The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We were invaded by Christians a few months back. [Note: I say a few months back, but I actually started writing this the day after they left]. It did get me thinking though:
What is a religion? A religion is something that you follow and believe in. Religions will never explain everything, but it offers an opinion and you choose to accept it if you wish. Christians choose to believe the Universe was made in 6 days, etc... Now, our RS teacher, Mr Clarke, posed us all the question "Do you have a religion", to which most of us answered "No". I also answered "no", because I believe in science, which I don't class as a religion. However, Mr Clarke and I got chatting at one point. He asked me if I had a religion and I said no, and when he asked why I replied "Because every explanation religion makes towards the Universe, etc. can also be explained through science, and to me the earth forming over billions of years makes much more sense than it being created over 6 days". The thing is, he noticed a flaw in my argument. There are some things that science can't explain like it can't explain fully how the universe was created and it can't explain fully how life evolved from scratch and how it came to be like it is today. Religion howeverm can. So, I quite stupidly replied "Well, I believe science will explain it eventually."
Then it hit me... I BELIEVE in science. I don't understand it. Sure, there are some things I understand, but most of it is just being told "this is how it is" and accepting it because it made sense in some way. The thing is, all I know is what I've been told. The only thing that makes it different to religion in a way is that it can be "proved" and measured. The fact that millions of other scientists concuur is no matter, because millions of priests concuur. It's a very interesting concept which has, well, changed my way of thinking I suppose.
I no longer just accept things, but I BELIEVE in science as my religion, I have found science. It's a young and upcoming religion, almost fledgling, because it is far behind other religions in terms of completetion. I will even worhip it by furthering my knowledge of science and endeavouring to contribute to its teachings, so that many before me may learn science at school and in life, and hopefully think "Oh, Robin Haswell discovered that, I want to be like him and discover stuff", and so writing more chapters in the big bumper bible of science.
What is a religion? A religion is something that you follow and believe in. Religions will never explain everything, but it offers an opinion and you choose to accept it if you wish. Christians choose to believe the Universe was made in 6 days, etc... Now, our RS teacher, Mr Clarke, posed us all the question "Do you have a religion", to which most of us answered "No". I also answered "no", because I believe in science, which I don't class as a religion. However, Mr Clarke and I got chatting at one point. He asked me if I had a religion and I said no, and when he asked why I replied "Because every explanation religion makes towards the Universe, etc. can also be explained through science, and to me the earth forming over billions of years makes much more sense than it being created over 6 days". The thing is, he noticed a flaw in my argument. There are some things that science can't explain like it can't explain fully how the universe was created and it can't explain fully how life evolved from scratch and how it came to be like it is today. Religion howeverm can. So, I quite stupidly replied "Well, I believe science will explain it eventually."
Then it hit me... I BELIEVE in science. I don't understand it. Sure, there are some things I understand, but most of it is just being told "this is how it is" and accepting it because it made sense in some way. The thing is, all I know is what I've been told. The only thing that makes it different to religion in a way is that it can be "proved" and measured. The fact that millions of other scientists concuur is no matter, because millions of priests concuur. It's a very interesting concept which has, well, changed my way of thinking I suppose.
I no longer just accept things, but I BELIEVE in science as my religion, I have found science. It's a young and upcoming religion, almost fledgling, because it is far behind other religions in terms of completetion. I will even worhip it by furthering my knowledge of science and endeavouring to contribute to its teachings, so that many before me may learn science at school and in life, and hopefully think "Oh, Robin Haswell discovered that, I want to be like him and discover stuff", and so writing more chapters in the big bumper bible of science.
Page:
Who told you that the earth was made in 6 days? They should be shot! No, the biblical translations have a lot to answer for and the hebrew translation of the word 'days' is wrong in its present sense, as days was meant to mean ages, so you have the 6 ages.
Most people haven't even a clue about the bible, other than what is presented to them at church or from RE lessons. I agree that there should be schooling on all major world religions, but they currently go about it the wrong way, focusing on boring facts and missing out on other religions because of their political problems or lack of true understanding. I'll get back to that at another time.
Anyway, why aren't we told about the other texts from the bible? The Apocrypha, or missing texts make up a much better picture and give a whole new meaning to the original Old and New testaments, but were left out of the churches canon due to either being lost or because they didn't fit in. I'm currently taking it upon myself to study these texts as part of an interest in the fortean element of their content. I'll let you know any interesting theories I have on the subject when I've read them.
