Can Science Explain Religion?

Let it not be said that I refused to answer a genuine request for help:

Colonel_Masters wrote:All right i have made a righ mess out of this post... help.

First: The Query
What is it that this entire thread dances around? What is the invisible minstrel that pours forth the music that causes such confusion, but occasionally clarity, in the whole of Mankind?

Age. The word is: age.

Many children understand this concept instinctively. All souls at some point come to realize that they can not propel their life-span by the power of their will. Their spans of life are Conditional Values.

Keeping in mind that I am adding words in to a publicly viewed debate thread over the Internet, what I feel that Colonel Masters and others are trying to express is the acceptance of a Spiritual Reality which touches the Physical Reality. And they must touch. If the Spiritual Reality exists it must mingle with the Physical other-wise the Spiritual Reality would be unable to influence the Physical. And for those who have accepted the implications of a confined life-span it is vividly important that the Spiritual Reality exists and can influence the Physical.

But why?


Second: Basic Theory
Age...is a number. It has no power beyond that which our attitudes give it. And yet the word, "Age," so often is used as a slang to describe the decrepitude of the human body. The Laws of Thermo-dynamics teach that there is no human agency capable of stifling the process of this decrepitude. A human being is not capable of transforming their life-span into an Absolute Value. The reason for this is because that human beings are Conditional Values. They change; and Science proves that they change.

In order for a human being's desire for greater life, both in time and in span, to be met an Absolute Value is needed. This Absolute Value is often referred to as a kind of Truth by many. I noticed it in Colonel Masters's recent post. But what is the definition of this Truth? It can not be a common or lesser truth which indicates a Conditional Value. It must be a greater truth. The Truth, if it is true, must be an Absolute Value. It must be Perfect.

Perfect Truth. A value which is un-breakable, un-movable, un-shakeable, and un-changable. Perfect.

This assumed Truth, if it is Absolute in any way, must exist outside the bounds and confines of that which Science can explain. It must transcend definition and explanation by Physical and Scientific systems of measurement. It must be super-natural.

This concept is intrinsic to the concept of immortality. Only a Being, Personality, or Entity which is an Absolute Value can perpetuate the limited cage that is the human Life-span.

This thing is what Science can not explain. Science can not explain why Humanity accepts the evidence of a Truth greater than Humanity.


Third: Scientific Reference
...the Solar System is a value greater than Humanity. It existed before Mankind and it will continue to exist long after the species is presumed to expire. The Solar System has been calibrated to move with exacting precision greater than what Humanity is capable of engineering. And before the objections arise, dynamic-expanding space-time should tear apart our Solar System. Yet...the system remains synchronized after thousands of years.



...please accept my formal apologies if any of this post has offended the sensibilities of any of my fellow forum members. It is a Discussion And Debate thread, but I have not wanted to express these words in an arrogant manner. This thread, since the first post, I have thought of as, "A flame-war-waiting-to-happen." And it is not my wish to spur conflict in any way.

Pyrrhonism sounds a lot better than ignorance. Although, I never said that I didn't believe historical data so I don't understand why you brought that up.

On the topic of the Razor. We could say that relativity assumes the existence of Dark Matter on top of other things that would branch off of this equation such as theories about light and mass. God did it, just assumes the existence of god. Nothing else. It is therefore the simplest, but I digress. I seem to have proven my point about the Razor being used as an argument (which funny enough, Rationalwiki complains about).

Can we agree on things that exist because they exist or because our brains are all wired the same way to make us believe that they exist? There are many ways in which what we see may not be the same as everyone else. Does my red look like your blue? How can you tell. All you have is your own mind to work off of and it is proven time and again to be tricked so I don't see how any empirical data can be trusted. I mean, I trust it every day, but that is because I'm afraid of attempting not to trust it just in case I'm wrong.

And science is far from worthless. It does a good job in explaining things. All I'm saying is given the fact that it could be an illusion, I don't see reason to trust it and worship it like its own god.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot! How is it that something that passes through regular matter as if it didn't exist can be detected? And also tell me how science can create a machine to detect something in which they have no clue how to detect? What if this machine picks up something other than dark matter (maybe some unknown particle) and the scientist claims it to be dark matter. How is he/she to know what was picked up wasn't something else entirely.
Ask a scientist to make a machine to detect the soul and they would ask how they were supposed to find something that had no physical manifestation, but the moment you say dark matter, they would seem to forget that.

