Science or Religion ?
socratus
Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
So, what is Religion?
Religion is the poor man's philosophy.
Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
#
Cosmic cannibalising:
Images show one galaxy engulfing another
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cosmic-cannibalising-images-show-one-galaxy-engulfing-another-1780652.html
#
The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Another
http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-attacking-another.html
. . .. etc
So, what is Physics?
Physics is the poor man's philosophy.
== .
What to do?
I think we must answer to the simple classic question:
what did come first the chicken or the egg ?
If somebody didn’t understand this question, I will ask it simpler:
What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
Why I ask these questions.
Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
=== .
Israel Socratus.
BORT
> Science or Religion ?
> Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
> That is the truth.
> So, what is Religion?
> Religion is the poor man's philosophy.
>
> Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
> That is the truth.
> For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
> #
> Cosmic cannibalising:
> #
> The Discovery of one Galaxy "Attacking" Anotherhttp://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-a...
> . . .. etc
> So, what is Physics?
> Physics is the poor man's philosophy.
> == .
> What to do?
> I think we must answer to the simple classic question:
> what did come first the chicken or the egg ?
> If somebody didn’t understand this question, I will ask it simpler:
> What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
> Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
> Why I ask these questions.
> Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
> there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
> === .
> Israel Socratus.
Well, I sort of disagree on both counts. Religion has given us hatred,
wars and mass death and pain, just a wee bit more than fable and
fantasy. But without religion we would not need science to give us
atom bombs and such.
However, science did give us computers and the internet so we should
be grateful.
BORT
rjbl...@gmail.com
Both science and religion explain the world around us in different
terms. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it's up to
every individual person to choose which to accredit more faith to in
which matters. Let your choices be guided by religion/philosophy/
spirituality and your actions by science and the only thing that can
go wrong is fundamentalism and bad science, which is pretty much the
status quo innit.
mrdilligent
From: socratus
<<Science or Religion ?
Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.
So, what is Religion?
Religion is the poor man's philosophy.>>
What is "religion" to most of us is the superstitious product of
civilization; prior to civ---when man was still natural---there was
nothing like what we call "religion." There was only what we today
call "science," but without all the technology, of course.
The word _religion_ comes down to us from one of the Italic tribes
that occupied the boot-shaped peninsula. It was _relgio_, and it
meant to "tie back," as in retying a goat which has been captured and
tied to a tree until it time for human dinner, but gets loose, so has
to be recaptured and retied, or "religo." At least that is my
physical analogy, but in those distant days, all humans used what the
Greeks termed _metaphor_ to "grasp" the ungraspable. Entities of the
mind, and the mind itself, are not physical, thus are ungraspable---
detectable by the senses, thus by the mind. But the mind alone can
detect these "invisibles" by INFERRING from many like sensory
experiences. To communicate and/or remember these "invisibles,"
prehistoric man drew on what WAS physical, and familiar, to
illustrate, and these were dubbed _metaphor_ by the Greeks. A true
metaphor is a physcial illustration of a sensorily undetectable
entity. (It is NOT a "figure of speech," or a "literary device," nor
even "imagery" as we ususally think of it.)
The answers to the "eternal questions," the very same as those the
modern institution we call "Science" has tried to answer for us all,
are not physically graspable, so _religio_ was used metaphorically to
refer collectively to these questions: Who are we, Where did we come
from, Where are we, Where are we going, What are things made of, and
so on. The answers to such questions bind us back to the
cosmoterrestrial reality from which we emerged. Man has ALWAYS been
in pursuit of answers to these "eternal questions," but prehistoric
man had made more valid progress in this mental realm than any humans
since. In fact, prehistoric man had gained SO much knowledge in these
areas that he was able to figure out what made plants grow, what fused
metals together, how to capture and tame animals, and so on, so that
what we have very recently come to call "civilization" was able to
emerge---much to the devastation of the otherwise remarkable human
animal.
