Lop-Sided Philosophy: Science Versus ReligionPositronWildhawk It is part of mankind’s curiosity and thirst for knowledge that makes us ponder about the origins and functions of our world, and to theorise, experiment and peer review our arguments to provide a cognitive and academically refined, but sometimes dumbfounded and ignorant model of our universe. The fire is constantly fuelled, since there isn’t any way to prove what we are an insignificant but curious part of, and the extent to which we are insignificant; and this model transmutes dramatically when spanning across history, culture and subject background. That last part is dwelled on here,because of two backgrounds which have been segregated into two camps on dispute over this age-old question.
We look over the conflict between these camps by considering what each is defined by. Science, a mathematical study of physical nature and its origins and evolution through experimental and theoretical analysis; and Religion, the worship of a superhuman deity which has created our world as that being saw fit. It would take a true philosopher to state the obvious that these two cannot be integrated into one stance, as they are built on the foundations which would contradict their implications, and the method of explaining one is undemocratic on the mechanism of the other. The question is, is one right and one wrong?
Let us consider the empirical feats which each thesis is based upon. Science is a practice which is constructed on evidence, and it explains from the perspective that we live every day, as well as imagining in higher dimensions and on complex mathematical frameworks, not only what makes us alive and what makes us fall to the ground, it questions the notion of time being finite and the universe obeying the same thermodynamic laws which support life on a much smaller but macroscopic scale. Through millennia of research, we have unified all of our mechanical and systematic data to comprise a “theory of everything”, however incomplete, stretches as far as our knowledge permits. As we expand our knowledge through observation and experiments, we refine our peer-reviewed vision of the universe ourselves, and knowing of time as a co-ordinate, we can extend our scientific thinking into a bigger picture. If we could look at our universe from outside, we would in fact see all points along the arrow of time along a temporal dimension aligned with space; “the view from nowhen.” Hence, by analysing the world from inside an infinite framework, we build a hypothetical picture of everything, everywhere, at every time, but it is based on the assumption that the universe as we know it is all there is. We cannot determine whether this is all encased in an eternal shell to allow the cyclic universe to be dynamically viable, all because of the instinctive perceptions which limit our understanding.
Religion is an equally long-serving belief that our universe was not born, it was built. The details of this may vary from belief to belief, but the core point is that there is a conscious, ageless force, a God, which is responsible for all that exists. Religion would say that we came into this world as we are, as an entity and civilisation which is manipulated by a higher power. And this is based purely on the faith that there is a God, without the flexibility of rewriting the model, or in this case, the books. To question this faith within the cult is blasphemous, and this highlights how the notion of religion confines its followers into its own ideology. But if there is an ultimate creator, it raises the question of what is powering said creator. The idea that it has the intelligence and power to fashion the Earth and the Universe is all fine n’ dandy, but who, or what, created the creator, or its creator before it? If there is a God, can it really be the largest aspect of all there is? Just like in science, where the fundamental building blocks of the universe are constantly being divided, so are the forces of belief. What differentiates them is that science intends this to make our ideas extend,whereas religion, assuming God is infinite, does not account for God arising from a finite dynasty: either us, whose faith is what makes a God, or God’s creator, which would be partly debated and not fully justified in the name of religion.
It would appear here that science, like religion, digs deep into their own separate theories about our origins and how to analyse them,from Laplace’s Demon to the book of Genesis, although only science is unlimited. Religion says that the answer is simple, but hides it from us; for God to maintain existence in the eyes of believers, the believers must be, in a sense, ironically unenlightened. With the complexity of science and the notion of studying it to find more, there is no limit to what it can accomplish. There is no limit to a scientist’s faith in discovery, something which is restrained in religion’s basis, which otherwise promises boundless faith. Therefore, a way around this limit to belief could be a proofread stance, faith that results can be confirmed. String theory is the only strings attached.