Aniihya wrote:Define a deity. Do it. You will not get it right. I think might know what I am up to.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

My spiritual belief is not about that at all actually but I appreciate your post.

I do not search for an answer in life because there can never be only one answer to anything, I search for the questions because for each question there can be many answers (please do not start the normal what my father made for breakfast routine as proof that some things have only one answer because that is a physical matter and not the spiritual matters I address)

To me the spiritual is thought, the spiritual is life, the spiritual is dreaming.

To me everything is a god (or goddess, I like goddess; they are so much nicer then gods)

Time, anger, a tree, a brand of wine, Monty Python, howitzers, cities, clouds, stars, a love for a song, a moment in history, a moment in life, the relationship between a child to a parent, a certain dream, bear, the meyao of a cat, a facial expression, the static of a radio, a galaxy, a coin, a leaf etc. everything is a part of the universe, everything is a part of existence and everything has meaning (including mosquitoes but please do not ask me what is their meaning because it is a boring question which I have been asked by people under the impression they are being clever)

To be gods and goddesses are the manifestation of these things while spirits are a part of those gods and goddesses. God is the manifestation of the will of the individual to govern the masses in my belief. The Earth/Terra is the goddess of all that is natural which dies and is reborn While the planet is the god of all that is here.


Gods in my spiritual belief are the forever changing and never changing manifestations of all that is; Anger, love, a rock, a tree while Goddesses are the act of creation of all that was, all that is, all that will be, all that never was and all that may be. The spark in the mind of a writer or the act of giving birth, the creation of the galaxies, the growth of a fruit and the arrival of spring. I am sure a few people saw a contradiction here but that is how I view reality. The Gods and the Goddesses is the same thing and they represent the same thing only in different forms.

Nothing is of greater importance and nothing is of lesser importance but together they form their gods and goddesses which together form the universe. A single joke is a spirit, as is the type of joke etc but together they form the goddess of laughter and the god of humor (or was it the other way around oh never mind I am not used to giving them names)

My spiritual philosophy is about how reality forms itself into a single essence which is one and all and together all such things form the universe who is all things and everything yet nothing at the same time. The universe does not exist what makes the universe exists and thus does the universe exist.

To me the universe is the question, existence is the question but it is not the answer. The answer is everything and everything is the answer. All that makes the universe all that make reality are the answer to that question which is to say everything is the answer. The philosophy is about respecting, loving, fearing, hating, farting, laughing and cheese. It is about seeing how everything forms everything instead of everything being formed by something. It is about seeing the greater meaning of an ant or flower and a star among millions of other stars and how individually we mean everything as it is the individual who makes the society. And not the society which makes the individual.

Yes I will go mad by attempting to follow such a philosophy and I have long since realized that following utterly is like never lying in your life or never killing something (could be as small as a cell or as large as a planet or even larger…)

So instead I follow the spiritual sense of this philosophy for I see the spiritual as the meaning of the physical but not the physical itself in the same way my nationalistic duties are different from my own social political ideology.

This is why big S can't explain my religion because my religion explains big S :D (or something like that... i might regret saying that so please do not respond until i ask my cats for their own opinions on the matter; they make such great critics and yet they never say a word!... other then praising Mao of communist china for some reason)

I hope this has explained a bit… I am personally more confused then I was before but that is the way of things… especially cheese.

Thank you very much I am now in my mad mood (exists to watch 5 hours of Monty python, 3 hours of the goon show, eat all the cheese I own, drink some beer with honey put in it, teach my cats stoic philosophy, play risk against myself and start building a full scale replica of the roman empire

Mr_Doomed wrote:Can we agree on things that exist because they exist or because our brains are all wired the same way to make us believe that they exist? There are many ways in which what we see may not be the same as everyone else. Does my red look like your blue? How can you tell. All you have is your own mind to work off of and it is proven time and again to be tricked so I don't see how any empirical data can be trusted. I mean, I trust it every day, but that is because I'm afraid of attempting not to trust it just in case I'm wrong.

