Religion & Science

I see one person who knows how to speak his language, and another person who only knows how to write in his language.  They’ve both just seen a plane fly by and they’re trying to explain it to each other.

Which one is correct in their explanation?

There is validity to each approach (religious & scientific) because the truth is an integration of both systems.

Religion [spirituality] is to physical law/science what the human body is to mechanics/technology.  It is the most advanced manifestation possible in this realm.

Spirituality is the most technologically advanced science.

It is such because it represents a confluence of truth on all aspects of existence in all dimensionalities experienceable and influenceable upon Human life.

The universe is encoded with patterns.  If you were to climb up a strand of DNA, compositing an image of its plan one base pair sequence at a time, you would eventually be able to extrapolate the whole and have an idea of what’s going on.  I believe we can approach reality the same way.

Both science and religion mirror each other along the Human timeline in terms of how their ‘truths’ have been defined (in the case of science) or depicted (in the case of religions).  It’s interesting how science has changed just as much as religion (and why should science change? – It’s science and supposed to be factual and unmalleable once deemed as fact).  Yet many concepts have come and gone from medicine and astronomy –  at the same time religious doctrines have been revised and adapted to serve better the civilizations that were participating in them.  New religions emerge, and new pseudo-sciences emerge.  Why should the inerrant word of God be any more revisable than an agreed upon scientific fact?  Yet this is cyclically the case.  The world cannot stay flat forever.  Ironically, sometimes it is a person’s faith that a fact is different from what is being purported, that leads to new scientific discovery.

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Religion & Science

    • Does an absence of the need for faith in a system of explanation (like religion or science) prove that said system is inherently truthful? If you don’t think truth is found in religion but it is found in science – do you propose that science contains the truth for everything? But since science obviously hasn’t explained everything, would that then be an act of faith to espouse that it will?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s