Science v. God

[mnaz]

Several ways to approach it,
some anatomical, some analytical.
Lay hands on a firm galaxy.
In space, bounce off space.
A reasonable approach.

The case for God: origin solved.
Seedy mustard filth of constellation,
solved, done, onto the next matter.
Mere matter of communication.
A reasonable approach.

The case for Science: origin probe.
Test and retest, de-test conclusion.
Particles scream laps around space.
What are particles and what is space?
A reasonable approach.

Science probes and God solves,
fitfully, fit together like a glove.
Science peeks at corners of God,
splits particles smaller 'n smaller,
eventually splits itself in two.

A reasonable approach.

[hester_prynne]

A reasonable approach yes.
But really, science is the voice of truth lurking in the denial of which, religion is.
right?

enjoyed the read Mnaz,
provokes thought.
H

[mnaz]

What's the main argument one typically hears put forth for existence of God? Something along the line of: The world is so incredible that it couldn't be mere coincidence or random chance, so some entity must have created everything to be just so. This is where the atheists and theists get into their various pissing matches. I tend to leave it at... OK, so "God" exists, and science will keep digging, getting closer and closer to "God" (independent of religious dogma, as you correctly note). Does God exist? Yes. No. Maybe. Who cares, really? God-in-a-religious-box is the problem, no?

[stilltrucking]

Sure it sounds reasonable
That is all that matters

Man in a science box
Just singing the post modern blues

The problem is the problem


Nice pome
pardon ramble

[mnaz]

That's the great thing about science: it resists the box. It continually challenges its own doctrines, morphs, adjusts... which is why in some ways it seems a more suitable medium for "God" than fixed religious doctrine... As soon as science begins to worship its own established knowledge and theory, then it tends toward just another religion...

And despite my aversion to religion, it may be a fine path for many, as long as it is about maintaining contact in some way with "God", or "worshiping God" and not about worshiping top-heavy dogmatic religiosity itself. Or something like that...

[stilltrucking]

I got to check some notes
I mean I got make some notes
Zen and the art of Motor cycle maint.
The bit about the motor cycle shop that broke the manifold bolt on his motor cycle.

Scientists are all too human
they are not all Einsteins
The scientific method gets corrupted
sorry for the ramble
obviously I have not thought this thru well enough.

That attitude of those motor cycle mechanics, that mind set is going to do us in.

Thinking about things like the human genome project
We going to make better human beings
tinker with our souls
the improvers of mankind

I am lost somewehere between brave new world and 1984

I give you my word mark
I will try to make this into something that resembles decent english

just a go for now

What science should be, the scientific method, not what we have on the ground.

Hell you got priests in white lab coats showing up on Pat Robertson's tv show.

done ranting.
sorry

maybe it is a good idea to tinker with our souls
cure this disease called man

we going to eat from all the trees in the garden
we are going to be gods of science
recreate ourselves\
in our own image

Have you ever read Cat's Craddle
nothing to do with all this
isn't science wonderful
we need more lab work in political science

[stilltrucking]

sorry about that blurt

I pretty much agree with what you are saying

[mnaz]

Not so much applied science, but exploratory science-- the scientific method-- I was thinking about. True-- science, like religion, may be "hijacked" or exploited for negative purposes and agendas, I suppose. I'm familiar with the concept of well-paid government scientists.

[stilltrucking]

yes
sky blue research
I think that is what it used to be called
I don't think anybody caputured the absurdity better than vonnegut
Player Piano
what we going to do with all these people
they all going to need a purpose in life
except for us fortunate few
out on the lonely tail end of the bell curve.

"man would sooner have the void for a purpose, then be void of purpose"
FN
Welcome to the Monkey House

What ever the danger
we must see the monster
we have met the enemy and he are us

hope you don't mind the ramble

[stilltrucking]

correction blue sky research, vs applied.

sorry I keep saying I am sorry mnaz

mousey1 had a nice pome about folks like me

blue sky research

blue-sky (blsk)
adj.
1. Unrealistic and impractical: "[The author] shows what is testable physics, what is philosphy's domain, and what is blue-sky nonsense" Ann Finkbeiner.
2. Having a cloudless sky; clear: a blue-sky day.
intr.v. blue-skied, blue-sky·ing, blue-skies
To hold or express unrealistic or impractical views, especially in estimating something. Often used with it.

Just because something could be done
should it be done
lots of debate among scientists about that.

I am in my quantum hippy phase.
Like the mystics say
everthing on time on schedule
as it should be

I am not sure if I am understanding him correctly
Betrand Russell, What I Believe. I think was written about 1927, no doubt he could do the math but even so I wonder. Sounds like he is saying the physical sciences are complete, everything reduced to a few formula, not very exciting anymore. Bertie had no use for quantum theory.

He could not get his mind around the creator as a crap shooter

bifurcation
I see it in your writting
it is a mind fuck for me
thanks for writting.

[mnaz]

Did I say, "medium for 'God'"?? Oh my.
My theories need more work. Back to the lab with me!

Science must have its limits too (don't let science claim otherwise!).
There is a mystical dimension to space as well, visible to naked eyes.
The soundless immensity of empty space, science would try to fence,
sort, divide, probe and measure. True science has no limits,
as it searches for them...

[e_dog]

No. not reasonable. both are wrong.

Science is religion by other means.

science is golden calf.

God explains nothing. god create universe? what creates GOD?


NOT AN ANSWER REASONABLE OR OTHERWISE.

Reject Science. Reject religion.

Join Scientology.

[mnaz]

Interestin' how the Bible kinda dodges the question of God's origin.
Y'see, that's the beauty of omnipotent all-powerful-ness. No need to explain origin. It just is and always was. Hence, "God" neatly ties up all the loose ends of origin, whereas that science thing just keeps on a-diggin'...

"No. not reasonable. both are wrong.
Science is religion by other means."

I think your answer is scientific.

[hester_prynne]

Now mystery, I can dig.
There are many unexplainable things to me that I catagorize as mystery and i'm fine with it, I even dig it, but to say it's "God" or some other kind of thing, with certainty so heavy that all must believe it or be punished as bad, is kinda stupid and it works with kids maybe, but we all understand as we get a little older that Santa Claus is an idea right?
I think "God" is an idea too, a really old one that gets used as a weapon even and this is sheer folly and beneath my common sense.
Hopefully against most people's common sense, if they'd just give it a thought or two of their own.....instead of taking the barnum and bailey plunge and being a sucker!

H

[creativesoul]

i think God has been made into a symbiotic false imagined parent
i am sure that being called by any other name, there would still be Buddah, Creator, allah, hindu belief systems, Not quite sure what a tibetian monk believes but I sure would like to go there and find out. Great spirit, oh great mysstery- bahai, then there is the piece that mysteriously find answers that seem to alter our previous ways of thinking.
Our thinking needs to be altered. it would be best , in my opinion to just all of us, pray together for peace.Conflict is the great destroyer.The al mighty goodness is available for posative biological thinking.