Religion further claims that it offers a way of living, by saying that there are rules which members of its cult follow in order to meet a fate decided by their actions. Life is a test to them, one in which followers are awarded with pleasure in a life yet to come if they pass, and punished if not. Whether this is by reincarnation or by taking them to heaven or hell, this is a test. However, it is made clear that they do this under the judgement of an all-knowing higher power, whose wisdom is enhanced by watching and assessing the actions of God’s own creation. Surely, if God is a being which can see the future of His creation, every event for every moment in absolute time, then God already knows what we are going to do, and has done since the beginning. No matter how free our will may be, it is bound to the cycle which has already been laid out. There is nothing we can do or are doing to challenge this, and nothing that will alter the fate of each living follower of the faith. Thus, is life really an experiment, given that whether we acknowledge the teachings or not, our past, present and future are unaffected? Do life and the universe really serve a purpose under this ideology, if its events are exactly how they were written, and entirely predictable given the wisdom of God?
Science has yet to formally define life, and how a being qualifies as conscious and knowing. Nevertheless, science has shown that organic life itself serves a purpose for the non-designed universe. Life is essentially a biochemical phenomenon, which manifests itself from electrical impulses and chemical reactions, but to maintain this in a living being’s life span requires a constant supply of free energy. Life on Earth is essentially solar powered; the Sun’s rays supply energy to plants for photosynthesis, which release the oxygen which aids respiration in plants and animals.
Thermodynamics states that this “free energy” of a physical system is the energy which can be used naturally to do work, and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, it is the total energy which can be expended with the consequence of maximising the entropy of the system. Life is thus dependent on the concept of Maxwell’s Demon; the energy required maintaining life is in constant supply from solar energy and biochemical fuels such as oxygen,but the entropy of the system that is an organism must be kept down, and information kept up, to support a free energy supply needed to keep it alive.Organisms die because they lose the ability to use this energy, or it is exhausted by an environmental factor.
In the bigger picture, this means that the various worlds which could potentially exist will impact the increase of the universe’s entropy, slowing down the predicted “heat death”, where no free energy is left. Our world on its own has a negligible effect, but with the ratio of entropy of all life in the universe to the total entropy being high enough, this is what slows the aging of the universe. Stellar matter has the same effect, as the evolution of stars consists of stages of instability which require a form of free energy, perhaps from asymmetrical patterns of fusion, or degenerate pressures. A star’s expansion is a battle against gravity, which requires low entropy to fight. Given that the number of stars is much greater than the amount of living matter in the universe, the universal effect is greater still. If our world was the centre of the universe as religion would have one believe, it wouldn’t be able to take this energy from the necessary sources like it does,and would suffocate and diminish its supplies in little to no time.
It is also worth noting that the natural world is unpredictable; a simple system will eventually respond to its physical influences chaotically, and this limits how predictable the nature of the universe is. Just as entropy is related to disorder, so is chaos. We cannot determine to full accuracy whether an arrow will hit the absolute centre of a target, as much as we cannot evaluate how the universe will end from the position and momentum of every object within it. If we were to calculate this at the universe’s current stage, it would not be long before the actual track of each object is vastly different and disordered from our predictions. When this applies to us, if we consider an underpinning dynamic system which causes the events in our lives to take place, it makes our fates vastly unpredictable. In religion, these fates, both of living and inanimate beings, are accurately predicted by the underlying system, and cannot be questioned, which detracts from observation altogether.
All in all, the scientific models we have made about life have shown more of an explanation of why we are here, why we cannot go on forever, and what awaits our world. Furthermore, it shows us that we do have an impact on our universe; a fate which is a result of thermodynamics and chaos theory. Science makes it definitive of life that life is controlled by the mechanism that makes it feasible, and not by the options that it takes. If you look it at from either perspective, however, choice is an illusion, but only religion makes manipulative teachings concerning the simple aspects of birth and death. As long as there is a system in place which links events with the arrow of time, we never make choices. But science, along with its implications, allows us to arrive at some concrete conclusions, tells us more of the truth about our world, and continues to open more questions about the world as we answer others. Science is an endless source of polymaths.
That is my lop-sided philosophy on this case, and as I move on to what awaits me in my future, I see myself being brought back to this page by nutjobs who side with one of these arguments and personally believe, with all due respect, that the other argument is a pile of bollocks. I only hope that they are mindful that this is a two-sided philosophical debate, if not lop-sided, or going to end with me burning at the stake and then in hell.
