lördag 19 juni 2010

What is Religion?

No, that is not religion at all.
That is just Abrahamic religion!!!
There are MANY RELIGIONS which do NOT believe in anything superior before and after humanity.
Buddhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism are three such religions.
So your very basic premise here is wrong. Think again!

2010/6/19 Martin Grossmann

Dear Friends,

Here a final version.

I am on a roll here and I was learning something about an economic model and then a thought popped into my head that actually confronted the comparison of religion and science in the long run. Thoughts are welcome ;)

Religion is the belief in a supreme power / deity in existence that came before all and will exist after all. Now a scientific person would say that religion is a way of clarifying the impossible. So basically religion was established for understanding unexplainable phenomena (from a scientific point of view).

Now when we suppose that science is just existent or developing under the assumption, that the brain has to be of a certain size and structure, we get a clear view of establishing proof against unexplainable phenomena. The brain power and structure grows with a certain rate (and this rate is influenced by challenges in the surrounding or existence of unexplainable phenomena).

Let us consider both options here.

1. Development of science (and understanding) is just possible if the brain reaches a critical point to increase its ability. The development of this mind (and brain) is influenced positively by yet unexplainable phenomena (religiously: by a supreme power)

2. Unexplainable Phenomena will always exist, if we suppose that we are a restricted species with limited capability of development (realistic). So after the scientific explanation, RELIGION will always be pursued during the existence of mankind.

The conclusion of this model (after my opinion)

By the definition of GOD (and so the belief in this god) being a word for yet unexplainable phenomena, in both options there is a supposed divine intervention.
[In 1. we are just developing if (after scientific definition) there is the existence of religion. And in 2. religion will always exist because we are limited.]

Religion will win on the long run, since limits are always given but science has to develop and can be lost again.
[although the existence of science (no matter what level) is always given by the first conclusion]

Just a small addition.

Basically people become more intelligent and so the relation from physical (unexplainable) to metaphysical (unexplainable) phenomena and the amount of unexplained p. changes. Humans with small brains will perceive more things unexplainable as people with higher brain function.

So therefore if Science cannot exist without religion, the more religion we have, the more science we have and so the influence of religion unto science becomes smaller (less physical (unexplainable) phenomena), but never disappears because unexplainable phenomena still always will exist (just in smaller number and with metaphysical characteristics).

So if the amount of unexplainable (physical less, metaphysical stay same) things becomes smaller (as we would suggest that this amount is considered finite by science), then the sense for religion (although it never disappears) becomes more unlogical since the nature of unexplainable phenomena changes. More underdeveloped humans perceive more physical things as unexplainable while more advanced humans perceive unimaginable (metaphysical) things as unexplainable. Makes sense since metaphysical things are hard to prove or perceive.

So from a scientific point of view, the sense and logical ground for religion diminishes (although never disappears). But by questioning this sense (in this model and given the positive relation between religion and science on a rational level) the scientist questions his own existence. If a scientist would say that religion is stupidity and madness of mankind, then he would actually mean himself and tell us, that he spend his time searching for proof of this stupidity, although this fact made his effort possible in the first place.

If we assume then, that the question of ones own existence cannot be proven, then is this scientist really very intelligent in trying to disprove his own existence.

After this model, there is no difference between "worship of a great mind"² or "worship of mind (things with mind)".³

[² religion - ³ worship of mind is associated with scientific development, since human development and scientific development both need a greater understanding of our environment and that needs both higher brain function]

Inga kommentarer: