SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

                                                   Qs on science and religion - part 2

Krishna: These are three different questions. So let me answer each question separately.

1. Which scientific questions cannot be answered by God?

God is a belief system. So the God concept doesn’t come under the scientific realm at all. Has God answered any questions in science till now? NO! Only scientists and people of science can answer the questions based on science using scientific method. So the answer to your first Q is ‘ALL’.

2. Which scientific questions cannot be answered by God believers?

To answer a scientific question you have to strictly follow the scientific method. God believers can answer the all scientific questions if they follow this method and completely forget about ‘God said this or God did this’ while doing that. Some scientists who are God believers do that. While talking about evolution, you have to completely forget about creationism. You cannot bring two things that work in opposite directions and try to combine them. That leads to erroneous conclusions and answers and pseudo-science. Theists cannot answer scientific questions if they follow religious methods to answer them.

Here the method they follow is important, not the area of question.

3. Which scientific questions cannot be answered by religious scriptures?

NONE! Religion doesn’t deal with science at all. It is a belief-based system and work completely in an imaginative world. It doesn’t follow scientific method to come to any conclusions. Its answers are also perception-based and primitive in nature. It refuses to get corrected, falsified, and improve itself.

Anything that doesn’t deal with evidence based facts cannot answer questions on or in science.

Q: Q:Scientists, do you agree with this quote from Louis Pasteur: "Little science takes you away from God, but more of it takes you to him."? 

Louis Pasteur’s time was another century ( Born: December 27, 1822, Died: September 28, 1895).

That thinking of his reflected his time. Now we have more of science, not less of it like in the earlier centuries. Unlike earlier centuries, we have more atheist scientists now. Moreover, there wasn’t any clearly defined scientific method then. We have to confirm everything in this universe based on the scientific method now.

If the scientific method says, ‘no evidence’, we, the modern day genuine scientists, have to accept that provisional fact. Until somebody brings genuine evidence, that provisional fact stays.

But there are a few scientists who still go against this scientific method while believing in certain things. Because their scientific training is inadequate and they are not mentally strong to stand on their mental capabilities alone. Without the emotional outside support of God they would collapse mentally. We understand that. That is why we tolerate them.

As long as their beliefs don’t interfere with science, progress and the welfare of the world, we keep tolerating it.

Science and Spirituality

Q: Is there reason for why would God prevent us from discovering him through science?

Krishna: Religion and beliefs don't need validation. They can just exist on the basis of people's imagination and faith.

But science is dependent on evidence to establish facts. God too needs validation, in the field of science. According to atheist-scientists, if you imagine something and think it is true, science cannot accept it. You have to show evidence for it to become a scientific fact or atleast truth. Science cannot accept your imagination as truth. It is logically wrong too. A belief cannot be logically true leave alone scientifically true.
Even if your imagination is taken into account, the creator created this universe scientifically and runs it based on scientific principles. He is a scientist to the core. So he too is bound by it’s rules. He himself would have validated his presence if he really exists. He would have accepted the scientists' argument that he too needs validation in a scientific world created by him.

The very fact that a scientific creator didn't leave any clues of his presence, is reason enough to deny his presence.

However, scientists are open to the idea that a creator could be in the form our senses or our scientific instruments in the present limited conditions can't perceive. Therefore, an atheist-scientist can be 99% atheistic and the remaining one percent, s/he leaves to open mindedness to consider any evidence provided either by nature or any other living form.

Q: If we eliminate religion and instead rely entirely on science to make sense of the world, can we depend on science to help us create a human ethics? Are scientists good/capable ethicists? What would a scientific approach to ethics look like?

Krishna: At least some scientists are atheists. Don't they follow ethics? They do! Without the help of religion. Ethics are not the sole property of religion.

Ethics is an integral part of science too. Like science, it requires us to be consistent and empirically justified in our interpretations of the actions of scientists. The ethics of science and science itself share the goal of comprehending in human terms scientists' actions in manipulating the physical world.

Anyone who knows how a nervous system works ( like a person of science) during pain processing can do no physical harm to any living being. And anyone who knows how the brain really works ( like a scientist or a medical doctor) at the emotional level will never try to harass another living being. Any person who has seen how the scientific rules are followed universally in a given set of conditions, and understood its beauty can never think in local terms and can never come under the influence of artificially created races, castes, groups, communities or citizenships. He sees all the living beings as his own images - following universal rules of life and as citizens of this universe.

To be frank science is a neutral study of the universe without any biases and prejudices. It exactly shows what reality of our universe is. And if that helps in human culture moral judgements? (3)

Like DNA fingerprinting helps in finding the culprits in forensic science who cheat others?

