul.

Science cant tell you how to use your body or navigate your relationships the stories in the holy books we read have dictated that.

 

On 2025-01-27 at 5:04 PM, Someone here said:

2 questions:

1-can we live without religion? Can we find existential comfort without ideas like afterlife ..heaven ..God is keeping a close eyes on us and will help us ?

2-can science and religion coexist for centuries to come or will science completely kill religion and its only a matter of time before all religions die out ?

Thanks !.

1 - I dont think so. No because all existential crisis is God knocking on your door.

2 - The best possible outcome is them go existing. For science to be working for God and the entirement of humanity with 0 greed would be the best possible thing to happen. They can exist together because science is studying reality and God is the creator. They just want to fight because science cant prove God and they deny anything they cant prove. But they themselves can see God, it can happen and even when they see it they wont be able to prove it but they will have to admit they saw something. Sciences assumptions start out that God dosent exist they dont have to science could easily say God exists and this is all our science studying God.

Edited Thursday at 11:58 PM by Hojo

[Someone here]

On 28/01/2025 at 8:42 PM, Alexop said:

Most people in the world need religion or some kind of ideology because they are premodern/even illiterate so science is no option for them, in order to be able to use science as guide in life you need to be trained into rationality. Most people are not trained into rationality, we even see postmodern leftists who jump over rationality directly to postrationality, ending up in serious trouble. 

SO... if sceince does not function for them, they use religion or an ideology that does not require you to be rational or literate. Religion is very important, it unites people, makes them behave better and gives a purpose. This is why they are happier than atheists. Atheists lack menaing in life, especially postmodern dummies.

Makes sense . But not all religious people are illiterate dumbasses.Albert Einstein was a Jew ..Isaac Newton was a Christian..and others ..I don't see correlation between level of intelligence and being religious..I myself am very intelligent (😅) yet I think I'm about to become a muslim ..even though I know extensively all the bad mouthing around this religion but it just appeals to me so much.  And honestly I'm not God realized or as awake as someone like Leo in his absolute conviction that one is god . I mean this must be the ultimate truth which is inevitable to accept but its too much to stomach and too good to be true . Therefore I prefer to worship God instead of considering myself God. Reason is I appear limited and fragile. 

 

[Someone here]

23 hours ago, Atb210201 said:

Well, you need both.

Science as rationality and religion as a way of living a meaningful life to overcome suffering and move towards unity and Oneness.

Any way of rational thinking is called science, and any way of meaningful living is called religion.

They better complete each other rather than being in war with each other.

Religion is science and science is religion.

They should be in service of each other.

And they both need to reject fanaticism.

I like this view ..then again how is it possible to reconcile the scientific errors within holy books with science?

-did the universe came because of the big bang or by god saying "let there be light "?

-did humans came directly from god and he put him on earth directly or were they evolving from neanderthals? 

You are saying they both should exist together. But how when they both make contradictory claims about existence? 

[Someone here]

18 hours ago, Hojo said:

Science dosent take in account anything metaphysical. It says there are tiny robots that make everything up, and deny that 'you' as an identity actually exists.Science says that we are essentially projectors screens the body has that project reality somehow in the mind and that you dont exist but somehow are witnessing the projector screen. They dont act or feel like this when they teach their science cause they are completely ignorant of anything that is happening.

Religions are based around books that tell us that and people that say, hey I dont think I am a robot I can feel and  we are not tiny robots and we actually have a thing in us that is running our body and it tells us how to use our body, and thats me the soul.

Science cant tell you how to use your body or navigate your relationships the stories in the holy books we read have dictated that.

 

Yes that's correct..science nowadays basically equals materialist paradigm. There is no god ..no afterlife ..no soul ..no eternity..you're just a collection of atoms and when you die you get lights out forever etc(which is even scarier than the worst religious hell if you asked me).

Then again don't you see the problematic aspect of religion as well ? If science is reductionistic and materialistic then religion has the balls to make definitive claims about our origin and fate in existence with ZERO evidence? 

18 hours ago, Hojo said:

The best possible outcome is them go existing. For science to be working for God and the entirement of humanity with 0 greed would be the best possible thing to happen. They can exist together because science is studying reality and God is the creator. They just want to fight because science cant prove God and they deny anything they cant prove. But they themselves can see God, it can happen and even when they see it they wont be able to prove it but they will have to admit they saw something. Sciences assumptions start out that God dosent exist they dont have to science could easily say God exists and this is all our science studying God.

Are you God realized yourself?  God is the absolute. It has no form ..shape ..location..time ..house ..body..limits ..etc that's why science says there is no god because it literally lies outside the scientific methodology which assumes that all that exists is the material universe.

[Atb210201]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

I like this view ..then again how is it possible to reconcile the scientific errors within holy books with science?

-did the universe came because of the big bang or by god saying "let there be light "?

-did humans came directly from god and he put him on earth directly or were they evolving from neanderthals? 

You are saying they both should exist together. But how when they both make contradictory claims about existence? 

Well I don't know about the details either.

I'm as good as someone who can be on both sides and say both can be true but which one is it I don't know I just give the possibility of truth to both of them till the day I may know for sure.

But as a whole, I know both of them have reasonable claims and both are beneficial.

That's all I know for now.

But I do gravitate towards religion more for sure I know there is an absolute truth there and that's only because I find it more scientific and logical actually in its claims rather than science's stubborn unwillingness to see their ignorance about what everything is and where everything came from and where they'll go.

Science is also up to finding that but can be so stubborn sometimes because they can't accept religion as a good enough explanation because they don't see the depth of it they see the surface level stuff and have a surface level childish picture of it in their minds.

Essentially they haven't really thought about it they just went to war with it because they thought religion is putting limits on their sense of individual freedom and they didn't like that.

That's the first step for you to reject religion and go for science versus religion.

And they may also have a right to feel this way and go this way.

Edited Friday at 09:44 PM by Atb210201

[UnbornTao]

1) To the first one, yes, it is not necessary.

Where does the notion of needing "existential comfort" come from? You can create grounded axioms for yourself based on accurate perceptions, and follow principles. You can even operate on empowering beliefs as long as you recognize them for what they are.

2) People as a whole tend to seek simplistic, comforting answers to explain reality, life, and their own existence while going about the business of living. This lends itself to fantasizing and does not require much effort at all. Religion plays a huge role in that, as does science, though to a lesser extent.

Religion, being faith-based, discourages questioning which is a necessary requisite for making any kind of discovery.

Even though certain wise individuals throughout human history might have shared profound insights under the umbrella of "religion", these must transcend any system or dogma and be personally and profoundly experienced as the case. Yet, rather than undertaking this work, people quickly turn these things into shared conjecture, diluting, misrepresenting, and so undermining the spirit of inquiry itself. The point is truly listening for an experience or consciousness, not in believing a set of propositions. These are totally different.

Edited Friday at 11:28 PM by UnbornTao

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Atb210201 said:

Well I don't know about the details either.

I'm as good as someone who can be on both sides and say both can be true but which one is it I don't know I just give the possibility of truth to both of them till the day I may know for sure.

But as a whole, I know both of them have reasonable claims and both are beneficial.

That's all I know for now.

But I do gravitate towards religion more for sure I know there is an absolute truth there and that's only because I find it more scientific and logical actually in its claims rather than science's stubborn unwillingness to see their ignorance about what everything is and where everything came from and where they'll go.

Science is also up to finding that but can be so stubborn sometimes because they can't accept religion as a good enough explanation because they don't see the depth of it they see the surface level stuff and have a surface level childish picture of it in their minds.

Essentially they haven't really thought about it they just went to war with it because they thought religion is putting limits on their sense of individual freedom and they didn't like that.

That's the first step for you to reject religion and go for science versus religion.

And they may also have a right to feel this way and go this way.

Have you watched Leo's episode about distinguishing lower vs higher perspectives? 

Science is definitely higher perspective than religion. They cannot be put side to side . There is no competition whatsoever. 

Science relies on evidence and objective facts ..whereas religion relies merely on faith and belief without a hair of evidence. 

There is no evidence that someone like Jesus or Muhammad even existed .

And what's worse isn't just that there is no evidence for religious beliefs..but that there is evidence that religions are false as I said in OP about the contradictions between modern science and what you find inside the sacred texts of these religions. 

You are interested in Islam right ? Me too .go open up the quran ..it talks about how the sun sets in a hot pool or a gap in the max west..which also indicates that the author of quran believed that the earth was flat and its the center of the universe and other celestial objects are orbiting around  it .

My point is religion based on faith plus it contradicts science..whereas science relies on factual empirical evidence.  How can you lean towards religion?  Please help me understand. I also want to be religious but I'm struggling with making connections between science and religion. 

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

1) To the first one, yes, it is not necessary.

Where does the notion of needing "existential comfort" come from? You can create grounded axioms for yourself based on accurate perceptions, and follow principles. You can even operate on empowering beliefs as long as you recognize them for what they are.

2) People as a whole tend to seek simplistic, comforting answers to explain reality, life, and their own existence while going about the business of living. This lends itself to fantasizing and does not require much effort at all. Religion plays a huge role in that, as does science, though to a lesser extent.

Religion, being faith-based, discourages questioning which is a necessary requisite for making any kind of discovery.

Even though certain wise individuals throughout human history might have shared profound insights under the umbrella of "religion", these must transcend any system or dogma and be personally and profoundly experienced as the case. Yet, rather than undertaking this work, people quickly turn these things into shared conjecture, diluting, misrepresenting, and so undermining the spirit of inquiry itself. The point is truly listening for an experience or consciousness, not in believing a set of propositions. These are totally different.

1) what I mean by "existential comfort " is an ultimate final absolute answers to the big questions that you cannot sleep soundly without . Like who we are ?why are we here in this existence? What will happen when we die ?etc

Religion does offer an answer to these questions. Science haven't yet . Science stops on the big bang .before that they have no clue.  Whereas religion does give answers. For example the religion I'm interested in which is Islam says that God is eternal and he always existed ..he is uncreated..he created everything and everyone..we are here in a test for who will be a good human being and who will be a bad human being ..and based on your deeds in this world you will be judged after you die and either go to eternal  heaven or eternal hell.  But what is the evidence for that? ZERO. 

So ..science does not have an answer yet . And religion has an unjustified answer without evidence. You see the problem? 

2) sure I agree . Religion discourages thinking and discovering while encouraging dogmas and blind faith.  And that means science is higher perspective epistemologically than religion. So should we throw all these religions into the trash ? Is there any good these religions can do instead of giving existential comfort (which as I explained, science doesn't give )?

 

Edited Saturday at 01:06 AM by Someone here

[UnbornTao]

@Someone here

Answers are irrelevant. Again, looking for a piece of information to believe in is not the same as experiencing what's true first-hand. As a matter of fact, answers disrupt this process. It is useful to recognize that no notion can be true in itself -- since we're talking about ultimate matters here. The true nature of anything must be tackled on its own terms, which is to say, what's ultimately true can't be gleaned through relative means.

What's comfortable and what's true are different goals. I know the mind struggles for certainty and it would rather have anything, even if untrue or dysfunctional, rather than have no place to stand. But one can learn to abide in this state without having to fill in the blanks. Your disposition could be summarize along these lines: "World, tell me what to believe in. I don't care what it is, just provide me with a set of answers so that I can get myself off the hook."

Edited Saturday at 03:24 PM by UnbornTao

[Someone here]

@UnbornTao this gets us inevitably  to epistemology . Your answers are always about how to answer without actually answering. 😅

So let me know what epistemological system you adhere to ..you either gravitate to subjectivism where you believe that everyone should have their own answers to the metaphysical questions or nihilism where they believe that there's no answer or meaning to all of this.

most ordinary and uneducated  people have given up on the hard questions of life. But I don't.  That's why I make tons of threads wondering about existence. People don't get the profundity of the mystery of existence. Look at your fucking hands ..you fucking EXIST!🤣

Do you think we will one day get the true answers to the metaphysical questions?

But more importantly..There's two ways of thinking about this. The first similar the kind of subjectivism wherein there is no intrinsic meaning to anything and our understandings of our world are ultimately different interpretations. The second is that there is a capital-T truth out there lying in wait ready for someone to come along to discover it. Which view do you subscribe to we might say ?

[UnbornTao]

On 1/2/2025 at 1:57 AM, Someone here said:

@UnbornTao this gets us inevitably  to epistemology . Your answers are always about how to answer without actually answering. 😅

So let me know what epistemological system you adhere to ..you either gravitate to subjectivism where you believe that everyone should have their own answers to the metaphysical questions or nihilism where they believe that there's no answer or meaning to all of this.

most ordinary and uneducated  people have given up on the hard questions of life. But I don't.  That's why I make tons of threads wondering about existence. People don't get the profundity of the mystery of existence. Look at your fucking hands ..you fucking EXIST!🤣

Do you think we will one day get the true answers to the metaphysical questions?

