Fredrick, there is no scientific approach towards the idea of god___any such approach is illusory. The human mind is the least important aspect of reality, as it only operates on ego___sometimes accurately, and sometimes not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick  Actually, I like the scientific approach towards the idea of god, since it shows that the most important aspect in this regard is the human mind itself. Nothing in the outside world will get changed, except for our own human behavior, whether there is a god or not a god (or no gods at all). Human thinking about god changes our behavior, not the reality of god(s) or no god(s). Our own particular vision creates the dictates for the way we view our universe, and subsequently we alter our environment to fit our ideas. Waking up from the particular view(s), we may start to improve the world in a real way.[I'm not saying god believers can not change the world for the better, but to do so, they must keep their immature metaphysical god views, separate from their science views, maths and logics.]
The same goes for science. Science influences our vision. Science creates ways for us to view our universe, even beyond the point of us not understanding the essence anymore, and only following the paths dictated by scientific information. Waking up from the views science brings us, we may start to comprehend better how the universe is really put together.[In your dreams, Fredrick...]
The religious analogy is actually a good way to circumvent the way we are trapped by our scientific thinking.[Nobody is trapped by scientific thinking. Such thinking frees the mind of the chains of false egoistic-metaphysics...] What is needed to overcome the many different religious restrictions is viewing all religions for what they are, and seeing how they are merely approaches towards the essence; the ideologies are not the essence itself.[Try perceptronic logic, and you'll get further...] Same goes for science; it tells us a lot, and explains a lot, but it cannot capture the essence.[It already has. Please study the cognitive sciences of molecular biology, evolution, and its related bio-chemical physics...] Still, we can capture the essence, but we must understood it on its own merits. By letting go of the specific truths as the one and only truths, we can see the overall truth (that then still contains all specific truths but they do not need to be in concordance with each other anymore).[When you can see the scientific truth, holding the metaphysical non-sense, then you will know, and not until...] And once you've seen it, no specific truths should be able to fully capture you ever again. |
You are just too, far too religious, Fredrick. I know science seems to be less to you than it is, but that's because you can't capture its counter-intuitive truths. Feynman was the best at explaining science to the layman___check out his newest old book of QED, "The Strangeness of Light and Matter...? It easily explains counter-intuitive thought to the layman...
Regards,
Lloyd
p.s.
Sometime I'll do a thread on the fallacies of the metaphysical, to deeply explain my science to everyone...