"But if there is an ultimate creator, it raises the question of what is powering said creator. The idea that it has the intelligence and power to fashion the Earth and the Universe is all fine n’ dandy, but who, or what, created the creator, or its creator before it? "
God cannot have a creator, because then he is not God. He is not the ruler. Duh. I still respect science and all the things it's done. - Puga
I agree with pugs. We honestly don't know if God exists, but we believe He does. Personally, there are some signs that I have received that He does - Therandom
Then how, Puga, can he have come into being, in a universe where God is meant to have created everything? - PositronWildhawk
I could argue, who or what created the big ball of gas that exploded to form everything we know? Concerning the beginning of everything and the creation of the universe, something had to be there. Just there. And to me, that was God. Can't go any simpler. - keycha1n
And I got quick question not to offend your belief why aren't there monkeys becoming humans and where did the the circle or whatever that made the big bang where did that come from and like Puga said God created everything including himself - 2storm
Why aren't there monkeys becoming humans? We have proof that both of us share a common ancestor: prehistoric apes.
As for the circle, I assume you mean the cyclic universe. It's a recent theory which states that the observable universe is a part of a structure which contains its entropy when the universe is at a low entropy state, its lowest being at the Big Bang. However, the natural logarithmic increase of entropy is a factor which does not depend on temporal parity; it increases either way through time. Time cannot reverse, but this is for analogy. So the Big Bang could simply be a point in a cycle of entropy, meaning that time is eternal, and not with a beginning or end. - PositronWildhawk
Why aren't there monkeys becoming humans. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. We don't believe that they are our direct ancestors, but we share a common ancestors. And anyway, we wouldn't be monkey one day and human txt, it is a gradual process. - gemcloben
As said before. God's existence is a feeling. I do rely on faith, but I also rely on the fact that I've felt His irrefutable presence. He's changed my life, my ways, my morals, my personality, and made me a better person when I was depressed and angry. I've felt nothing stronger than His love and mercy. Of course someone logical like you can't possibly grasp this, but it's not something anyone would grasp without having felt it. So when I start to doubt and when I start to fall away, I remember everything God has done and how very real His presence was, and I can't help but say He must exist. It's not feelings one can simply brush off, and a feeling you probably wont ever feel. So I don't blame you for questioning us, in fact, continue. Christians can't be wimpy, and I'm willing to defend my faith against anything. I'm not offended, simply here to share my thoughts on why I believe what I believe. - keycha1n
Wow I love that - 2storm
And I was asking a science person not a Christian because I am Christian - 2storm
Well spoken keycha1n. - Therandom
This sounds like something a mental patient would write. Don't take offense, I can explain. - gemcloben
Impressive - JaysTop10List
And why are you calling us "unenlightened"! - 2storm
Because, ironically, faith in religious origin is restricted, as debated above. Science achieves knowledge of the universal origin through investigation, with no underlying limit to what can be obtained. - PositronWildhawk
PW, as I said earlier, we have to believe in God with faith, I have no idea if He really exists, but I believe He does. - Therandom
My point. If we have no idea if he exits, do we believe in him instead of something strongly backed up by real evidence? Surely we know who wins... - gemcloben
Well, I believe in Big Loop (that Big Bang wasn't the beginning). Which means the universe was always there. Now if God does exist, it means he must have existed all the time.
Regardless, I don't like having a debate on religion vs science. Religion and science have their own seperate significance and that's it. - Kiteretsunu
By Big Loop I meant Big Bounce. - Kiteretsunu
And I also don't think they're necessary exclusive either. - keycha1n
The fact that we are still debating on evolution, which has already been proven by science, doesn't make me think so. - Kiteretsunu
I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, but I'm just giving you my opinion. Exactly how could the universe have never begun? How is it possible that it's always been present? It does not make any sense to me. Again, I'm not bashing your beliefs or anything, just putting my 2 cents in. - Alpha101
There are plenty of philosophical interpretations I can take on the coexistence of evolution and the story of Adam and Eve. This is not a black and white religion vs science debate. As with all debates, there's a solution that lies in the middle, we just gotta keep discussing until we find it. Especially since neither science or religion has ideas set in stone. For example, neither the Big Gang Theory or Big loop can be proved, and neither can the existence of God. There's not really room for debate here anyways. - keycha1n
Science DOES have ideas set in stone; it's what drives our debates about developing our knowledge. Although any postulate can be proven or disproven, from Newton's Law of Gravitation to String Theory, the fact is, we base them on things we know to be true from observations; the quantum probabilistic nature of electrons is the best way we can explain why electrons can tunnel across insulating gaps, as much as the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are the best ways we can explain how the universe came to be and how we originated from monocellular organisms. As far as we can investigate, we know these ideas to be true, and we can't disprove what we see. When we see an explosive chemical reaction, we can't use science to say the explosion never happened, but we do use science to explain, and potentially change our explanation for the explosion. - PositronWildhawk
Yeah Postrinwildhawk did you know Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and even Einstein themselves were Christians - 2storm
The only thing I can say is I believe in God but we don't actually know if he exists. And he created everything and no one actually created him just like Puga said. And I agree with Keycha1n. - cosmo
Well, Positron, did God really need to use different features on all creatures?
