Science and religion are systems of belief

[bito]

It is interesting that those who call themselves 'scientists' or 'philosophers' cannot see that they are no different than those who call themselves 'religionists' or 'spiritualists', in that scientists and religionists both believe that reality can know itself objectively.

The pursuit of God by a religionist is just such an objectification, as is the pursuit of the god particle by a scientist. There is no outcome difference in either experience of "I" objectification. When awareness is divided into seeker and that which is being sought, awareness is in a state of restlessness, of tension - in the state of seeking healing, or wholing.

The experience of tension is the experience of belief in subject-object differentiation, no matter by which name this tension is given. Science, religion - both 'isms' are systems of belief that the universe can be cut in two.

[loveGOD]

Hello loving friends..., Thinking thankyou.
I often think beyond belief:imagination.:loveyou: We all suffer according to our belief.
I often ask another what are beliefs and after some thought the response is 'beliefs are knowledge'.:thumbsup: I agree and say 'beliefs are learned'.
I'm now trying to accept that my hero Jesus the Christ, may in fact been
a revealar rather than than a redeemer. I often say that Jesus the Christ was very smart very tough and a good role model. I've read that Jesus the Christ
may have let the boastful demon enter his being while praying aloud in front of his disciples. "John 17: 5-7" I asked Jesus the Christ if he did in fact error
and allow the boastful demon in and his response was:yes. Belief learned from that is all glory must go to GOD..., "In He They Come".
Imagining All Withing Divine Peace and Joy:loveyou:

[schrodinger]

My hero is Felix The Cat :thumbsup:

[...]

It is interesting that those who call themselves 'scientists' or 'philosophers' cannot see that they are no different than those who call themselves 'religionists' or 'spiritualists', in that scientists and religionists both believe that reality can know itself objectively.

The pursuit of God by a religionist is just such an objectification, as is the pursuit of the god particle by a scientist. There is no outcome difference in either experience of "I" objectification. When awareness is divided into seeker and that which is being sought, awareness is in a state of restlessness, of tension - in the state of seeking healing, or wholing.

The experience of tension is the experience of belief in subject-object differentiation, no matter by which name this tension is given. Science, religion - both 'isms' are systems of belief that the universe can be cut in two.

..bito :blink: are you sure you understand the scientific principles that governs science? Let me ask you this: are you still in the enlightened phase, and have yet to start carrying water again?

[bito]

..bito :blink: are you sure you understand the scientific principles that governs science? Let me ask you this: are you still in the enlightened phase, and have yet to start carrying water again?



..., scientific principles cannot govern science. 'Science' is an idea of man's seeking to manifest idea. Science is an invention of man's, as is art, as is literature, as is music, so he can call himself a scientist or an artist or a musician and claim ownership to thought.

That which governs Life is Life Itself. The laws and principles of Life cannot be known by the senses, except by relativity and through fragmented revelation. That which is called 'scientific' discovery is always partial, for the Whole cannot be penetrated by thought of the Whole.

As for carrying water again, the 'again' is silent.

[...]

..., scientific principles cannot govern science. 'Science' is an idea of man's seeking to manifest idea. Science is an invention of man's, as is art, as is literature, as is music, so he can call himself a scientist or an artist or a musician and claim ownership to thought.

That which governs Life is Life Itself. The laws and principles of Life cannot be known by the senses, except by relativity and through fragmented revelation. That which is called 'scientific' discovery is always partial, for the Whole cannot be penetrated by thought of the Whole.

As for carrying water again, the 'again' is silent.

..the 'again' part explains your position better than the previous words bito, thanks for the explanation :loveyou:

[bito]

..the 'again' part explains your position better than the previous words bito, thanks for the explanation :loveyou:

..., I cannot explain anything to you, nor can you explain anything to me. :loveyou:

[...]

..., I cannot explain anything to you, nor can you explain anything to me. :loveyou:

..are you calling me a liar now? Taking over from asheera as the resident forum loon, i see. Good luck with that bito...

[MultipleTentacles]

I like science because it is less easy to pervert than religion. "True" religion and "true" science are really the same -- they are valid, truthful observations of reality. However, religion deals with stuff that cannot be easily "proved" to everyone. Many people make much of this fact. For example, imagine believing that the God who created the world is the same guy who throws lighting bolts, but not the same guy who makes the sun rise and set -- that's someone else. Oh, and this guy goes around having sex with random women all the time just for kicks, killed his father, and lives on top of a big mountain. His father kept having sex with the Earth to produce weird monsters, whom he kept pushing back into the Earth, until the son came around and killed him. This is silly. It may be fun to make stories like this, but if you actually believe it, it's perverse.

Science, on the other hand, has some fairly strong self-correcting mechanisms. If what you say is false, then nobody will be able to reproduce it in the lab, therefore other scientists won't believe you.

[VossistArts]

Science, on the other hand, has some fairly strong self-correcting mechanisms. If what you say is false, then nobody will be able to reproduce it in the lab, therefore other scientists won't believe you.

Whichever youre more fond of or have the most faith in, embracing religion and/or science is the acceptance of concepts and constructs. For a person who embraces religion their proofs often cant be shown, but are as valid to them as are scientific proofs to the scientist. It seems to me both perspectives have grown out of the imaginations and observations of the manifestations of the imagination whether tangible or not. The scientist has decided to create a common language logic to validate its hypothesis with, ultimately so that everyone who understands that language, can see it as well.

So, as a science minded person are you justified in believing in sciences proven by math and experiments that you cant comprehend? I'd have to say that the majority of people who say they stand by science do not comprehend the proofs that would otherwise validate their realities to those who do understand the language and logic. So how is that very different from the common person who says they stand by religion and the truths claimed to be contained within them?

[MultipleTentacles]

VossistArts, I think you're confusing the process with its effect. If you're truly religious, or truly scientific, you're operating within the realm of experience, not concepts. You experience a truth, then you try to define the truth with concepts. As a result, people may or may not adopt the "concepts and constructs" as you say. But these concepts and constructs for the true scientist or religionist will be rooted in true experience. I think if you have a good reason to believe the message was inspired by the truth, and has truth in it, it's good to use the concept to find the truth. If no "concepts and constructs" had any truth in them, we would not be here discussing The Big View!