But more importantly..There's two ways of thinking about this. The first similar the kind of subjectivism wherein there is no intrinsic meaning to anything and our understandings of our world are ultimately different interpretations. The second is that there is a capital-T truth out there lying in wait ready for someone to come along to discover it. Which view do you subscribe to we might say ?

 

It’s really about being honest with oneself. When we understand that we don’t directly apprehend the nature of anything, that’s a solid observation -- and no "answer" will change that condition. What does change it is becoming personally conscious, beyond experience and perception, of self, existence, space, and so on.

What is true must be tackled on its own terms. Since we’re discussing absolute matters, this, once again, cannot be achieved through relative means. There’s no possible thought, notion, or system, however complex and elaborate, that could convey the true nature of existence -- whatever that may be. At best, it could provide direction, and open doors. You seem to be seeking validation or social consensus but that approach won’t work. Again, you can operate on principles and on accurate axioms.

Regarding meaning, it is a complementary process to the existence of something. Get the nature of something first. Hey, you could start with what meaning is, and how it itself is meaningless.

Consider that the "answer" already exists; you just need to apprehend it. Individuals throughout history have presumably already done this, so it is possible. 

Edited 11 hours ago by UnbornTao

[z3rolight]

16 hours ago, Someone here said:

@UnbornTao this gets us inevitably  to epistemology . Your answers are always about how to answer without actually answering. 😅

So let me know what epistemological system you adhere to ..you either gravitate to subjectivism where you believe that everyone should have their own answers to the metaphysical questions or nihilism where they believe that there's no answer or meaning to all of this.

most ordinary and uneducated  people have given up on the hard questions of life. But I don't.  That's why I make tons of threads wondering about existence. People don't get the profundity of the mystery of existence. Look at your fucking hands ..you fucking EXIST!🤣

Do you think we will one day get the true answers to the metaphysical questions?

But more importantly..There's two ways of thinking about this. The first similar the kind of subjectivism wherein there is no intrinsic meaning to anything and our understandings of our world are ultimately different interpretations. The second is that there is a capital-T truth out there lying in wait ready for someone to come along to discover it. Which view do you subscribe to we might say ?

 

@z3rolight

7 hours ago, z3rolight said:

/All religious, science!...Everything!!. He is...exists and contributes to the knowledge... of the "truth"!?. Each... has its role, for the development of the self!. For the exploration of "knowledge" of oneself, the only source of all energy and life in you of this universe!...I consider the most important thing to be:_as a species! ...We came to evolve and surpass ourselves in consciousness. Consciousness... The highest form, peculiar to man, of reflecting reality (when we leave reality even by dreaming with our eyes open, there is no more self). The self is YOU the present moment / of each of us through uniqueness!. Everything that is not of reality is not you!. And it is called esotericism. Esotericism is a philosophical-religious concept that designates knowledge and teachings obtained by some people through each person's perception of reality... Esotericism = the fanaticism of some people!. Esotericism are elements and symbols of spirituality, accessible not only to initiates, but also what is in opposition to esoteric knowledge, accessible to all people. The spiritual currents that declare themselves esoteric are of great diversity and with varied beliefs, from those based on oriental teachings to forms of Christian esotericism. Esotericism is an occult teaching, doctrine or theory, technique or procedure, of symbolic expression. So, everything that constitutes a symbol; which has the character of a material symbol, expressed through a symbol, which serves as a symbol; has no efficacy or value in itself.. The self is present is the awakening. Live the moments without asking so many questions! Live!!!...Be yourself/the best version of yourself!.As I don't know how I came into this form as body and soul...for what purpose!...We will never know!...As William Shakespeare says very well, short and simple!...TO BE or NOT TO BE. In consciousness! ?... This is awakening!.Live the only life you have received as a gift. /LIFE!.-Live simply!...Without too many searches!..Wasting time in ephemeral searches?!...

 

Edited Saturday at 06:13 PM by UnbornTao
english-only

[Atb210201]

On 2/1/2025 at 4:29 AM, Someone here said:

Have you watched Leo's episode about distinguishing lower vs higher perspectives? 

Science is definitely higher perspective than religion. They cannot be put side to side . There is no competition whatsoever. 

Science relies on evidence and objective facts ..whereas religion relies merely on faith and belief without a hair of evidence. 

