Is Science The New Religion? Is it Making us Paranoid?

[Saveman]

It's hard for me to answer for them, but I'll try. They know that God exists. It's not faith as you would understand it, it's a deep knowledge in their being that makes them a spiritual person. So they cannot see life without service to God in some way.



You seem to be confusing religious and spiritual again. A person can be spiritual without believing in "God".
<snip>

I agree that person can be spiritual without believing in God. I wasn't getting confused I was speaking specifically about this person.

[wickerinca]

I agree with Saveman.

As I said in my first posting on this thread, truth is true despite all the lies and confusion weaved around it. It is up to each of us to try and find God and reject all that cannot be true. This is not an easy task, but it definitely can be done.

So to Fred I would answer that I would agree that false religion is taught not only in schools, but all over the world. There are apparently over 28,000 Christian sects/divisions/fractions. Can this come from the one true God? No.

My family and I proclaim the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No division there.

Why do we have to try and find God?...and what makes you so sure that your religion is not a 'false' religion? Surely these 28 000+ variations only came about as religious scholars disagreed with the teachings of their 'sect' and branched out on their own. How can anyone judge as to who has put the correct 'spin' on the Word!?.....and what about Islam, Buddhism,Zoroastrianism, Hinduism,Mysticism,Judaism etc. etc. Are all of these millions of people practising false religions? The "Danish Cartoon" is but a mere glowing ember against what you are suggesting!

[pultneytooner]

The crux of Einstein's theory of relativity -- that E = mc 2 -- is under challenge, following evidence that the speed of light might be slowing down. The discovery, made by a team of Australian scientists, undermines Einstein's key formula which maintains that the speed of light must remain constant.
Team leader Paul Davies, of Sydney's Macquarie University, says that if the speed of light has slowed over billions of years, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe.<br><br><a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/">http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/</a><br>

[Saveman]

Why do we have to try and find God?...and what makes you so sure that your religion is not a 'false' religion? Surely these 28 000+ variations only came about as religious scholars disagreed with the teachings of their 'sect' and branched out on their own. How can anyone judge as to who has put the correct 'spin' on the Word!?.....and what about Islam, Buddhism,Zoroastrianism, Hinduism,Mysticism,Judaism etc. etc. Are all of these millions of people practising false religions? The "Danish Cartoon" is but a mere glowing ember against what you are suggesting!

They can't all be right either can they?

[Yvonne]

Yvonne............you haven't answered Crayola's question yet and I am sure that many of us are waiting for you to enlighten us as to why Einstein is incorrect.

It has already been answered if you care to look, but in case you missed the link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...eed/index.html

This article is 3.5 years old, so Crayola's search of the Internet was obviously a little poor.

Yvonne.

[canuck]

So they are not science-based, so to me, his investigations are irrelevent.


But I am interested to know about the nature of your friend's knowledge. Do you think it could be as a result of evolutionary hard wiring to believe in a God?

Are you even willing to accept that may be a possibility?

I had to return to my desk and turn the computer back on. I couldn't walk away from what Rheghead wrote to Saveman. I see that S has written his response.

I use the term "hard wired" when I speak of the ability of people to recognize God. Do I think that it evolved? No. It was implanted at some stage in the creation process. Do I support evolution from a scientific perspective. Yes, but not the evolution of the human species to the point that one day something mutated to produce hard wiring. But if there became evidence to suggest such a happening then I would be willing to change.

As to the first paragraph, we read that if an investigation is not science based it is irrelevant. Actually an awful lot of the investigation around Biblical history is science based. The techniques for dating which archeologists use come out of a lab somewhere. Bits of pottery, jewelry and manuscripts are not figments of imagination. What they represent might be only theory for us, but those theories are put to the same rigour of testing as pure scientific theories.

Okay, now I can go start my day. Wickerinca will be pleased to find something more to read when she gets back from the hockey game. It is March break in the schools in much of Canada this week.

[scotsboy]

As with most things I find the truth rarely lies at the extremes but somewhere in the middle. In the last few days I have been shocked and astounded at the ignorance and intransigence of those at either end of the spectrum in the argument of Creation V Evolution – and this does not relates solely to matters on this thread/board. The other day I saw some so-called scientific expert totally dismiss the inclusion of the Creativity hypothesis in the science curriculum, it is seemingly to be included to put into perspective Darwin’s work and what preceded the theory of evolution. The manner and tone in the way this guy spoke made him come across as booth aloof, intolerant and ignorant………much as some on the other side of the argument are coming across on this thread.
For me I see no problem in accepting that there may well be some form of superior being (evidence of which may yet be found), and this superior being was involved in the creation of the Universe, however what he/she created may not be exactly what we see today – maybe his/her creation managed to evolve……I mean the TV that was developed by Logie-Baird was not digital, colour and complete with surround sound, improvements have been made along the way……..but not by Logie Baird.
I myself have faith, but I do not dismiss science or thinking – in fact I actually trust it more than the Bible, lets face it if God created man, it is better for man to use all the fantastic resources he provided us with, than simply follow a book written by man. Science is by default God given.

[Rheghead]

Do I support evolution from a scientific perspective. Yes, but not the evolution of the human species to the point that one day something mutated to produce hard wiring. But if there became evidence to suggest such a happening then I would be willing to change.

You have confused me.

Do you think that humans are the only ones hard wired to believe in God?

or

Do you think we are hard wired to believe in God at all?

If you think that humans are hard wired to believe in God but animals aren't then at some point humans did mutate into a hard wired believer in God.

Animals and plants don't appear to have Faith so Heaven must be bereft of fauna and flora, sounds bleak to me

[Saveman]

As with most things I find the truth rarely lies at the extremes but somewhere in the middle. In the last few days I have been shocked and astounded at the ignorance and intransigence of those at either end of the spectrum in the argument of Creation V Evolution – and this does not relates solely to matters on this thread/board. The other day I saw some so-called scientific expert totally dismiss the inclusion of the Creativity hypothesis in the science curriculum, it is seemingly to be included to put into perspective Darwin’s work and what preceded the theory of evolution. The manner and tone in the way this guy spoke made him come across as booth aloof, intolerant and ignorant………much as some on the other side of the argument are coming across on this thread. <snip>

I hope I've not come across in this way. If I have then I apologize, that wasn't my intention.

[Rheghead]

In the last few days I have been shocked and astounded at the ignorance and intransigence of those at either end of the spectrum in the argument of Creation V Evolution.

I reflect Saveman's sentiments on this, I always take a light-hearted though polite take on these type of threads.

[wickerinca]

It has already been answered if you care to look, but in case you missed the link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...eed/index.html

This article is 3.5 years old, so Crayola's search of the Internet was obviously a little poor.

Yvonne.

While I accept that this one team of scientists may have made the correct deductions from their experiment the results are, as you so kindly pointed out ,although incorrectly, 3.75 years old and I was just wondering if you had something more up-to-date to clarify the present day thinking on the Theory of Relativity. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your theories instead of quoting past history...........would certainly save me having to trawl through the web to find other sites that uphold your dismissal of Einstein's work.

[wickerinca]

They can't all be right either can they?

I am glad that we have sorted the religious v spiritual thing out! (Sorry...have still lost my smilies!!) Big smile

However if, as you say, all of these religions can't be 'right'.........who gets to judge which is right and which isn't? You? Me? Yvonne? Osama Bin Laden? The Dalai Lama? The guy with the hooks that is in prison(Sorry..can never remember his name)? God? Do all monotheists worship the same God?

[Saveman]

I am glad that we have sorted the religious v spiritual thing out! (Sorry...have still lost my smilies!!) Big smile

However if, as you say, all of these religions can't be 'right'.........who gets to judge which is right and which isn't? You? Me? Yvonne? Osama Bin Laden? The Dalai Lama? The guy with the hooks that is in prison(Sorry..can never remember his name)? God? Do all monotheists worship the same God?

Very good questions!
I guess each person has to decide for themselves.

[wickerinca]

As with most things I find the truth rarely lies at the extremes but somewhere in the middle. In the last few days I have been shocked and astounded at the ignorance and intransigence of those at either end of the spectrum in the argument of Creation V Evolution – and this does not relates solely to matters on this thread/board. The other day I saw some so-called scientific expert totally dismiss the inclusion of the Creativity hypothesis in the science curriculum, it is seemingly to be included to put into perspective Darwin’s work and what preceded the theory of evolution. The manner and tone in the way this guy spoke made him come across as booth aloof, intolerant and ignorant………much as some on the other side of the argument are coming across on this thread.
For me I see no problem in accepting that there may well be some form of superior being (evidence of which may yet be found), and this superior being was involved in the creation of the Universe, however what he/she created may not be exactly what we see today – maybe his/her creation managed to evolve……I mean the TV that was developed by Logie-Baird was not digital, colour and complete with surround sound, improvements have been made along the way……..but not by Logie Baird.
I myself have faith, but I do not dismiss science or thinking – in fact I actually trust it more than the Bible, lets face it if God created man, it is better for man to use all the fantastic resources he provided us with, than simply follow a book written by man. Science is by default God given.

Gosh scotsboy.....who has been ignorant and intrangient on this thread? Thought that we were all just having a lively, but friendly, debate here.

Please, anyone, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[phoenix]

I was out a walk with our dog the other night, it was very windy.......my attention was brought to a bush in a garden........I stood there watching the bush blowing to and fro in the wind, and I thought to myself ........."that bush just stands there being a bush, swaying to and fro in the wind, it doesn't try to be anything other than the bush that it is, it is what it is..... a bush". Then I thought what's so different with us humans that we appear to be so much more complex...... are we really?

Its Einsteins birthday today!!!!!!

[Yvonne]

While I accept that this one team of scientists may have made the correct deductions from their experiment the results are, as you so kindly pointed out ,although incorrectly, 3.75 years old and I was just wondering if you had something more up-to-date to clarify the present day thinking on the Theory of Relativity. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your theories instead of quoting past history...........would certainly save me having to trawl through the web to find other sites that uphold your dismissal of Einstein's work.

The date of the article is August 8, which means that my estimate of 3.5 years is closer than yours of 3.75 (August 8 - March 14 gives a fractional part of 0.597, which rounds to 0.6).

You seem to discount this team because the results are over three years old, but I fail to see what this has got to do with anything. When did Einstein come out with relativity?

Happy trawling!

[crayola]

It has already been answered if you care to look, but in case you missed the link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/a...eed/index.html

This article is 3.5 years old, so Crayola's search of the Internet was obviously a little poor.

Yvonne.

I didn't find it because I was looking for "Einstein" and "truncation of a binomial series". Is the truncation the problem or what? Couldn't we still have mc² with a speed of light which gets smaller as the universe gets older? Then energy would decrease and we could have an energy crisis?

Hey, no, I have an amazing idea. Paul Davies said "If the speed of light were nearly infinite in the first split second [of the universe's creation] it would explain why the universe is so uniform." Yes, but get this. If the speed of light was much bigger than it is now for a lot longer than the first split second then the universe would have expanded much more quickly and it just could be much younger than the scientists say! Is that what you were hinting at Yvonne?

I still don't get the truncation bit though. Maybe mass is having a relative rest (get it lol?) because the speed of light is much smaller than it used to be and it doesn't have to run as quickly.

Maybe you're too busy pressing buttons on your calculator to bother with my deep and meaningful questions. That was a joke btw lol .

[Yvonne]

Is the truncation the problem or what ... ?

The truncation means that the "equation" becomes an "approximation." So if we say that the lhs "is approximately equal to" the rhs then we will all be happy I expect.

That's my understanding anyway.

[Gleber2]

Sorry to butt in to what has been a lively debate but I have a question. From whence came the idea that the Bible is the Word of God?
I don't believe that Science has become the new religion but we have every right to be paranoid in the light of the damage that science, in all its wisdom, has enabled us to do to Mother Earth. Is not the purpose of religion to lead us into salvation, where-as science is leading us into darkness and destruction?

[crayola]

The truncation means that the "equation" becomes an "approximation." So if we say that the lhs "is approximately equal to" the rhs then we will all be happy I expect.

That's my understanding anyway.

Ok fine, but do we know what has been truncated? I mean does anyone know what the bits that've been left out are, and would these sort out the problem? I mean would they tell us that the speed of light used to be greater than it is now?

Thanks for taking the trouble to explain btw.