Is faith only in service to religion? I don't think so. But faith is in service to some deeper essence of humanity, some deeper essence of a collective consciousness, as it were. And it's not predicated on exact information. It's actually in complete opposite of information. It's the lack of information, in spite of all information you feel this way. So I don't really know if science could be a religion, but what say you?
Professor Z
@Professor42 · 3:49
Dawan. Great. Swell. I got a little bit of time today before I start my busy day and thought I would contribute. Good. Swell. In regards to your question, can sign be a religion or has it become a religion? I would say very close, but not quite. I myself do believe in science. However, I believe science has a double standard. So science for the most part, when things go right, trust the science. It's all about the science
Jared Bogda
@JCB07 · 0:58
But I do think that people do face a lot of their religion per se in science. But is science a religion or is religion a science? And I guess that's the other question as well. But thanks for bringing up this topic. I'm really interested to hear what others have to say as well, too
That said, I do think there was also this other thing going on where people will use science almost like a religion, and as if it is the be all and end all of answers, the be all and end all of resources of information, and almost use it as a cudgel to say I am right, because that implies there is a concreteness to the methods of science, the results of science. And that is not the case
Because humans are fallible and we've got ego and we've got earning money, we've got political attachments and connections, et cetera, when it comes to these things, which also play a factor, and they may or may not influence the process. And so when something goes wrong, for instance, the gentleman who proved that vaccines cause autism, when that is proven incorrect, it ends up landing on science. When it had nothing to do with science, it had to do with a scientist
Professor Z
@Professor42 · 1:23
But likewise, in the same matter, when people go against the science and it's later deemed to be, you know, maybe the science was right, it pretty much boils down to people jumping ahead and going, the science says this or science has been proven wrong. It's really, it's really the jump ahead. But I would like to contribute more to this when I do have time. Again, thank you for your response
Professor Z
@Professor42 · 0:13
By the way, Dewuan don't want to seem as though I'm taking over your post, even though you probably don't feel as though I am. But yes, really like this. Well
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:59
I graciously thank Professor Z, Seeking, Plum and Jared for contributing to this particular swell where we talk about and examine faith and science. So first to you, Professor Z. I liked your examples you gave. Many people assume that science is an absolute in terms of its findings, but science really is predicated on hypotheses and theories and what you can prove or disprove. There's no real finality to anything can really be proven or disproven if you support the science with your work
And I would highly recommend reading up more of them if you can. Thomas C*** wrote about the structure of scientific revolutions. That's a seminal work which talks about how scientific knowledge grows through paradigm shifts that happen when you move from one belief system and then more and more scientific evidence accumulates and you at some point have to shift to a whole different system of theories to explain what you're seeing. Ali obviously driven by data, driven by what you're observing in the world out there
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:21
It's interesting in a sense where I don't know if most people even understand the building blocks of science in that it is not set out to debunk religion or debunk mythology. It is all about the information and what can be proven or disproven. But as to those two philosophers you had recommended identity definitely would check them out today. Thank you for that and also thank you again for responding to this well
So anyone who's actually following the scientific method knows that there isn't always we don't always find the result that we're looking for. And that's part of the method. Whatever is published and whatever is put out into the media isn't necessarily aligned with the scientific method. And I think that's an important thing to keep in mind
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:30
We were the ones that said it was flat or didn't know that germs existed until we were able to look through a microscope and a magnifying lens. A lot of this stuff we just had no idea about, or at least most of us anyway. But yeah, science that is best is what you are able to prove through equations or some sort of work. And at its worst it's just belief. I think just belief on its own is probably the worst science to have
Rehan Shah
@ririshah · 1:46
If you're going to get hit by a bus, you're going to get hit by a bus regardless of whether you believe in science, a religion, or whether you believe in some other faith, some other religion or whatever. And I would say I would definitely put my money on science over any other region, because the chances statistically speaking, the chances of you getting hit by a bus could be calculated better with signs and with just plain hope
This month, I've had the fortunate opportunity to share and study some African cultures, Indigenous cultures that were doing science and studying astronomy, not astrology astronomy way back in the days. And so building structures require science, right? Building structures are going to last over time and over hundreds of years, that requires science. Has science been around? And why does science only get classified in a Western lens? And then when the Western lens is the only lens, how much science are we ignoring?