The universe had to be created somehow, and saying the universe was created by an explosion is no different than saying it was created by a deity - CityGuru
Actually, it is very different. - Alpha101
I don't believe in God so does Danteem! Anyway Heaven and Hell aren't real! I'm non-religious so is Danteem! The universe is form by the Big Bang theory. - visitor
You are Danteem, it's pretty obvious. - Puga
Actually, lots of people today agree that the theory of creation and the big bang theory can co-exist with each other. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything like that, I respect your opinion. Just wanted to provide you with that information. Also, where did you go to school? You're grammar is awful. - Alpha101
You are danteem. You always comment everything with exclamation marks. Wait a minute, did danteem type all the everyone sucks on rate game post. - Therandom
This comment just proved how immature Danteem is. - Therandom
Positron, regarding your comment asking how could God exist without someone else creating him, there is an answer. before I start, I'm no Jesus freak or anything. But, before God created everything, there was no time. In order for something to be born, or to come into existence, there has to be time. So, therefore, God can exist on his own. He could have always existed, because there was no time. But, this can also contradict itself, because then, again, without time, nothing can come into existence. It's a sort of paradox. A very frustrating one that can give me a headache every time that I think about it. Very interesting to think about, though. Nice post. - Alpha101
I respect that, but recent theories of science point to the hypothesis that time is eternal; it has no beginning, and the Big Bang, although being a significant stage in the universe's history, was not the moment that time began. If it was a boundary like so many non-experts assume, time would be an approximation which ceases to be valid near the Big Bang, and it fails to explain irreversible natural processes. For the universe to begin in a compressed state like so, there would need to be an underlying principle to explain why it would appear to violate dynamical laws. The universe has always been subject to time, and to leave it and observe from outside, you would see every co-ordinate in space for every point in time, as it is also a coordinate. This is explained in the post. Time is eternal, and all of the energy that was subject to time has always been here, only it naturally changes its form and its entropy by time. It isn't known where this energy comes from, but this is how the universe works. - PositronWildhawk
All that energy came from God ever thought of that Postrinwildhawk - 2storm
But it can't have been created. Energy simply isn't created or destroyed. Sure, energy is not conserved under the influence of the universal expansion, but there will be a theory which accounts for this. If energy was unlimited, what would stop it confining itself in finite space, causing the universe to spontaneously collapse? - PositronWildhawk
Ok 2storm my friend, I have to point this out, it's spelt positron not positrin. - Therandom
Yeah I spell it my own way - 2storm
I think it was a combination of both God and science. - Pony
I think so too. I mean, how was the universe by itself. Someone had to create it - Therandom
We have no evidence of god. Faith is a pathetic excuse for that.
Science however, we have lots of evidence.
If god exists, why did he make me an atheist? ~ricky gervais - gemcloben
Well, He didn't interns for you to be an atheist. He gave you free will. Still, how was the world created by itself, and how was it always by itself. The universe had to have had a God. - Therandom
Because after the big bang, elements exploded into the universe, and some of these merged together to make earth. That is perfectly logical, unlike a guy saying let there be light and suddenly everything was. - gemcloben
Interns should intend - Therandom
God's powers defy logic... - Therandom
Point proven. There is no logic behind it, so the excuse "god can defy logic" is created to cover up. - gemcloben
Not everything must have logic. - Therandom
Ok, I think this statement will end this whole discussion. Some people believe God exists, some don't. Boom, discussion should be over. - Therandom
True, but people need to respect athiests - AnonymousChick
And you need to respect Christians - Therandom
Then if God exist then why there is no purple monkey-walrus van dishwasher? - CerealGuy
I'm Christan,bum not offended,don't worry,anyways,good job,just don't tell let dot about this - Nateawesomeness