- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
University of Michigan psychologist Susan Gelman and her colleagues have been exploring people’s causal reasoning about illness. These researchers have found that, at least when it comes to what goes on in our own heads, there’s not much of a conflict between religion and science. Read More
i really wonder why do
i really wonder why do people say that there is any differences between religion and science? as a muslim i see perfect match between both
Science is bound to empiricism
The big difference is that Science is inherently violent toward ideas. Attacking someone's idea and trying to disprove is core to the scientific method, and done civilly can actually be a gesture of respect. There are an infinite number of incorrect ideas, like dogs are really cats. I'm not going to bother trying to extensively disprove an idea that I think is obviously wrong, it would be a waste of time. So if I do seriously attack your idea in a scientifically dispassionate way, I'm indicating that on some level I think it has merit.
This runs into problems with Religion. Religion isn't about being logical, it's going beyond logic and into spirituality. It is the acceptance of that which is, of not having to challenge because you know.
Science can't work with this; it has to challenge, or else it is no longer itself. And it is my belief that it will always 'win' against Religion; if there is a god, he clearly does not want to reveal himself and turn a scientific theory into an idol.
Which is where I think the conflict is. I think that people get confused that Science and Religion are two very different things. In someways they can inform and inspire one another, and perhaps can even be the 'perfect match' you suggest; but there are definite differences between the two.
Free Will
If we are all condemned to be free, then everything is up to choice. If I got a pimple, it is because I CHOSE to use that moisturizer, no one influenced me.
acceptance
In response to some of the above comments. I think Jesse's point is that whether explaining life through science or religion or both at the same time like Farouk mentioned, we are all looking for a FORCE. Either one of natural laws or one of yet another live being (God) who or that can be the explanation of everything that we experience.
It comes down to the fact that NONE OF US CHOSE TO BE ALIVE AND WE WILL FIGHT OUR VERY EXISTENCE WITH A BARRAGE OF QUESTIONS.
Read up about existential crises. Fascinating stuff. I found a philosopher who is helping me through mine.
J. Krishnamurti. He's quite possibly the clearest thinker of anyone I've ever encountered.
Thanks for the article, Jesse :)
mixed models
One example of this type of thinking that Susan gave me was, "God puts you in the path of an HIV-positive lover, but biology causes you to contract the virus from his semen."
Parietal Lobe
I was reading yesterday on New Scientist about how Albert Einstein's brain had more Gliel cells than the average bloke in fact he had around twice the amount. These cells are created in the Parietal Lobe and is the section of the brain important for visuospatial cognition. Abstarct concepts to mathmaticians and scientists appear almost real, as if they exist and can be manipulated like a real object. Partly to a more developed Parietal lobe.
Now I remembered reading in Steven Pinker's book "how the mind works" something about a study on praying nun's and monks which analysed what parts of the brain are active and not-active when they are praying or mediatating. What they found was that the area of the brain responsible for visuospatial becomes less active when the people are praying. Shutting this down creates the outer body experiences that religious people speak of. Sure enough it was also the Parietal Lobe.
So the part of the brain that Scientists use so effectively to manipulate formulas and ideas in order to get to the truth, is that same part of the brain that Religious people work to shut down in order to give praise to which ever imaginary friend they are talking to at the time.
So Religion is not only not scientific in principle and theory. Biologically it appears to also retard the proper use of our brain which scientists so effectively use.
So Religious people are unscientific.
Einstein
I thought Albert Einstein also used his enhanced visuospatial cognition in order to figure out what "god's" thoughts were while creating the universe. Could it be possible that while praying one will not use the Parietal Lobe, but while studying or thinking about supernatural beings or forces they will?
Thank you for your time.
Scientifically, what am I?
What Am I?
Quoting my Nov/17/2008 post in another forum:
Patrick wrote:
"What am I?
I think that I have an idea how science will take on this quest of who am I and how I got to be like I am."
With all modesty I suggest the following as science's updated understanding of What Am I:
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578
or
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=285&#entry369897
It ends all irrelevant-to-life 'pseudo scientific-sophisticated verbiages about many life-related subjects... The still persisting irrelevant preoccupations are due to humans', especially due to the Science Establishment's, inertia and conservatism and politics...
Suggesting,
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
i have an Iron Horse )
nice put
I be struck by an Iron Horse) This commitment be my marred outing to Sturgis, we will be leaving on July 28th and staying utterly the 8th.
Post new comment