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:52
Rihan, thank you for responding to this. Well, I appreciate you as well as you mystic, scientist and Rihanna, the question you asked, would it be better if science were a religion? Well, there would be some fundamental problems at hand if science were a religion, because science in this very principle is about proving or disproving through theories and hypotheses and experimentation and et cetera
Professor Z
@Professor42 · 2:23
But yeah my opinion is pretty brief, pretty short that science is all around. Science is universal. I don't think that science is really more so Western. If anything I believe it originates over the origin are in the east, in Egypt. This is my thoughts professor. 42 out
Rehan Shah
@ririshah · 2:22
If we can put an end to that just by placing our faith in science, just believing in science and its powers, well, a story that suits us. Don't you think that be better
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:28
When you're just talking about something because you believe in it and you feel it should be that's like more morality and ethics. It doesn't really prescribe to science. Science is above morality, but it does have its own ethical system in terms of laws and principles and how things function and behave from a molecular standpoint or quantum standpoint. Just ask, ask, say, use your words. That doesn't mean help me, help me
Krish Sehrawat
@KrishSeh511 · 0:13
As per me, religion is just a set of beliefs and science is way more than that. So I don't really think that science is a religion or even part of a religion
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 1:33
Chris, thank you for responding to the swell where we talk about science and religion or faith versus facts. As I stated earlier, it would be a hard religion to uphold where you have to be able to prove or disprove your God in order to know, not believe, but know that it is there. Things like faith and morality are totally out the window in favor of data, empirical evidence, and hypotheses
Science is just an objective method for evaluating, for observing, in the end, improving the world in which we live. And we tend to look at science and religion as two complete opposite and separate worlds. But I think it's very interesting when we are diving deeper and when we are trying to discover whether there is a common denominator
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 2:12
Corinne, thank you so much for responding to this swell. And I really enjoyed with what you had to say because yes, I do believe there is a thin line between religion and science and you can't really have one without the other and not just in terms of our survival as a species through mythological and religious rituals. We have sort of stood the test of time, at least in comparison to other forms of H*** sapiens
nathan bruce
@nateB · 1:36
And I looked up carbon dating I guess is the main mechanism but I don't understand the chemistry behind it so I think you're on to something. So an alternative way that you could prove the world was over 5000 years old is for something that I could understand, right. So I can understand tree Singh represent the lifespan of a tree and they're fairly accurate
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 2:45
So, yes, some people out there believe the Earth is flat and do they have a dissertation to explain this? No. They simply can just look outside and know that the world is flat and it always has been. And unfortunately, that doesn't constitute science. It constitutes a belief. There's nothing wrong with the belief, but science is more evidence held together with or without a belief, but more so knowing the data based upon the science or the math supports it
I know this is not really answering your bigger question, but I think that she just misspoke. I don't believe she really meant I believe in science because science really isn't meant to believe, be believed or not believed in the same way religion is or spirituality practice is. Instead, science is a methodology that you either trust or I suppose, don't trust. I belief is kind of the wrong word
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 1:39
So that'd be a fascinating topic to talk about within its own right, to trust in someone or something or to believe in someone or something. What things are vastly different between these two I find to be very fascinating. Like what does it take to trust versus what does it take to believe? Yeah, that's interesting for me. It's making me think of a topic one day to talk about. So thank you for being inspiration. So hopefully you have a good day. Bye
Bharat Apat
@apat.bharat · 0:29
Science and religion are two different belief systems. Science provides science, religion provides stories. So if somebody believes in religion, nothing wrong with that. But they're basically believing the stories that the society follows. Whereas in science, when we say, I believe in science, I say, I believe in the scientific methods. And I also believe because there is evidence backing up the science
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 3:40
Apoc. Thank you not only for taking the time to listen to this well, but to also offer a reply. And although I agree in science, evidence, belief stories, it makes sense to me as to why many people out there use belief stories as evidence. While some people out there use evidence to support their stories, their ideology that they feel one is better than the other. But science and religion really are the merit badges of humanity
Wow, this was a great one. Let's see. Can science be a religion? Well, I would say it kind of depends on how how religion is being defined because most people only know religion to coincide with of course, faith and some kind of outer knowing and higher being and things like that. But there are other definitions of religion and those definitions is a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. And another one is a particular system of faith and worship