As for science vs religion, we've already had posts en mass about this subject, but it's one that could run and run, and should too. We still have very little true understanding of this world we live in. Science has 'proven' things that have since been disproven or created theories that are now completely rubbished. Only a fool would trust science 100% at any given time, but it does provide us with the only answers to the scientific world at present and as such is still invaluable.
Any scientist who is worth their salt will take scientific fact and theory as simply the present knowledge of the world we live in and would be able to change this as new evidence came to light. To say that science proves anything without the shadow of a doubt is wrong, even the study of radioactivity has produced some startling results which were considered fact until only a short time ago and have now been disproven.
The Big Bang is still under negotiation with scientists, nowhere should their be a scientist who believes utterly in one particular theory about the creation of the universe, as the theories are changing and being transformed by new knowledge every day.
Likewise, Religion is not static. Though those of us who go to church hear the same old biblical recitals each week, the actual process of maintaining and deciphering the true biblical scriptures goes on and new parts or meanings to the Old and New Testament are being recovered or deciphered all the time. Of course, it's up to organised religions to maintain this new knowledge and I think the Catholic church as a whole will see a major change towards this when there is a new pope, which doesn't seem to be long, looking at the health of Pope John Paul II. Other religions, including other Christian religions, are open to change. The Mormons belive that they have not yet found the complete bible and are waiting for more messages from God and eastern religions always apply their texts to the modern world in ways that changes the meaning but keep the inherent truths.
Finally, religion does not set out to prove the beginning of life so much as it pre-empts this and tries to go for what happened prior to this. It is possible for religion and science to go hand in hand, if only Religion is flexible enough and science open minded enough for this to happen. Wars and death have been caused just as much by an established science refusing to believe new evidence as by religious argument and creating new and more devestating weopons to use in war is as bad as starting a war, after all, wouldn't it be better if two countries went to battle with sticks rather than H-bombs?
Of course, war is not caused by any one thing and those who cite religion as the cause of such an event are nieve. The truth is that people cause wars and will always use some excuse to start one. In fact, Geography is the biggest cause of war and it often takes religion along for the ride as different countries or continents often support different religions. The cause of war is partly down to humanity's lack of communication and understanding between each other. The way to stop wars from happening should be to communicate and agree to disagree, unfortunately it's not that simple. There are people who would like to see certain groups wiped off the planet and others who have just as strange ideas which are at odds with the rest of the world. If given enough power and influence, these people will be challenged as a threat. Now it comes down to ethics, politics, belief and science; what do we really know and is this group of people really right to challenge our assumptions?
Most people haven't even a clue about the bible, other than what is presented to them at church or from RE lessons. I agree that there should be schooling on all major world religions, but they currently go about it the wrong way, focusing on boring facts and missing out on other religions because of their political problems or lack of true understanding. I'll get back to that at another time.
Anyway, why aren't we told about the other texts from the bible? The Apocrypha, or missing texts make up a much better picture and give a whole new meaning to the original Old and New testaments, but were left out of the churches canon due to either being lost or because they didn't fit in. I'm currently taking it upon myself to study these texts as part of an interest in the fortean element of their content. I'll let you know any interesting theories I have on the subject when I've read them.
As for science vs religion, we've already had posts en mass about this subject, but it's one that could run and run, and should too. We still have very little true understanding of this world we live in. Science has 'proven' things that have since been disproven or created theories that are now completely rubbished. Only a fool would trust science 100% at any given time, but it does provide us with the only answers to the scientific world at present and as such is still invaluable.
Any scientist who is worth their salt will take scientific fact and theory as simply the present knowledge of the world we live in and would be able to change this as new evidence came to light. To say that science proves anything without the shadow of a doubt is wrong, even the study of radioactivity has produced some startling results which were considered fact until only a short time ago and have now been disproven.
The Big Bang is still under negotiation with scientists, nowhere should their be a scientist who believes utterly in one particular theory about the creation of the universe, as the theories are changing and being transformed by new knowledge every day.
Likewise, Religion is not static. Though those of us who go to church hear the same old biblical recitals each week, the actual process of maintaining and deciphering the true biblical scriptures goes on and new parts or meanings to the Old and New Testament are being recovered or deciphered all the time. Of course, it's up to organised religions to maintain this new knowledge and I think the Catholic church as a whole will see a major change towards this when there is a new pope, which doesn't seem to be long, looking at the health of Pope John Paul II. Other religions, including other Christian religions, are open to change. The Mormons belive that they have not yet found the complete bible and are waiting for more messages from God and eastern religions always apply their texts to the modern world in ways that changes the meaning but keep the inherent truths.
Finally, religion does not set out to prove the beginning of life so much as it pre-empts this and tries to go for what happened prior to this. It is possible for religion and science to go hand in hand, if only Religion is flexible enough and science open minded enough for this to happen. Wars and death have been caused just as much by an established science refusing to believe new evidence as by religious argument and creating new and more devestating weopons to use in war is as bad as starting a war, after all, wouldn't it be better if two countries went to battle with sticks rather than H-bombs?
Of course, war is not caused by any one thing and those who cite religion as the cause of such an event are nieve. The truth is that people cause wars and will always use some excuse to start one. In fact, Geography is the biggest cause of war and it often takes religion along for the ride as different countries or continents often support different religions. The cause of war is partly down to humanity's lack of communication and understanding between each other. The way to stop wars from happening should be to communicate and agree to disagree, unfortunately it's not that simple. There are people who would like to see certain groups wiped off the planet and others who have just as strange ideas which are at odds with the rest of the world. If given enough power and influence, these people will be challenged as a threat. Now it comes down to ethics, politics, belief and science; what do we really know and is this group of people really right to challenge our assumptions?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Debates between the points offered by religion and science are
> pointless. Science seeks discovery, and hence someday will either
> prove religion to be correct, or incorrect. Only when that day comes
> can the debate have meaning.
Science doesn't discover, the discovery is done by white haired men on a coffee fuel genius trip. Science only proves what one person knows to be true.
Further more, science and religion both have the same aim - to prove (or explain) the currently inexplicable. The difference is, religion makes no progress. It takes explanations written thousands of years ago and interperates them vaguely. This is why science appeals to me - to offers finality and undeniability. Religion is a fast-track to explanation, yet in my opinion it is vague and unfulfilling.
Either way, you put your faith in something. I put my faith in science like Christians put their faith in Jesus.
> Debates between the points offered by religion and science are
> pointless. Science seeks discovery, and hence someday will either
> prove religion to be correct, or incorrect. Only when that day comes
> can the debate have meaning.
Science doesn't discover, the discovery is done by white haired men on a coffee fuel genius trip. Science only proves what one person knows to be true.
Further more, science and religion both have the same aim - to prove (or explain) the currently inexplicable. The difference is, religion makes no progress. It takes explanations written thousands of years ago and interperates them vaguely. This is why science appeals to me - to offers finality and undeniability. Religion is a fast-track to explanation, yet in my opinion it is vague and unfulfilling.
Either way, you put your faith in something. I put my faith in science like Christians put their faith in Jesus.
Religion will always be 'correct' in the eyes of those who believe in it.
Even if scientists proved the Big Bang occured, the religions would call it an act of God, or whatever.
Even if scientists proved the Big Bang occured, the religions would call it an act of God, or whatever.
Debates between the points offered by religion and science are pointless. Science seeks discovery, and hence someday will either prove religion to be correct, or incorrect. Only when that day comes can the debate have meaning.
Heh, thanks.
Note to people - this has been on my website for about a week. It also made an appearance 5 months ago when the Life forum was populated by football-driven loggerheaded blokey-blokes.
Note to people - this has been on my website for about a week. It also made an appearance 5 months ago when the Life forum was populated by football-driven loggerheaded blokey-blokes.
I read this, but when it comes to beliefs, I just don't really care. :0) We spend far too much time of our life worrying about stuff we can't solve, instead of worrying about the stuff we can.
I read that a few days ago. It was the first thing in a while that actually made me think -- it pretty much mirrors what I was thinking half a year ago when I decided that my parents' religion was not what I wanted to live in for the rest of my life.
Reading it also made me respect you more. Well written too. :)
Reading it also made me respect you more. Well written too. :)
Science is great. Religion causes wars. Science makes weapons to fight the wars.
Religion is something that offers answers, and you either accept them or you don't. Science tries to offer concrete answers to mysteries, but it can never explain the human soul, emotion, and feeling. And personaly, I feel that Religion can't either. Its just too powerful.
Page: