I struggled a lot with Catholicism as a teenager because I viewed a lot of what we responded to in church as being cult-like. So I stopped considering myself Catholic and considered myself Agnostic for several years, instead. While I've pretty much gone back to thinking of myself as Catholic, I don't believe that humans have enough brain power to fully comprehend the idea of a Creator and everything it entails. And whilst it would be great if science and religion could meet each other halfway, I don't know that we, as humans, could come up with experiments that can prove or disprove the existence of a Creator. I just don't think the amount of brain power we use is enough to find definitive proof. EDIT: I don't think we have the brain capacity to fully explain and understand God and His existence. As an aside, I could never be an Atheist, because I've experienced things in my life that are so unexplainable that I can't definitively think that there isn't a Higher Power somewhere.
Well, in some areas where you see religion and science clash, I am saying that the truth is somewhere in between... To the second part of your reply, not all things that exist can be confirmed by science, and yet they undeniably exist... and... not all things that are unprovable now are unprovable forever... such is the nature of science... to advance... to places believed to be unbelieveable just a few moments ago...
Religion brings us closer to the truth like a boat brings us closer to the shore in stormy weather, but even the set of ships, I believe I'd rather drown than be on board with the other lunatics. This is exactly what I believe.
Lol maybe it's an Aussie term. if someone is spiro, they are super spiritual, they spiritualise and interpret things spiritually more than most, and they can get carried away with the charismatic antics.
Faith in science is faith that answers answers can and eventually will be found, but science does seek answers. What religions do not require faith?
Absolutely agreed, and maybe one day science will validate religion. If / when that does happen, 'religion' as we know it would have an entirely new meaning. Consider two of the words that are commonly used to describe religion being 'belief' and 'faith'. It's hard not to have faith that something which is proven to exist exists.
Faith ? science. Faith = belief in things (supernatural or not) that are not readily evident. I have faith that my package from Amazon will arrive by Saturday. I have faith that I'll see all my lost love ones again one day. Science = a method of inquiry that tests theories and hypotheses about the natural world. Read your history.
And those are the FACTS of the day, folks! Thank you, jaisee and satyr. Learn it. Read it. Cherish it. And on another note: Don't alter words to fit your worldview. That's just disingenuous.
Buddhism, Taoism, a lot of the Eastern philosophies, a lot of South American philosophies that rely on psychadelics like ayahuaska to help one commune with nature and develop understanding. We really need to get away from the Abrahamic religions as the only source of religion mindset. Other cultures developed their own dogmas.
So you're saying that no religion does? And how long have you been studying theology or is this all based on your bias against the Abrahamic religions?
There are no scientific methods being applied in religion. And you don't need to be a theological scholar when many adherents to their beliefs tend to rely on observation and nothing more.
Yes, it's all religions. There are no biases here. Just plain facts, otherwise, there would be mentions of some scientific progress under the auspices of many of religions. But no, many of these beliefs are heavily reliant on philosophical teachings, but none contributed to anything level of scientific advancement. However, there is such a thing as secularism, in which people, regardless of religious background, separate their beliefs and worked on a method of inquiry that tests theories and hypotheses about the natural world. And no, there were not religious connections to it at all. If you call it bias, then it's safe to say you're in denial.
http://www.ayahuasca.com/spirit/pri...ndigenous-groups-traditionally-use-ayahuasca/ https://www.dmt-nexus.me/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=53103 I know you're going to dismiss this because it doesn't easily align with your thinking but I'm hoping others will get something out of this
Ayahausca is just a psychedelic brewing. A lot of tribes practiced something like that. Useful information, but it's really nothing new and doesn't provide any real contributions. This is an irrelevant post since I'm speaking on the nature as to what contributions has religion played in the field of science, not as something within a tribe for its own personal gain, but rather a major contribution that is widely continued?