I believe you can classify reality into two different types: 'hard' and 'soft'. Hard is the objective reality we perceive, and soft is what our brains actually see. It's theoretically impossible to ever directly perceive hard reality, so we can't be sure how accurate our perceptions are, or if there even is an 'accurate' to begin with.

All I'm saying is given the fact that it could be an illusion

It could, but i think that's irrelevant.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot! How is it that something that passes through regular matter as if it didn't exist can be detected? And also tell me how science can create a machine to detect something in which they have no clue how to detect? What if this machine picks up something other than dark matter (maybe some unknown particle) and the scientist claims it to be dark matter. How is he/she to know what was picked up wasn't something else entirely.

I don't know -- it's a hypothesis.

Ask a scientist to make a machine to detect the soul and they would ask how they were supposed to find something that had no physical manifestation, but the moment you say dark matter, they would seem to forget that.

I'm pretty sure dark matter is supposed to be physical.

So, if we can only perceive the soft reality, how can we trust science to give us accurate answers? And then, who's to say that in this hard reality a god doesn't exist?
The very fact that it things could be an illusion also makes it possible that science is irrelevant, making the fact that things are an illusion relevant. You even said so yourself that it was relevant by defining a difference between hard and soft reality.

Dark matter is a hypothesis, but it is what relativity (honestly, I'm not sure if it is special relativity or just relativity) hinges on and without it, the theory would become useless.
And I guess dark matter does have to have some sort of physical property, but according to science, it is something that cannot ever be measured. I just find it absurd how people can discount the belief in god when the fabric of modern physics is held by this one thing that also cannot be found.

well solid, define deity first, then I will tell you what I had planned.

Mr_Doomed wrote:So, if we can only perceive the soft reality, how can we trust science to give us accurate answers?

Because it's shown us to give correct answers, at least to us.

And then, who's to say that in this hard reality a god doesn't exist?

Maybe -- anything could exist.

The very fact that it things could be an illusion also makes it possible that science is irrelevant, making the fact that things are an illusion relevant. You even said so yourself that it was relevant by defining a difference between hard and soft reality.

I said that if it was an 'illusion' it'd be irrelevant because it'd be real to us.

Dark matter is a hypothesis, but it is what relativity (honestly, I'm not sure if it is special relativity or just relativity) hinges on and without it, the theory would become useless.
And I guess dark matter does have to have some sort of physical property, but according to science, it is something that cannot ever be measured. I just find it absurd how people can discount the belief in god when the fabric of modern physics is held by this one thing that also cannot be found.

No. Such a well-established theory like relativity doesn't fall-apart if there's a gap or apparent contradiction. Also, this.

Aniihya wrote:well solid, define deity first, then I will tell you what I had planned.

A very powerful intelligent being.

So if the only reality that is relevant is the illusion that we are living, what can you say for dreams? When we are dreaming, we believe them to be reality. I had a friend who developed schizophrenia because he had delved into lucid dreaming and got so good at it that he couldn't tell reality from dreams.
Was my friend's dream the relevant one or was it the illusion that he lives in that we call "reality" the relevant one?
To me, the only thing that is relevant is the hard reality. The one that we really can never understand because ultimately, that is the one that is dictating our existence. Every other reality might be fun to play in and test (like science does in this one), but in the end, what does a false reality matter?

And yes, the theory of relativity would fall apart because without dark matter existing these strange movements of galaxies, as observed (not for the first time mind you) in the article, would completely contradict the theory. And that article doesn't prove the existence of dark matter. It just proves that these galaxies are moving in a way that contradicts the theory of relativity.

Mr_Doomed wrote:So if the only reality that is relevant is the illusion that we are living, what can you say for dreams? When we are dreaming, we believe them to be reality. I had a friend who developed schizophrenia because he had delved into lucid dreaming and got so good at it that he couldn't tell reality from dreams.
Was my friend's dream the relevant one or was it the illusion that he lives in that we call "reality" the relevant one?

You do know dreams are still apart of 'this reality'?

To me, the only thing that is relevant is the hard reality. The one that we really can never understand because ultimately, that is the one that is dictating our existence. Every other reality might be fun to play in and test (like science does in this one), but in the end, what does a false reality matter?

...Because it's the only reality we can actually experience?

And yes, the theory of relativity would fall apart because without dark matter existing these strange movements of galaxies, as observed (not for the first time mind you) in the article, would completely contradict the theory. And that article doesn't prove the existence of dark matter. It just proves that these galaxies are moving in a way that contradicts the theory of relativity.

Again, one apparent contradiction does not mean a completely destroyed theory -- either the theory needs to be modified, or the contradiction turns out to be false; i think that very rarely would an entire scientific theory be thrown out. Did Einsteinian relativity mean that Newtonian physics fell apart?

Now here is my answer: It can be a being or a power and has some influence over nature. The definition of a deity is only subjective and relative since by mindset and individual it can strongly vary. If talking about the concept of a deity by how it is defined by Abrahamic religions (Judeo-Christian god), please do so as I often see people putting gods into definition of the Judeo-Christian god. That's why I don't put up with New Atheist movement people because often and sadly, what they define as a god is an omnipotent and omnipresent supernatural being.

Sometimes people try to just to different topics because they were unprepared for an unconventional mindset or concept of belief. But as to the current topic: By my opinion, science cannot explain the supernatural as science observes nature and supernatural is beyond natural. Religion can be explained by theology or philosophy but for science (as in Physics, Chemistry and Biology) it is very unlikely.

You do know dreams are still apart of 'this reality'?

Can you elaborate please?

Maybe the theory is adapted (under the assumptions that I make), but perhaps it is thrown away. I can not really lay judgment on something that hasn't happened so I can only speculate. It really depends on how much of an effect new discoveries have on the theory of course. For example, I think it would be hard to support both a flat and round earth, but then again, your example with Newtonian physics is the contrast to what I say.

Aniihya wrote:Define a deity. Do it. You will not get it right. I think might know what I am up to.

Ouch. Difficult question. I'll try to tread lightly.

The first thing that comes to mind "supernatural". However, since (for instance) pantheists say that Nature is God, maybe a better word would be transcendent. A divinity is not wholly a thing of this world and its senses. I think next, I'd pick the word "mythological", but in a strict sense of the word. Myth is a tool: the stories we use to explain the world, in the most abstract sense. "Progress", for instance, is a myth: we use the idea of progress to explain the world. Basically, myths -- and hence gods -- are both believed in, and they account for phenomena.

I could go further, so that something like logic isn't considered a deity. But I'm reminded of Logos. Logic has (for all intents and purposes) been worshipped as a deity, so I'll want to include that in the definition.

Therefore: a deity is a transcendent, mythological being that is the cause of something in this world (or, possibly the world itself).

As Thales snidely remarked at the birth of philosophy: "everything is full of gods".

Aniihya wrote:That's why I don't put up with New Atheist movement people because often and sadly, what they define as a god is an omnipotent and omnipresent supernatural being.

That's because the 'New Atheist' movement is based largely in the West, where Christianity still reigns supreme. If animism was the type of theism that saturated Western culture then that's what secular activists would focus on largely.

Mr_Doomed wrote:Can you elaborate please?

There's nothing really to elaborate on. Everything with experience is 'soft reality'; everything that exists is 'hard reality'. Those are the only two 'realities' that i define.

Maybe the theory is adapted (under the assumptions that I make), but perhaps it is thrown away. I can not really lay judgment on something that hasn't happened so I can only speculate. It really depends on how much of an effect new discoveries have on the theory of course. For example, I think it would be hard to support both a flat and round earth, but then again, your example with Newtonian physics is the contrast to what I say.

I don't think the Flat Earth theory was ever scientifically supported.

solidmatterdrive25 wrote:

Aniihya wrote:That's why I don't put up with New Atheist movement people because often and sadly, what they define as a god is an omnipotent and omnipresent supernatural being.

That's because the 'New Atheist' movement is based largely in the West, where Christianity still reigns supreme. If animism was the type of theism that saturated Western culture then that's what secular activists would focus on largely.