What you read, by scholars, of prehistoric, or "primitive," man is
that he was not "of the first," which is what _primitive_ means, but
unfinished, immature, not fully human (as we think we are). He was
superstitious, we are told, beginning with animism and then animal-
ancestor worship and the like, until he finally "improved" and got
"religion," and a monotheistic form, at that. From there, we are
told, we "advanced" to philosophy, and finally arrived at "science."
Hog wash. If one carefully studies etymology and the ways in which
humans behave under diverse conditions, one begins to realize that it
is "civilization" which has done so much damage to the human animal.
As Socratus pointed out below, "science" today "tells us nothing but
fables and fantasies":
<<Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
That is the truth.>>
It is WE who are superstitious, and we project our own failings upon
"primitive" man. We are superstitious not just about what we think
"religion" is, but also about "science," "politics," "education," and
just about any nonphysical category you want to consider. Today there
are "muliple realities," even "multiple universes" (as much of an
oxymoron that is!), but among prehistoric humans there were only
multiple languages and multiple places on the earth upon which he
could live. The earth, sun, moon, etc. were constantly there
regardless of where man lived or what language he used to express his
mental contents, and man learned from EXPERIENCE, not from words.
We do know something about "primitive" man that was true: His
physical senses were much, much sharper. Ok, then, so what about his
MIND? No one today even considers that his mind equalled his sharper
senses, or rather, that his sharper senses equalled his sharper mind.
But 7K years of civ have dulled both our senses and our minds.
No one bothers to consider the obvious:
That man catching, killing, and butchering animal prey for its
meat and other resources
made man a SUPERB comparative anatomist; that therefore man was
able to infer
much about his own physical makeup from these studies, and yes,
hunting for,
capturing, killing, and harvesting animal prey were all studies.
They occupied man's
MIND, and man learned from them, not from books.
That no living organism could survive at all on superstition! One
must face reality
squarely to deal with it successfully. IF it wants to survive,
that is.
That "animal-ancestor worship" is really the same as we today call
"evolution"---and fail to
understand. Prehistoric man understood that he decended from
earlier forms of animal,
and valued ("worshipped") them for this as well as for their meat
and sinews.
That prehistoric man understood that the sun provided light and
heat on earth, and was
able to "reach up" with his MIND to the skies to grasp the
principles of plasmic matter,
or fire, as we say, and thus to ignite fires to shed light and
heat (in miniscule ways by
comparison to the sun) for his own nocturnal existence.
All these and so many more "thats."
For prehistoric man, there was no "invisible man in the sky," or
"'God." In fact, _God_ is a West Germanic word, and means only "that
which is desireable," of value, presumably to human survival and well-
being. There was no _God_ in the Middle East where civilization
began. Instead, light was considered the most essential force in the
universe, and this is manifested in the language and sybolism that
dominated this area. As said, light (emf) brings heat and visibility
to creatures on earth, and the sun emblemized this emf. Of course,
when civilization set in---to Egypt, for example---the METAPHOR of
personification of emf became superstitiously tied to the sun disk
itself, which was believed to be "invisibly human," and pharoahs
(prehistorically the same as a tribal chief) were believed to be the
physical human manifestations of the sun disk itself. Among the Greek-
speaking peoples, Zeus---which means only light---referred to the sun,
and Gaia to the third rock from that sun, or our earth. These
leftovers from prehistoric times quickly turned into silly
superstitions, the useful metaphors being interpreted directly as
real, if invisible, anthromorphic beings.
Most of Europe's languages developed from a language group known as
Indo-European, so it is not surprising that _Deus_, ostensibly a word
for "God," comes from _di_, or I-E for light. Di is MASCULINE gender,
not male biologically, because emf is active-thrustive. The femine
gender refers to that which is passive-receptive, often reflective.
Thus the moon, e.g., which does not generate its own light, but which
passively receives light from the sun, was given a feminine
dimiuative: Di-ana. METAPHORICALLY, with personification, the
ultimate source of emf was referred to as "He," while such as the moon
was referred to as "She." NOTHING to do with human sexuality!
So you can see what superstition has done to our minds!