There is no evidence that someone like Jesus or Muhammad even existed .

And what's worse isn't just that there is no evidence for religious beliefs..but that there is evidence that religions are false as I said in OP about the contradictions between modern science and what you find inside the sacred texts of these religions. 

You are interested in Islam right ? Me too .go open up the quran ..it talks about how the sun sets in a hot pool or a gap in the max west..which also indicates that the author of quran believed that the earth was flat and its the center of the universe and other celestial objects are orbiting around  it .

My point is religion based on faith plus it contradicts science..whereas science relies on factual empirical evidence.  How can you lean towards religion?  Please help me understand. I also want to be religious but I'm struggling with making connections between science and religion. 

 

No; I haven't watched that episode yet.

Why do you want to be religious?

What attracts you to it?

 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Religions will always exist because in whichever way you may disprove God, there will always exists parts of reality that are unknown to us, and therefore religions will just put away God into that category. The so called "God of the gap", gap representing lack of our understanding, of course.

There is one thing that all religions and science have in common tho, and that is that they have to acknowledge that reality was created by itself, or that basically everything ultimately came out of nothing. Or in whatever way you choose to word that. If you ask a Christian or a Muslim who created God, they'll tell you that God always existed. So God created itself out of nothing basically. If you ask a scientist what caused Big Bang, they'd either tell you they don't know yet, or that it's unknowable because there was nothing, not even time before Big Bang. Again, everything came out of nothing. So we are basically kinda forced to come to terms with that

[Someone here]

On 01/02/2025 at 8:40 PM, UnbornTao said:

When we understand that we don’t directly apprehend the nature of anything, that’s a solid observation -- and no "answer" will change that condition.

So you are an epistemological nihilist? You believe knowledge is impossible? 

On 01/02/2025 at 8:40 PM, UnbornTao said:

What does change it is becoming personally conscious, beyond experience and perception, of self, existence, space, and so on.

There is nothing but experience and perception .well if you mean direct awareness by them then we are talking about the same thing .

Direct sensory experience + intellect are the only tools available. How can we attain knowledge "beyond " them ?

On 01/02/2025 at 8:40 PM, UnbornTao said:

What is true must be tackled on its own terms. Since we’re discussing absolute matters, this, once again, cannot be achieved through relative means. There’s no possible thought, notion, or system, however complex and elaborate, that could convey the true nature of existence -- whatever that may be. At best, it could provide direction, and open doors. You seem to be seeking validation or social consensus but that approach won’t work. Again, you can operate on principles and on accurate axioms.

Please give me definitions of what absolute is and what relative is .

On 01/02/2025 at 8:40 PM, UnbornTao said:

Regarding meaning, it is a complementary process to the existence of something. Get the nature of something first. Hey, you could start with what meaning is, and how it itself is meaningless.

Nihilism once again .existential Nihilism specifically. 

On 01/02/2025 at 8:40 PM, UnbornTao said:

Consider that the "answer" already exists; you just need to apprehend it. Individuals throughout history have presumably already done this, so it is possible.

It's irrelevant if other people have arrived at answers . Because everyone discovered a different answer.  The scientific materialistic worldview varies from karmic  Buddhist worldview and varies from Christian creationistic worldview etc. 

 

[Someone here]

On 02/02/2025 at 4:31 PM, Atb210201 said:

No; I haven't watched that episode yet.

Why do you want to be religious?

What attracts you to it?

 

It makes me happy .

[Someone here]

On 02/02/2025 at 7:53 PM, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Religions will always exist because in whichever way you may disprove God, there will always exists parts of reality that are unknown to us, and therefore religions will just put away God into that category. The so called "God of the gap", gap representing lack of our understanding, of course.

There is one thing that all religions and science have in common tho, and that is that they have to acknowledge that reality was created by itself, or that basically everything ultimately came out of nothing. Or in whatever way you choose to word that. If you ask a Christian or a Muslim who created God, they'll tell you that God always existed. So God created itself out of nothing basically. If you ask a scientist what caused Big Bang, they'd either tell you they don't know yet, or that it's unknowable because there was nothing, not even time before Big Bang. Again, everything came out of nothing. So we are basically kinda forced to come to terms with that

That's a good observation. 

[Atb210201]

43 minutes ago, Someone here said:

It makes me happy .

Well that's a good enough answer I think.

No need to understand everything.