Wednesday, October 04, 2006

history 04 Religion and Science

history 04 Religion and Science

Then, another question should be asked.

What’ religion then?

We could describe the world both by science and by religion. What are the essential differences between science and religion?

When we were thinking scientifically, we based on the facts in the creative world, those facts coming from the mapping of real world, the mapping of real world accepting the codes coded by organs, organs coding if they were stimulated by the real world and if they were normal. We had to distinguish whether facts were true or false first. We could not accept any facts in the creative world created by needs, wishes, wills, and imaginations, etc. Then, we called the method of thinking was scientific. If we accepted the facts coming for other origins, we didn’t think the conclusions basing on those facts scientific. If we believed in and accepted the facts created by our needs, wishes, or imaginations to understand the world, and to understand the value of our existing, and to try to comfort us by some related methods, we called it religion. Obviously, science and religion confronted originally. There were no ways for them to combine.

There was a field which was very difficult for scientists to engage in research. Those facts were feelings. We had to admit they were true feeling. And those feelings affected mind truly and affected so much on mind. In this field, science lost much to religion. To solve this problem, we had to know the essence of feelings and the value of feelings, then, maybe, we could understand the feelings really.

Note: I call anything I can see, hear, tough, feel, …, in my mind a fact, then I distinguish the facts true or false. The only true facts come from the real world, or the real feeling, or , I can call any phenomenon of human is a true fact including the process of fiction though the content of fiction is false referring to the related real world. the false facts come from any other origin.

No comments: