Draw Roulette Calculator What do you know? - Science and Religion: The Great Divorce

I have no

all clear that one can speak of "divorce" between science and religion because it would mean that once walked hand in hand and that has not happened ever.

There was a time when knowledge, all knowledge was in the same boat. No matter how you got dealt, or what it was all science, scientia, knowledge. For example: on wheat one could ask why increased, reaching the concept of a force makes him grow, call Ceres, anthropomorphized maso less and then think that if the wheat growing ma , s better si plant them on certain dates or at a particular site or if cared for so and so because these activities was liked Ceres. From this point of view, any unexplained cause was supernatural, and all technical innovation was really a search for methods and rituals that were pleasing to the top supernatural turn that had the power to cause desired effect. Art and religion went hand in hand, the world was not conceived as dualistic, with differentiation between natural and supernatural, everything was in the same package. There were two sides of the same coin, were the same concept.

The & ldquo; problem "comes when we get we do not need supernatural explanations for many phenomena. See a man named William of Ockham armed with a knife and told us that if there is a simple explanation for an event should not be complicated by introducing unnecessary elements. Thus, unlike the system "if payment pleased to welcome Ceres Ceres and if the wheat grows best" turn to "if the wheat grows best fertilizer." God is no longer the small Ceres dealing on a small patch of the universe and becomes the cause causae, Legislator Universal. God is not on top of each plant to & amp; eacute; foward to grow miraculously invented photosynthesis and that's it. So much of human activity stops please include supernatural entities will now be dedicated to trying to find out the laws that God wrote the universe, and that specialization that studies the laws of God and not God born science over time.

is important to see that while the first scientists (as whole persons, not only in his role of scientists) believed they could learn things from God through His creation, ie, its rules, not using science to regulate their relationswith God. There were two distinct areas: acquisition of information (science) and analysis of information (mysticism). Science attempts to create to analyze and understand and propose models for how reality works, the natural world and God is not part of the field of study of science but, if any, may be able to learn something of their own through Science.

The problem of course arises when these proto, these natural philosophers, say something like natural laws (whether or not of divine origin, that the Science not care ) that regulate growth Wheat stipulate that the wheat is growingbetter if they paid, but those in authority ⁽¹⁾ claiming a supernatural origin of the same reply that the fertilizer odor is not pleasing to Ceres. Not that the scientists have maníaa the reli want to kill her or anything like that, is simply that if you have to choose between pleasing Ceres or pay, you end up paying. Or, to be exact, what happens is that evolution by natural selection rewards those who put their trust in science and pay, and penalizes those who put it into priests of Ceres and do not pay . In the end, people believe what they tell scientists because its predictions work, and it is not crea in what they say priests of Ceres, is comparatively less rely on them for as what.

was but a short mental step from "the scientists say" a "science" and "what they say priests" to and "religion" and you is mounted. But in reality, not science and religion, is just what they say each other . Science is a method of knowledge, nothing else, we should not be confused with the whole of scientific knowledge, which is another thing. And religion is the relationship & oacutee; No personal directly with divinity, in the moment when someone gets in the middle and claimed to have exclusive hotline to the deity and not religion, is an institution . There is no war between science and religion, there is dissension between what scientists say and what the mystics say .

science, understood as the scientific method, and religion, have never gone hand in hand. Try different fields of science and is more specific, smaller than religion. The scientific method is wonderful,It does not work if you try to apply to God. As I explained long ago, any explanation that requires God is excluded from any other that requires no God, no matter how difficult that is.

Do you think not?

Suppose we find the following phenomenon: the heavens open and the gap arises vegadora intense light, and angels blowing their trumpets, and hear the heavenly choirs, and suddenly a deep voice powerful and says "I am the Lord your God, the God of your fathers who died on the cross for you." Are we really in God's presence? Muchpeople would consider this event more than enough proof of the existence of God. I, no. ⁽²⁾

first thing I think is that I've gone crazy. Why? Because it is a much more simple and reasonable, because if we have to choose an explanation that only requires a brain that does not work very well and one that requires the existence of a supernatural God, infinite, creative, planner and organizer of the universe and the rules that govern it, and actually knows maintainer posicióny the time of each quantum ⁽³⁾ in each moment ... it is easy to see which is the machines simple and which requires fewer assumptions (entia non sunt multiplicands praeter necessitatem . At the end of the day, if another were telling me, do not think that is much more likely that neurons slip God has it appeared? is even more likely to be the victim of a cruel joke incredibly advanced alien race with technology capable of creating all these effects (whether real or are just in my mind) of what it is that God really exists and really is speaking to me. While I was talking about truth, Because this is thelimitation of science. Some people are so dumb that can not be the ass or using both hands, well, the science is wrong something like this would not be able to recognize God even if he had before injecting mass ; in neutrinos.

Science has its field of knowledge, which is this thing we call "reality." Religion has its own, which is everything else ⁽⁴⁾ , is unreal, imaginary. This may seem insulting to religion, but it takes me to another ⁽⁵⁾ my similes mathematical pun: just as there are real numbersnumbers are imaginary or unreal, where i (√ -1) the most famous of them. Like God, may I be unrealistic ... but nobody can argue is that it is useful filthy. In fact, quantum physics is unthinkable without i. Perhaps mathematics is, once again, an allegory of life. Maybe God is unreal in itself, but when applied to something real, make possible to explain things to another level, as do i create complex numbers. Mathematics is the language with which God has written

universe ... In any case, science and religion & Overhaulyou n never been married and never divorced. They work in completely different fields and when trying to get into the other, fail miserably. Any phenomenon is likely to be measured can be analyzed by science and step into the natural world and the rest, as they do not. The frustration of the authors of the "obsession" of scientists not to engage in scientific study which can not be measured incomprehensible to me. Which brings me to the famous Institute of Noetic Sciences, a Dean Radin , Edgar Mitchell and other mob ... Say ...

For those who have not been read the latest book by Dan Brown , the Institute of Noetic Sciences is an institution created to study the relationship between mind and matter ⁽⁶⁾ , specifically on issues as ESP, remote healing through the mind or psychokinesis. In itself there is nothing wrong with using the scientific method to explore all these possibilities, but interestingly there is in interpreting the results of the experiments. I'll give you an example: if an experiment ⁽⁷⁾ is tossing a coin ten thousand times while the subject focuses on getting heads for measuring andr psychokinetic ability of the human mind, and gives results that have come 4,996 5,004 faces and crosses the conclusion may be:

1. or that this ability does not exist and that the deviation is within statistically acceptable margins (or, if we damn, that money is imperfect and has its center of gravity shifted to the side face a 0,025% of its thickness), or
2. it is demonstrated that the ability exists and that the subject has an inverse psychokinetic ability (because I wanted them expensive, but left crosses) of zero point Nosecuantos femtonewtons (a phenomenonrmonewton is the amount of force needed to accelerate one microgram a thousandth of a millimeter per second).

need not tell you which is the conclusion of the Institute of Noetic Sciences ...

If you have a question that I urge you to dis a good ride for your website and you bring forth your conclusions. Or even wikipedia, which refers to the "noetic science" saying "is Noetics Often viewed as a Completely unscientific field, based on nothing more Than misguided spirituality and Philosophical hand-waving." , & nbsp; Mal carry the theme of science in this book if they are to be based on something as biased as that institution. The Templeton Foundation , which is hardly in doubt, was light years more serious with his study the therapeutic properties of intercessory prayer on heart patients in 2006.

As I read I think What do you know? suffers from begging the : part of the basis of what you want to show. Phrases like " watch the outside world as lifeless matter and nothing else (& Illip;) separates us from living nature that sustains us "or" the physical universe is not physical in nature and may arise from a field that is still more subtle energy ; to it, a field that, more than matter, appears to information, intelligence or consciousness "are so biased, so little neutral and so jump to conclusions ... I squeak, is preaching to converts. I'll give a vote of confidence with the "information field" because they have not yet gotten involved with quantum physics, but to me is that the pangeísmo, for example ...

Furthermore, the chapter ends with paragraph And YOU, what questions you want answered? , which reads:

Well? Does it promote the creation of prayer? Can you influence physical reality with their minds? Is it possible to perceive things outside of space and time? Can a man walk on water? Is there a Higgs particle?

What?

theoretical particle physics predicts the existence of the Higgs particle (the particlewhich gives mass to other particles). They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build ever more powerful accelerators to find it. We believe, however, that most citizens of planet Earth would prefer to know the answer to the first four questions.

undoubtedly answer these questions first four have a massive impact on how we see the world and we see ourselves. A far greater impact than it would find a particle. But the mainstream scientific community does not want to contemplate what you have said is "out of her campo. " It's funny, because great progress from there.

So now who takes over the search for truth?

are two sides of the same coin.

First Church and now the new priesthood of scientists.

are eager to close their eyes, putting your hands in your ears, and repeat litanies. The search for truth can be undertaken from many perspectives and many procedures and science is just one of them. Is a specialized method that studies only reality or, if one is determined to expand the boundariesthe fact that part of reality and perception can be measured or whose effects can be measured and perceived. That is because science as a method, including experimental verification of their hypothesis, and if you can not measure the results of an experiment can not prove anything. The method is extremely good and has earned the respect and confidence of most of humanity because it gives results , but has its limitations. I have shown that science can not prove that God exists even if you have the front and is subject to all conceivable evidence. Is it possible that God exists? Sure! But is impossible is to have scientific evidence that God exists ⁽⁸⁾ . Neither God nor the rhino ^{fluorescent (9)} . And in any case, science does not deny the existence of God, not actually deny the existence of anything. Science does not dedicated to finding the truth, for that is the philosophy, the science is devoted to propose models as simple as possible to explain the reality best. And the mountains as mountains, a model that requires the existence of God is less simple than one who does not.

is not that "the mainstream scientific community" say that God is not part of the study of science, is that not is , as neither are, for example, the Good and Justice. Science could be studied (and does) the effects on the reality that is the belief in God, but as a fact, which occurs in the natural world, the very structure of science determines that this fact has natural causes, known, unknown or, ultimately, "because the universe is." Sometimes the science says that, the fact that all the electrons in the universe are exactly the same electric charge is a great example of natural event that occurs "because the universe is." And on this category, as Ceres and wheat, can contestar "because the universe is so" or "because God made the universe was like that," I just do not need God in model. How can there be people who do not understand you can not have scientific evidence of the existence of God? If, moreover, God, if any, not need science to claim it !

And about the alternative research lines that the book's authors suggest as a better target our efforts and taxes that the LHC ...

1. The experiments have serious realraised in regard to prayer, like the quote from the Templeton Foundation, suggest that it has no effect. Moreover, to pray for your health and you know it seems to have a detrimental effect .

2. The mind emerges from brain and therefore is part of physical reality and influences and is influenced by all matter and energy that surrounds it. Descartes is extremely exceeded. The influence of mind over physical reality can be seen every time I decide to move a finger, and the limitations of the influence of mind over physical reality can be seen every time I try to use the Force.

3. For dEFINITION things that are outside of space and time does not affect the spacetime, and as not affecting them can not be perceived. It drawer. This hypothesis does not need scientific research needs a dictionary and a kind of logic. It's like asking can the whole be less than the part? or how much is infinity plus one? Well, it's like wanting to ask and up to pour money into research.

4. Of course a man can walk on water. You can even skate and play hockey and curling. It's all about seeing how far you're willing toforce the definition of "waters" or "walk" (or "man", as we are).

Anyway, I'm sorry, is that such people unnerves me. In fact, answering these four questions would not have a great impact on humanity, what would that impact the answer is yes . Because scientific defense of those serious "do not say that this is absolutely true, but it has all the earmarks of being" already have: no, no ⁽¹⁰⁾ , no and no.

The problem is that scientists do not take ownership of the search for truth,is to appropriate the scientific method and do well. If you want to seek scientific truth does not do it, but do not try to dress with the mantle of science, or blame it on the pavement because the experiments do not have the results you want with or because the scientific community does not According to your findings, peer review is also part of the scientific method. The human species, fortunately has become much more picky about what they consider truth and, above all, on what premises will be considered safe to base their decisions . The scientific label opensthe door to that trust as Rioja label opens the wine market, but as much as you complain that the regulatory council of the denomination of origin Rioja does not consider your plonk is a Rioja, and tell are short-sighted and have a very narrow idea of what a Rioja and should expand their horizons ... will not be a Rioja.

And is that God does not need to be a Rioja!

Greetings all,

Arthegarn____________
(1) The authority of any kind: religious, scientific or pol & iacuyou; policy.
(2) And I have reason to think that my parents either.
(3) This includes Arthegarn brain and all its thoughts, emotions and memories, good or bad work
(4) And this is not me, is the application of NOMA.
(5) several years I've been wanting to write an article in the "mental straws" with a parallel between the isomorphism in fractals and perception of reality by the human mind but I have never
time ... (6) The book is presented as if trying to destroy the Cartesian separation between mind and matter. They should know that half a century and the psychology & iacute; ay Neurology showed that this separation is nonexistent ...
(7) Based on a real case.
(8) Or at least that exists in its most common configuration in the collection meme that the entity is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent of the religions of the Book.
(9) Well, yes fluorescent rhino because they know where he lives, but the invisible pink unicorn not.
(10) And I'm smelling where this goes, the Emperor model of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.