When it comes to questions of morality and meaning, the way we go about deciding what is right and wrong, and meaningful or not, is not the same as the way we discover what is true and false or facts. Some emotions like kindness and empathy will be involved. Controlling them is highly important to arrive at a good decision. Just because a criminal cries and acts funnily, you cannot support him. Oh yes, his brain could be differently wired! You try to analyze what could make any person behave so differently from others. On the other hand you can empathize with a poor thief when he steals food. But if you are a logical thinker you will try to understand what circumstances made him steal the food and try to correct them. Critical thinking helps here.

So far science has described how various social animals work in their groups, using various mechanisms to interact collectively. Bees use pheromones. Humans use emotions. And morality is just a word for emotional responses for how people do or do not behave according to 'rules' of the group they identify with. And science described it in spite of centuries of claims of mystical magical forces that made people behave as they do.

And all the morals are linked to emotions and emotions are controlled by science Read here how: Can science explain or deal with emotions and morals?

Unlike what several people think, science deals with moral ( derived from reasoning related to...empirical evidence) issues too and can be a good guide to life's journey through the checkerboard of blacks and whites!

I learned all about human existence, morality, humane nature, universal brotherhood, secularism, tolerance, inner strength and everything a human being should be from science! (1)

The reactions of non-specialist observers to complex ethical problems raised by cutting-edge science such as embryonic stem-cell research are no more justified or useful than their opinions about the technical difficulties yet to be overcome. The central issue in the ethical debate surrounding the embryo is not whether it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, but what the embryo and its disaggregation constitutes. The specialist scientific community's familiarity with the facts places it in a privileged position in determining the interpretation or interpretations best supported by the facts. (2)

As well as thinking of their actions in terms of future experimental design, scientists must explain the significance of their actions in the wider scientific and human contexts and remove misconceptions about science and scientists. Scientists must take the lead in ensuring that the progress of science is both ethical and as free from political and outside intervention as possible.

Scientists should strictly follow scientific method in the lab. No other rules can be applied to science. If they follow scientific method, scientists are following 'their rules'.

This universe itself follows scientific principles. It came into existence using these principles, and runs on them.

As a part of this universe, we human beings are also bound by these principles. Morals interrelated to emotions are indirectly controlled by 'science of this universe'.

Only thing is people outside of science should learn how this happens to go about morals without the help of religion if they want to like atheists and atheist-scientists do.

Footnotes:

1. Science and Spirituality

2. Science and ethics must not be separated.

3. Can science explain or deal with emotions and morals?

Q:Can the universe be understood to the most spiritually rather than by science? Does science have its limits but spirituality does not have limits of knowledge?

Krishna: This is a troll Q because the person who is questioning is suggesting answers in his Q itself to confirm his preconceived notions instead of expecting a neutral answer.

Anyway I am going to answer this Q like a scientist does whether you like it or not.

Spiritual journey is actually an inquiry into one's own existence. It is an inquiry into existence and non-existence and the relationship between these two. It is realizing true existence. An inquiry has to be open without any fear in mind about the ability or outcome. So being fearless is the first step in the path of realization. We are always under the influence of some or other fear. The fear is an outcome of either illusion or weakness to understand and tackle the situation. Illusion can be overcome by acquiring knowledge while weakness can be overcome by acquiring strength. Fearlessness is prerequisite as well as an outcome of spiritual quest. For this to happen, you have to be emotionally neutral. First you should not get associated with anything mentally and should be able to analyze everything rationally. That is what science tells us to do!

Science in itself is a spiritual journey. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe and trying to know the truth and meaning of our existence.. ..Science it is on the pursuit of truth without any fear, illusions, preconceived notions and beliefs.

Science and Spirituality

On the other hand what religion says is based on primitive understanding of the world around us and is full of creative stories based on beliefs and cannot be verified to become facts. In such a scenario how can the statement made in the Q ‘ the universe be understood to the most spiritually rather than by science’ be true? Can unverified things be facts? Can unverifiable things become truths? How?

‘spirituality does not have limits of knowledge’.

Yes, religious stories and imaginative narrations cannot have limitations. You can have as many as you want like you have so many religious stories now. But that is not knowledge, just creativity based on your perception.

Finally does science have limits?

If I say ‘no’? Wait a minute before you open your mouth and listen to this:

Science has two aspects to it.

One: The principles with which this universe came into existence (to atheists), or created (to theists) and run by it.

Two: The process with which we study this universe.

People usually take only the second one into consideration, not the first one while dealing with this aspect. But the truth is, without scientific principles, this universe in which we live, wouldn't have come into existence in the first place. Only when the scientific principles based universe came into existence, the consequences like galaxies, stars, planets, origin of life, its evolution, human beings and finally their religions became a reality.

