<p>milli, science is religion too. You rely on your senses, and think (yea, think) that they are right. You have no proof. You don’t even have a proof that the whole universe is not a computer program, where you are only human, surrounded by fictional ‘people’. So relax.</p>
<p>Check the December issue of Discover magazine (article about physicist Andrei Linde). Library has it if you don’t want to buy it.</p>
<p>Nobody (or is it just me?) needs to consciously believe or trust anything - there are simply things that seem plausible, and things that seem less plausible. Science stands here, even without faith. (Mathematics, with its unique a priori position, apparently stands alone in its immunity to the need or presence of faith. That the discovery of more mathematics is a creative exercise recycles it as the “exact opposite” - an art - so perhaps we should leave it out of this talk.) As for the unconscious, the truth of that matter eludes me though I (Humans?) cannot elude it. The biological basis for the intellectual attenuation by belief, speculably related to mindstrangling passions, is interesting here, because with some applied neurology we may well eradicate religion or religious fervour, and reveal such texts as Genesis as no more than Nigtmare Fuel.</p>
<p>^ It seems to you more plausible, yes, it is easier to believe in. It is much easier to believe that world is world, not some computer program i.e. than to believe that lord Jesus will come and save you, or anything along the lines. Neither of the statements doesn’t get ‘truer’ just because of it, though.</p>
<p>It goes a lot deeper than you might think. Check the article on Discover, it’s more than interesting.</p>
<p>That’s not fair to say about Obama. The fact that people feel it’s their right to judge another’s spiritual conviction is always intriguing to me. People used to make those judgments about Bill Clinton, and yet you find a deeply spiritual man struggling with his pscyhological demons. Bush, likewise, turned to an extremist religion to establish a firm structure that could replace the void of alcoholism and fatherly affection. Thankfully, Obama seems to have overcome his demons. There’s a deep, spiritual maturity to him that draws upon Christianity but is by no means bound by it.</p>
<p>As for the answer to your question:</p>
<p>Spirituality (crystallizing in religion for those who need that structure) fills in the gaps of experience and deep knowing that science has yet to prove.</p>
<p>The problem with religion is people try to answer the questions about source that can’t be answered from this perspective. If they’d just focus on results, we could get somewhere. But many lack a willingness to accept that the world is not black and white.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the problem with science is it hides behind almost as stringent a dogma. The universities, grant system, and research professions have adopted a materialist dogma about how the world works. They block a great deal of inquiry into the role of consciousness and answers that could break down the barrier between science and spirituality.</p>
<p>We’re all children who are just beginning to understand how the world really works. In that sense, we’re all mentally ill.</p>
<p>Science is not a religion. It is not faith based. There are poor practitioners of science, who do not rely on fact based, testable and provable data. However, that is not a comment on science-just a comment on people! There are “good” and “bad” as well as able and inable practitioners of both science and faith.</p>
<p>Atheism is faith based and non-scientific because it like belief in christianity cannot be proved. Agnosticism states uncertainty in divine beings based on inability to either prove or disprove existence of such a being.</p>
<p>Scientific method relies on generating hypotheses which are by definitition testable in this world. When a testable hypothesis cannot be generated, it is only speculation or faith (this is not a value judgement on either).</p>
<p>yes
they are mentally ill
(totally not sarcastic - religion is just stupid)</p>
<p>
In what religion do people work all days to prove its own tenets wrong?</p>
<p>Despite my post explanation of science as not faith, I strongly disagree with practice of religion being defined as an indication of mental illness. It is merely a viewpoint that is not provable in this world. </p>
<p>In addition, practice of science does not preclude practice of religion.</p>
<p>I find people who believe science blindly foolish, and the ones who do usually aren’t scientists or dont know much about it. In school I studied math and science and still do, but I realize that they are most likely false and look at them with caution. I am a deist and have studied pretty much every type of science and to me personally, the science is lacking. In the end Science will never be able to prove or disprove god, and god has just as much chance as being true as science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your definition of science is true, but very idealistic. When those who guard its gate build theories off unproven assumptions and only fund research that adheres to those assumptions, it begins to take on qualities of a religion. </p>
<p>That’s interesting, Dr Horse, that you have concluded that science is false yet have committed your life to it. Do you believe all of it is false or just its big assertions?</p>
<p>Science is faith. It’s just that you trust and believe your sense so much that you don’t even consider it a ‘belief’.</p>
<p>Possibly both, who knows. Im good at it, so what can I say. Im like the doctors who prescribe prescription drugs that harm and kill people, when they themselves know that they are horrible and would never take them themselves.</p>
<p>so is my imaginary friend real now? i don’t have proof but believe in him.</p>
<p>^
If there’s a chance that someday your imaginary friend could be proven to be real, then perhaps you should not close that line of intellectual inquiry.</p>
<p>If you can prove that it is just a figment of your own imagination, then no. Your friend is not real.</p>
<p>I’ve had numerous conversations and interactions in the physical world that cannot be explained by current scientific assumptions. I’m not saying anyone should “believe” me or anything I say without research, but to dismiss without proof introduces belief. </p>
<p>It’s simply easier to “believe” in what you can touch or feel and rest on those laurels.</p>
<p>but your brain generates the illusions of sensation as well as your imagination? so if i can touch my invisible friend its just as real as him existing?</p>
<p>Are you asking me or telling? Either way, there is no solid evidence that the brain “generates” anything. </p>
<p>Neuroscience is moving into realms that reveal the brain to be a receiver, not a creator.</p>
<p>^ applejack, prove to me that the computer screen you see in front of your eyes right now, at this very instant, exists. Go ahead. Prove that ANYthing exists. Why do keyboards “exist?” Because we can taste, touch, hear, see, and smell them? So the existence of other things is based off of our own perception, our own little electrical impulses, not the innate qualities of the things themselves?</p>
<p>Be careful what you call imaginary…</p>
<p>– For believing in things that don’t exist? Or is it justifiable/ –</p>
<p>Yes they are seriously mentally ill and need help.</p>