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?
A real person-I learned to combine religion and science a long time ago !!!
Religion and science exist in two different ways/forms –
1) incompatible militant-non-measurable, political-ideological forms, and
2) peaceful-natural, optimal forms.
A real person in his head perfectly gets along with both in peaceful-natural optimal forms (with the exception of militant-political garbage) – this is optimal for survival and development.
The man-politician-artist is dominated by the famous aphorism “all life is a political performance and people in it are political actors” and there is a strict choice of “what to call yourself” – either a believer or an unbeliever-in politics this is very strict, there is an eternal struggle to the last unbeliever and believer.
Why is it that “man has not learned to combine science and religion”? I learned it!
The difference is that science is taught to us without fail, and we are also punished with twos or ridiculed if you think that the earth is flat or that Prince Oleg and Gaius Julius Caesar are one and the same person.
And religion is a completely voluntary group that you can enter whenever you want and leave whenever you want. Moreover, by attending group classes, a believer can decide for himself when and how much time to devote to this. And no one will test you or judge you .
Christ 2000 years ago on this subject gave believers a parable about those called to work in the vineyard for one denarius in the morning and in the evening.
Therefore, many scientists or educated people successfully combine their partial religiosity with the Internet and smartphones.
Dear Alexander, What specific PERSON was the question asked about?
The entire population of the planet perfectly combines these two concepts in various combinations and variants.
In the future, a biorobot will be created, which, by definition, is devoid of Divine Will, and its creation and functioning completely depends on computer programs.
What do you mean – “did not learn to combine”? These are completely compatible areas of human existence.
What is religion? This is a certain system of views of a person, due to his belief in the supernatural.
And what does science do? It develops and systematizes objective knowledge about reality.
How can one interfere with the other?
A deeply religious person can be quite a successful scientist, and a scientist has the right to turn in his thoughts or prayers to higher forces, to believe that everything he does is due to their concerns. As A. S. Pushkin wrote, “you can be a good person and think about the beauty of your nails.”
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), winner of the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, argued in the same vein: “Although the realms of religion and science are clearly delineated in themselves, there is a relationship and interdependence between them… Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the desire for truth and understanding. But the source of this feeling comes from the realm of religion. From there — the belief in the possibility that the rules of this world are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I can't imagine a real scientist without a strong belief in this. Figuratively, the situation can be described as follows:: 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'” (Einstein, Albert. Religion and Science. New York Times Magazine. 1930).
Why didn't you learn? Those who wanted to, learned, for example, Albert Einstein, Alexander Fleming, Robert Brown, Max Born, Mikhail Lomonosov, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck … Continue? I can continue. Science, for the scientist, is the window through which the beauty of Divine creation opens. Science gives the idea that nothing in this world happens just like that, from the bay-floundering. Yes, there are also some scientists who cover their” cruelty “with a fig leaf of “singularity”, because they do not have the heart to say the word” Creation”, because of the same”cruelty”. It's easier to dig around in search of the Higgs boson, in search of “extraterrestrial civilizations”, “parallel worlds” and other nonsense, than to recognize the Creator. Yes, yes! Easier! It is easier, despite the multibillion-dollar costs for building multi-kilometer pipes of energy-intensive accelerators. It is easier, because in order to accept the Creator, you need much more capacious expenses, spiritual ones. This isn't a boson hunt …
Religion and science have long been combined and never contradicted each other.
But the formula for combining these two directions is not available to everyone.
Among those who are not accessible, atheists stand out particularly clearly. Paradoxically, atheists are followed by priests who reject science or part of it for the sake of religious dogmas.
It's all about the image of God that people fantasize about. Their limited view of God is limited by their own view of the world.
Within these boundaries, they are trying to accommodate a Grandfather with a Beard. If the Grandfather is not placed, then they conclude that he is absent or that science is not correct.
To think that the overall picture of the universe is presented to them very shabbily, from the ant horizon, people are not allowed to be proud.
Combining such things is the same as combining religion and food, religion and sleep, religion and detective stories, religion and TV, religion and a cat, religion and a dog, etc., that's an oxymoron … It is clear that the person asking such a question, well, does not have even a basic education at all. But if you have no idea what religion is, then you should have a general, most superficial understanding of what science is. .. Although judging by the question, there are probably problems with this too …
What kind of person? There are quite a few religious people among people engaged in science. At the same time, there are atheists who deny this. And some anti-science religious fanatics will agree with these atheists. There are many opinions, and they are different.
But because these are incompatible things. Priorities for Science – (SEE Wikimedia Commons) In general, this is not repeated. – science is something that we (the brain) do not understand. Do you understand What THAT is ? I have a couple of books, but I still don't understand
You know, if you imagine general science as a community of science contestants in a beauty contest, then it becomes clear why the sciences avoid the society of religion. Religion does not fit into the circle of these girls-it dresses old-fashioned, does not really follow the order, for intelligibility of speech.
Imagine that a girl who has a lot of gold teeth smiled at you.
Nauka Zubka is all in white dressing gowns, like a selection, things in the rooms of the “girls” are laid out on shelves, everything is beautiful. These girls, of course, are also not perfect, but on the outside, for the competition, they know how to put themselves in order.
And religion says that the main thing is inner peace, but it also likes to show off old-fashioned outfits, and at the same time sing in the old manner.
Girls-scientists cook, clean, sew, make-create comfort. Although internally they show indifference. And religion is mostly just a chatterbox: she talks to her dad on the phone and tells everyone that her dad has prepared a lot of gifts for everyone, that he is the organizer of the beauty contest and the owner of the entire concert complex where this contest is held, but while he is late, he is preparing a big surprise.
Therefore, although she claims a rich inner world and friendship, she strongly uses the work of other girls, which causes distrust to her.
If the girl-religion was more neat, organized, consistent in actions and words, did not behave aggressively or haughtily on stage, like the spoiled daughter of an influential pope; if she was not torn by internal contradictory moods, but remembered her father's requests; if she worked more than talked, commanded and pushed others around, then she would have more chances to look spectacular on stage among the sciences.
In the meantime, she doesn't get along with many people on stage, although all the girls always have a lot in common behind the scenes.
It should be recalled that the sciences themselves also often argue with each other and, of course, compete with each other for the title of the best beauty-beauty queen.
Therefore, it is still possible to combine the activities of girls with religion only outside the competition, where they are quietly engaged in any joint work. Because religion behind the scenes is much better than ostentatious. The stage is not for her. Being real is much better for her.