So science is the basis for everything. Its knowledge holding capacity is limitless.

It is the limitations of human mind that is making us unable to fathom this limitless scientific knowledge.

These limitations of a human mind also make us incapable of understanding the universe through religious means.

But, if anything can give us evidence based facts about this universe, it is science, not religion.

Krishna: What is ‘too much scientific’? You can’t even survive without science in the first place!

This universe and everything in it came into existence using scientific principles. They are run by science. Remove science, everything in the universe and life in it will collapse and become non-existent!

Scientists are just trying to understand how this universe and everything in it works using scientific method. They are not discovering or inventing something out of nothing! They are finding things because they exist - making use of scientific principles - in this universe.

Okay, if you are a theist and believe in God ask him why he made this universe using only science and nothing else. Why he used so much science ( or too much science in your own words) to create this universe. He must be a scientist to make this universe scientifically. Then he must also provide scientific evidence for his existence. If he doesn’t, any rational individual or scientific minded person cannot believe in someone who creates everything using scientific method but refuses to follow his own rules and provide evidence for his existence.

Yes, too much science but not scientific enough minded God to provide evidence for his own existence! What an irony! Why blame science for it? Science is following its rules perfectly and is asking for evidence to believe in something you imagine exists!

And if you don’t mind ‘too much science’ of your creator, please follow this space:

Krishna: Who says so?

Religion is completely backward, stagnant, stubborn ( refuses to get updated), demands blind faith, and irrational.

Science works in a totally opposite way. So it is several steps ahead of religion.

If you compare the followers, here too even the people who follow religion unwittingly accept science by using it. If they get a deadly disease do majority of people go to a religious place or to a hospital? Do they still use bullock carts or modern transport system brought by science and technology? Do they sow their seeds in the fields and pray or go ahead and do whatever they can using science as an aid to get better results?

Yes, but still if people think religion is ahead, they are living in a pseudo-world.

Q: Why can't spirituality be science?

Krishna:It can be if it follows genuine scientific method.

But if it tries to be ‘scientific’ without following the scientific method, it becomes pseudo-science.

If it tries to be genuinely scientific by following the scientific method, it ceases to exist as spirituality (based on blind belief) and becomes genuine science based on evidence and data.

Now can you see why spirituality cannot be science?

Science and Spirituality

Krishna: When I embraced science and scientific method before entering my lab all the beliefs I had got a thorough analysis and those that didn’t follow the latter and couldn’t stand up to the scrutiny were tossed out of the window.

A true scientist cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance.

But, some people need some sort of external emotional support, especially when their minds are conditioned to follow certain things and when their scientific training is inadequate and therefore unable to overcome it, to surmount their problems in life. We understand this and therefore tolerate it as long as their beliefs don’t interfere with their work in the labs.

However, if you couldn’t overcome your beliefs and biases once, where is the guarantee that this will not happen again and again? How can you trust such people?

Some of these are creating pseudo-science by combining science they are doing with their beliefs. Although the scientific method keeps a check on this, these people are trying to hoodwink it by creating their own science journals, submitting their papers to only peers who have similar beliefs to theirs and by following all unscientific ways. We see this happening around us.

So?!

Q: Which teaches us more, science or religion?

Krishna: Forget the word ‘more’. Ask the Q, ‘Which one gives us the most trustworthy explanation about the universe around us?’

Imagine this situation...

A huge asteroid colloids with the Earth in the future. Everything here gets destroyed. All living beings. All religions. All the scientific knowledge written in the books.

Then life originates here again and evolves into intelligent beings. Then in the initial stages of its civilization when it tries, it comes up with new religious stories with different Gods because it doesn't have any knowledge about present ones!

But in the later stages, if it tries to gain scientific knowledge, surprisingly it finds that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Earth is round - not flat, realizes gravity and space-time in the same way as we did! It also finds millions of stars, galaxies and black holes like we did!

It sees atoms and molecules and chemical reactions exactly in the same way as we do!

Their 'medical field' evolves similar to ours! Their technology would be similar to the present one. In fact all their scientific knowledge will be similar to ours!

Even if this happens a hundred times the results would be the same each time!

If intelligent life evolves in different parts of this universe, and if it has to have 'religions' in each part, they would all be different to each other - like the different religious stories and beliefs we have in different parts of Earth. But their scientific knowledge would be exactly the same in all the given situations! Because scientific awareness cannot be different in various parts of our planet or universe.

Why does scientific knowledge remain constant while religion keeps changing?

Can you realize why? If you can, you will understand which one is telling the truth and which one you can trust ... Science or Religion?