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 2:07
No one can say, no, that's not right, that's not right. It should be this. That's not how science works. It shouldn't be anything but factual data, sometimes data that's out of our range of understanding. So could it be that in these modern times, we look towards the data and the facts as religion? Rather Nathan science. Thank you so much, Crystal. And if you have anything to say about what I have just said, feel free to reply
So science for a lot of people, because it is facts, becomes their cornerstone of living. So that's just my perception, and I understand how people can use the language that science is my religion because it's provable. For most aspects of science, it's provable. You just have to know what formula to put together to get the result that you're looking for
nsubuga joseph
@nsubugaJOSEPH · 1:21
Thank you very much. Y'all take his lovely. I like it so much because religion and science, when they too contradict about the claims they make, say of where we come from as human beings or any other issue, is when this topic actually becomes really important. Which one do you believe? Let's look at the points where they are talking about different topics
Gentlemen, the fundamentals of science do not change. It could be east, west, north or south. The fundamental remains the same. The definition of battery is not going to change. The definition of time is not going to change the concept of time. Space is not going to change. And what is science? Do we think that signs started just a couple of centuries back? I don't think so. Singh started so early that even the humans may not have the records
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:09
And that's such an interesting thing to even have to say. At least for me. It still is an interesting thing because the whole mission of science is to get away from what people believe and just strip that apart and talk about what do we know or what can we know based upon the evidence. Not what we believe we may believe to know something. But whether you want to believe it or not. You have to provide evidence to know this or to know something about this
Well gentlemen, we are talking about religion. Eventually the aim of every religion on planet Earth is salvation. What is salvation? Salvation as per religion is eternity and eternal life. So we are talking about eternity. We jared talking about timelessness. We are talking about zeroing of time. We are talking about eternity. It's a field of spiritualism. Spiritualism is not a slave of science. Science is not a master of science is a product of creation. Creation is not a product of science
TJ mclaughlin
@natchril · 4:47
If you're a part of that religion and you can't question religion, you can question science. Even scientists question science. Yeah. So they're two separate spheres and they have to be separate. At the time, Galileo, he came along and used to be a belief of religious belief. Christina religious belief that the Earth was at the center of the universe, the universe at that time being the solar system. So Galileo comes along and says, hey, look through the telescope
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:50
TJ. Thank you for taking the time not only to listen to the swell, but also to offer an audio response. The age old fight religion versus science. Who will win? Who has won? I feel neither is more dominant than the other. But the main consistency between these two dynamics is humans. We have the power to shape ideas and cause influence. Religion of its day strived to find meaning beyond the trivial. What was the purpose to all of this?
Well, gentlemen, it's nice to listen two perspectives regarding religion and science. Well, as the statement comes that religion is based on mythology and also it has been clearly stated that the main consistency in these two dynamics is human, as we have the power to shape ideas. I think the second statement is the crux. It is remarkable statement that the part lies with humans. It is we who has to decide what we want. Why do we think about mythology?
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 4:31
So I feel there is an energy that combines all of us together, and that energy is in the form of ideas and emotion. We all experience ideas and emotion. So it was theorized by Carl Young that ancient mythology was not simply people believing that God's built the earth, but more so, it was our building of our personas and our egos. This is what personified the gods of thunder or the gods of love or etcetera
Aayan Banerjee
@BasTalk · 2:11
This is a great swell. My take on this is there are two sides of the same coin. What was inexplicable was attributed to God and what was explainable related to science. And so as we move forward in our revolution, science will gradually explain the inexplicable. So the question is will we ever reach a stage where there is an N to sign? So if you follow integral calculus, x tends to zero. X is not equal to zero
Dewuan .
@FryedOreo · 3:44
As much as I am not an avid fan of spirituality, I cannot ignore some sort of energy that is taking place with ideas and that seems to be something that's going beyond the understanding of us. But yet here we are, following the chain, the daisy chains of algorithmic code to one singularity. What that answer may be, I have no idea
TJ mclaughlin
@natchril · 5:00
So that was like science figuring that out in a way that was just reason, logic, projecting some sense of how fire could benefit us. So that was definitely science there. But then there was further developments like farming, cultivating crops instead of just going out and gathering. But those things didn't challenge any kind of established belief that God and some kind of some kind of religious belief, so didn't challenge it