Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Religion does not allow people to see that the world itself is a miracle, that chaos in the process of self-organization can become an intelligent living being, able to realize itself and its place in the world and think about the fact that the phenomenon of life is a residual phenomenon from the colossal release of energy from the thermonuclear reactor, under which it lights up so well.
Science doesn't care who looks at what, as long as they attach verifiable facts to their hypotheses and conclusions.
Religion says here are two colors, red and black. Draw only with them and perceive only these colors in the world. Science says: here's blue and black, draw only with them and perceive only them.
That's about as restrictive as it gets. A reasonable person can use both red and blue and black, and all the other 16 million shades, realizing that they do not belong to anyone.
What does a religion today, such as a Christian one, see as bad in science? That it is impossible to make a cyborg out of a person and change him genetically, opposes the creation of an” artificial uterus ” and new means of economic speculation (economics is also a science) or against biohackers (roughly speaking, chipping, which is now becoming fashionable even, but little has reached Russia) and, in the end, against scientific experiments on humans. Is it bad that religion does not allow you to see an artificial human cyborg and a stock speculator?) Moreover, science is good now that you can watch science news on your smartphone, isn't it? But in Nazi Germany, Mengele was engaged in science…�
The juxtaposition of science and religion is a relic of Soviet propaganda, which has spread widely around the world. In the early Middle Ages, nothing prevented the church from being the main scientific force, purely because only the church could read and write. Similarly, nothing prevented 100% Christian Europe from developing science and industry in the 17th-18th century, which resulted in the first industrial revolution in the 18th-19th century . To God it is God's, to Caesar it is Caesar's, so to speak.
Different religions forbid the contemplation of different things. This, however, does not mean that a person becomes physically unable to see them.
Science, as a kind of human activity, cannot prohibit something. It has no subjectivity or authority at all. If by “science” we mean the principles of the scientific method ,then “science” does not prohibit anything. Dogmatics, this is not about science at all, because this method tends to change, improving. Ultimately, research within the framework of the scientific method involves establishing facts through empirical observation. This is the ability of a person to see, hear, and feel.
Stupid question.
Religion does not allow a person to see the world in detail, to decompose it into atoms. All religious concepts are global, I would even say anti – liberal. The person in them is always only a part of the world, and far from the most important. Anthropocentric science is not able to understand the world as a whole, to connect what it considers separately. It is no coincidence that in science there are several pictures of the world that work in their own logic, which still cannot be combined into the so-called theory of everything.�
It's about modern science and religion.