Krishna: Science will try its best to answer all the questions it can. What limits science is human inadequacies, not science’s inabilities.

The more human brain works to tackle these inadequacies, the more answers we get. Scientists are doing their best to overcome these problems.

And God and religion are coming in the way!

Forget God and related topics. Because, first of all there is no evidence of GOD. It is human imagination that such an entity exists. To meet their emotional needs human beings invented something called GOD.

And people are investing both their time and money in GOD and religion more than they are investing in scientific research. People donate money to GOD, not to science. Then how can science find answers if you don’t provide adequate funds to scientists and waste them on religion?

Then people spend more time on thoughts like “GOD did ( or do) things in that way”. Like newton did (1). If they find some problem instead of finding the real solution, they go after, ‘divine solution’, filling the gaps with GOD, religion, creator and what not.

Don’t you think, they are going the wrong way? If you are attached to a belief (or emotion or group), it fogs your reasoning power out of fear, hope, love or respect and affects your behaviour. A mind that is agitated by belief can never be free and therefore never know truth (2). You shouldn't reason backward from belief to evidence because that will subject you to numerous cognitive biases and you risk fooling yourself about the nature of reality.

Science is in pursuit of the facts and the conditions in which these facts evolve so that we can give a meaningful definition to our existence.

In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be.

Science is closer to truth than any other belief. GOD, spirituality and religion cannot give you the evidence based facts like science does.

We need only science to answer the questions in the right way (3). Just have patience. God and spirituality can never give you the correct answers in the present situation.

Footnotes:

  1. Science, as an infant, must accept that it doesn't know the answers...
  2. Science and Spirituality
  3. Science will answer your questions and solve your problems too!

Krishna: Nothing! Unless you want to get into another pseudo-world or fantasy situations like religion.

Because scientific principles are the ones that govern this universe. They are the facts of this universe and run it. You cannot replace them with anything else and succeed in running this universe.

But has science, the study with which we try to understand the world around us, really replaced religion? Several people still want to live in a pseudo-world that primitive imagination took us into. As long as these people refuse to come out their shells and as long a some people try to keep them there in the darkness to exploit them, religion can’t be replaced.

Krishna : You asked about scientific perspective. Does God has evidence? NO!

Then how can you say GOD exists?

So from a scientific point of view, you cannot confirm that GOD exists.

So it is just peoples’ imagination that such an entity exists. Many in the world of science think man invented GOD and religion

1. to meet his emotional needs, to gain mental strength if he is weak.

2. to explain things that are still can’t be explained using scientific method

3. to fill the gaps (using unverified methods) in our understanding of the universe

4. to gain power and money

5. to hoodwink people and keep them under his control

6. to keep away from things he fears would disrupt his world and way of thinking!

--

Technology is based on these principles. Technology works because what we found is correct.

Now religion. Most religions came into existence when human thinking was at a primitive stage. When scientific thinking and methods didn't get established. Most of the religious stories originated from the human mind's imagination. There is no evidence to say that they are true. It is just a blind belief system.

When scientific facts get established, they shatter these myths of religion. You get the story 'as it is' and not as you want it to be like it was told in the religious stories.

When you understand this, you awaken to reality. You realize that religious stories were narratives written on water, melting and getting erased as the scientific flow continues.

In what way do you understand religion then?

That depends on the type of person you are!

If you are afraid, you completely deny what science says and stick to your ancient mind set and still believe in religious stories.

If you want to make peace with science, but still can't come out of your ancient mind set, you try to connect science and religion and create pseudo-science and try to live in that pseudo-world.

If you are a critical thinker you understand what science says is true and completely abandon ancient thinking and religion and live a peaceful and enlightened scientific way of life.

--

There are several people who are atheists

Atheists used their grey matter to think critically and found no evidence of things people say exist or happen if you believe in higher authority in the sky! And they had the courage to say what they found and practice it!

From where does an atheist draw strength? Critical thinking and self confidence derived from it!

They are relived they need not look up to someone in the sky to get things done. They go and do things ourselves. They need not practice religious rituals and waste their time. They can spend their time on more useful things.

They go to science to save lives. Control or eradicate several diseases. Stop pain and suffering. To feed the ever increasing population. To progress. To be comfortable in life. Even to ask Qs and give answers here.
Science is the language this universe is written in. Scientists are only uncoding the language, when they discover something. And they are using this information for the welfare of mankind. It is based on reality, not imagination, like religion.
If you want to live in reality, adopt science. Go to religion if you want to live in an imaginative world. The choice is definitely humanitys’.


Views: 74

Replies to This Discussion

54

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service