Science and Religion:
There are many types of narratives and editing principles. Science is driven by evidence gathered from experiments, as well as by deceptions of existing ideas and their subsequent changes, which are incorrectly true. Other systems - religion, nationality, paranoid ideology, or art - are based on personal experience (faith, inspiration, paranoia, etc.).
The narrative of the experience can also be combined with the narrative evidence and vice versa.
To illustrate: Belief in God encourages some scientists who look at science as a way to “peer into God's card” and to draw close to him. Another example: the pursuit of scientific endeavors fosters a sense of national identity and motivation. Science tends to erode in order to support claims of nationalism and racism.
The basic units of all narratives are known for their effects on the environment. God, in this sense, is no different from electrons, quarks, and black holes. All four buildings cannot be seen directly, but the fact of their existence is found in their results.
Admittedly, God's effects are manifest only in the social and mental (or mental) realm. But this ban does not make him a little “real”. The imaginary existence of God unequivocally describes a multitude of unrelated events and, therefore, complies with the laws governing the development of scientific theories.
The place of the supposed existence of God, obviously and only, is in the minds of believers. But this also does not make him a little more real. The content of our minds is as real as anything “outside”. In fact, the exact difference between epistemology and ontology is unclear.
But is the existence of God "true" - or is it just a metaphor for our needs and thoughts?
True is the measure of our models' ability to predict events and predict. The existence of God (in the minds of men) succeeds in doing both. For example, the concept of God's existence allows us to predict the many behaviors of those who claim to believe in him. Therefore, the existence of God is unquestionably true (in this legal sense).
But does God exist without human ideas? Are you a purposeful organization, not dependent on what people may think or think about Him? After all, if all emotional creatures were to perish in a catastrophic catastrophe, the Sun would still be alive, moving around as it did in the past.
If all spirit creatures perish in a catastrophe, will God still exist? If all emotional beings, including all humans, stop believing in God - would he survive this condemnation? Does God “on the outside” put faith in God in the minds of religious people?
Known objects are independent of the presence of viewers (although Copenhagen's definition of Quantum Mechanics contradicts this). Beliefs depend on the presence of believers.
We know that the Sun is there. We do not know that God exists. We believe that God exists - but we do not and cannot, in the scientific sense of the word.
We can design experiments to fake (prove false) the existence of electrons, quarks, and black holes (and, thus, if all these tests fail, it proves that electrons, quarks, and black holes exist). We can also design tests to prove that electrons, quarks, and black holes exist.
But we cannot design even a single test to prove the existence of a God who is beyond the reach of believers (and, therefore, if the test fails, prove that God exists "outside"). Additionally, we cannot design even a single experiment to prove the existence of God without the ideas of believers.
What about “the controversy over design”? The universe is so complex and diverse that it certainly encompasses the existence of a very intelligent being, a designer and creator of the earth, known to some as “God”. On the other hand, world wealth and diversity can be fully calculated by using modern scientific ideas such as evolution and the big bang. There is no need to present God in the scales.
Still, it is possible that God was to blame for everything. The problem is that we cannot design even a single experiment to disprove this false theory, that God created the Universe (and, thus, if experiments fail, prove that God, indeed, is the originator of the universe). Furthermore, we can never design a single experiment to prove that God created the world.
However, we can design more experiments to disprove the scientific theories that explain the creation of the Universe (and, thus, if these experiments fail, provide these theories with greater support). And we can design experiments to prove scientific theories that explain the creation of the universe.
It does not mean that these ideas are completely true and cannot be changed. They are not. Our current scientific ideas are partially true and should change with new information obtained through experimentation. Our current scientific ideas will be replaced by new, authentic theories. But any future scientific ideas will be false and misleading.
Knowledge and belief are like oil and water. They do not meet. Knowledge does not lead to belief, and belief does not produce knowledge. Belief, can express convictions or ideas that are very clear. But belief cannot lead to knowledge.
However, there are both known things and what they believe. The former is “out there” and the latter is “in our minds” and only then. But they are not really in that.
You must be logged in to post a comment.