Even though I try to avoid them (because an argument might end up in a flame war), they still find their way to me. Where I even tell them that what they understand as a deity is not what I understand as a deity, they still go on about "bible this", "where is god that" and so on. It is a turn off and when I leave the argument since it often goes nowhere (as they often argue as if it was a US presidential debate: clustered with "argumentum ad hominem"), then they have the balls to tell me that I am a close-minded, creationist, theist prick. I might be theist but I am not close-minded or creationist (at least not in the original sense, the gods rather gave the beginning of the universe a kick start then we evolved. Just my perspective). Calling me something I am not in this sense wants to trigger guilt but someone who forcefully shoves his opinion in my face doesnt deserve attention. If people want you to stop, you should stop talking. Best way to end an argument, unless they only wanted you to stop so that they could go on. ;D

When I read "Can Science explain Religion?" I wonder whether you are asking us, "Can Science explain why is there is something called Religion?"/"Can the reason behind the existence/creation of Religion be found out by Science?". Luckily that is not the topic.

So what are we discussing here? Can Science prove the supernatural beings we see in all those religions? Hmm, interesting...

It all depends on one thing: the supernatural beings themselves. Have you played telephone (more famously known, where I live, as Chinese Whisper but since some people believe the term is derogatory I'd rather not use it)?

Why do I ask you that? Well, because a lot can be explained, in my view, by that. Think about it. Let's say this is the year 0 AD or something like that. You have to go, at night. In the middle of your expedition, you hear a voice. Now, you can't see anything (you forgot the damn lantern) and scared that the voice may be of some dangerous creature, you come running back. Now, if someone asks you what happened, are you going to say "Oh nothing. I heard a voice and ran back, tail between my legs," or something more epic, in context, like, "There is something out there." Next day, at the pub (or whatever you call your drinking place), you spin a tail in your drunken state. A few days later, it is a legendary monster mothers will use to scare their kids. (Why'dchya think there are so many tales of mysterious creatures in the ocean? It's the rum, I tell ya!)

Same thing can be used to explain all supernatural being that are not actually supernatural being. Corruption of an initial idea using lies, ego and copious amounts of alcohol.

"What of the creature are that actually supernatural?"
We screwed then. Anyway, science cannae prove anything that is not in the realm of the reality science lives in.

TheFinalOne wrote:So what are we discussing here? Can Science prove the supernatural beings we see in all those religions? Hmm, interesting...

Does the game of telephone help explain another facet of religion? Let's take the infamous first line of the Tao te Ching: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."

It's not necessarily supernatural (or maybe it is?), and I can't even imagine how to approach the comprehension of that wisdom through a scientific method.

We screwed then. Anyway, science cannae prove anything that is not in the realm of the reality science lives in.

Indeed. Science talks about finite things, not something infinite, like the All. There is a realm that science fits within, and does not extend beyond.

dealing with it wrote:Does the game of telephone help explain another facet of religion?

Which facet are you are talking about?

Let's take the infamous first line of the Tao te Ching: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."

If the line means: The way/path that can be spoken is not the eternal way/path.
Then, I think here 'spoken' stands for choice. So, this would mean that the path that can be chosen is not the eternal. That is, there is no way you can be immortal. Life and Death happens to everyone regardless of choice. Be you good or be you bad, you will die one day and go back to where you came from, Mother Earth.

If the line means: The doctrine/principle that can be spoken is not the eternal doctrine/principle.
Then, here I think it means that if you can speak a principle, if you can explain it, then it can be corrupted, it is not perfect and will not last in the form you intend it to. For example, add a bunch of renaissance era paintings and stories to "If you do bad deeds, you will go to Hell", and it becomes "If you do bad deeds, you will go to Hell where there is fire and chains and whatnot and a half-goat will punish you, using poetic justice, for all eternity." I'm merely giving an example of the religion of Christianity because a lot of people here have some association to it.

I can only guess what this line means. Of course, I'm taking the literal meaning. Perhaps this contains an allegory or a metaphor or whatever. Then, my interpretations are completely wrong. That is the thing, I think, this line talks about. One can corrupt what someone else has said, like I did here. I corrupted the line so that it suits my needs.

TheFinalOne wrote:Which facet are you are talking about?

Inspiration, revelation, profundity.... Does religion have things to say that a scientist, with her skepticism and her knowledge, or a philosopher, with his wisdom, cannot say?

I can only guess what this line means. Of course, I'm taking the literal meaning. Perhaps this contains an allegory or a metaphor or whatever. Then, my interpretations are completely wrong.

The Tao te Ching unfolds from the first line, like a bit of origami pulled apart, or a flower splitting into petals. The first line contains the whole text. To understand it is to understand an entire way of thinking.