Science and Religion

I thought that I was alone. Everyone that I know insisted that it is possible. But I stand on my point of view that it is impossible.

I questioned the religious institution's attempt to use science to proof their religious claims. So much so that they claimed that Science and Religion need each other, and Science fits perfectly in the world of religion. I doubt it.

I share the same viewpoint as Richard Dawkins, a prominent biologist and naturalist like Darwin.

I argue that one who embraced science can't possibly be embracing religion as much as he embrace science. Likewise, one who is religious can't possibly be embracing science as much as he embrace religion. Science, if anybody might missed the point, is a constant questioning and seeking of answers about the existence of everything under the sun and beyond. It is a constant search of knowledge, which is believed by them who understands the philosophy of science, are still a lot to find. And along the way, new technology was developed, and old technology and knowledge are enhanced, improved and some are totally dismissed. In other word, science makes something not there to be there, just like god. Now, how can one embrace religion if he is playing god all the time? Well, he can - just be a liar.

If one embrace religion, and science, he tends to see everything in science as an explanation to whats in religion. It seems that everything fits into the religion. Even though some do not fit, there is always a way to make them fit within. Simplest example - Visa and Mastercard is one of the sign of the so called 'End Time'. This is a pretty idiotic conjecture. Little do they know that when quest for answer is not preceded by question, the knowledge obtained are merely fantasy that makes the brain happy. It is a false positive that the brain perceived. Just like when people in love, love makes people blind - why? because the part of brain that is responsible for 'mood' is under drug influence. In the first place, how can science be in religion when science is about eliminating the concept of god?

Well, of course majority of people only read one book in their lifetime, and therefore closed other knowledge that might threatened their knowledge. I am embracing science, but I am not closing my door to the knowledge that religion can offer. I am not into spirituality, salvation, heaven and hell, sin and punishment crap. I am an agnostic. My religion is the world around me. If I manage to gather 1% of the knowledge that my world could offer, I will be happy enough to be anywhere, here, heaven or hell.

Now is more important than later. Tomorrow is more important than the day after. I want to live in now, and let tomorrow come as it wishes. Nothing is better than the knowledge of science now and today.

The Principle of Wrong

Always, 'wrong' is defined as something 'not true' or 'false' and not in between. Wrongly said statement is considered a lie. Rightly said statement is also a lie if the outcome flipped. This is wierd. Right statement should be right no matter how the outcome turns out.

Consider a teacher, holding a sweet. The teacher then asks the students to write what it it that she is holding. So some may write jibberish like 'zxsht', some may write 'shweit', some may write 'sweet', some may write 'sugar', some may write 'sucrose'. Obviously the 'zxsht' is wrong, so is 'shweit', so is 'sugar' and so is 'sucrose'. But is it really wrong? It seems unfair. We know that 'zxsht' is definitely wrong. But 'shweit' is at some degree, is correct compared to 'zxsht'. And 'sugar' more correct compared to the previous two. And the 'sucrose', definitely is a highly thought answer.

The argument suggests that the level of untrue is highly relative. Its relativity is measured by how much it differs from the 'correct' outcome or answer. For example, if a statement is true but the outcome turns out to be the opposite of the true answer of the true statement, then the statement is still true because relative to the correct answer, the statement is still true. Similar to the case of 'sweet' and 'sucrose'. For 'sucrose' is not a correct answer that the teacher is looking for, but the weight of the meaning of the answer 'sucrose' relative to the question is higher compared to the other answers except the true answer 'sugar'.

In summary, wrong shall not be taken as total wrong or total untrue. One have to know of how correct the wrong is relative to something. Correct wrong is a definite wrong if the relative point of measure is totally opposite in all characteristics and principle.