Is science trying to compete with the scroll of the law?

Question

On one hand it represents development, discovery, findings
ect., on the other hand it can't explain or answer (at least to the satisfaction of many people) important questions and woders we all have about life itself. Bottom line what is sience trying to discover at the end? In a way science is material, the scroll of the law is spiritual. doesn't that make you all (scientists too!) want to stop and think? Keep in mind that the Bible/Torah/ scroll of the law whatever you may call it, is the "best seller" of all times in all history, witch means that it is a theory that proves itself to be right.

Answer 1

God is real, let the scientist embarrass themselves in the end.

Answer 2

Can there really be a unified theory of everything? Or are we just chasing a mirage? There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 3

If as you claim, the Bible/Torah/Scroll is a "best seller", do you really believe that "proves" itself to be right?? Wha???? Popularity=proof, efficacy, or correctness?? Not in the world I'm living in.

FYI: Science attempts to provide valid and reliable information about all that can be operationalized and measured. Simple as that.

Science is not competing with religion. There have been studies that show religious experiences during near death experiences are brain-based, but these findings in no way are attempting to refute religious beliefs. Follow-up studies show that they have in fact functioned to strengthen religious belief. Beliefs can not be refuted by science.

You may want to read Persinger's works. He is a university professor who has studied the biological bases of God beliefs for years.

Answer 4

The only true "religion" is the study of the universe and reality in all its forms. Science is not competing with religion - science is surpassing religion. Religion is static and fails to adapt to new information... at its core, it is an OLD way of thinking.

The universe and human history is the best "scroll" to study. We can find our own morality and our own beliefs. Buddhists say that humans are the only life form capable of enlightenment. I am not a Buddhist but I do appreciate the human intellect... I see big things in our future.

We just have to keep holding our heads high and try to make sure we don't blow ourselves up or poison our environment beyond use.... we need time to accomplish our project of intellectual, moral and societal maturity! If we don't hold ourselves to a high standard of behaviour, we'll destroy ourselves with short-term thinking.

Answer 5

Language being, as a universal for science and spirituality puts scientists and feeling people in the same medium. The thinking part and the feeling part are only parts as notions of them, not their immediate perception of their reality, for their reality needs not perception for or as their determinants. In other words, spirituality and science and their laws are the same life of the same species generally.

'As each of the objects is posited as self-contradictory and self-sublating in its own self, it is only by an external compulsion [Gewalt] that they are held apart from one another and from their reciprocal integration. Now the middle term whereby these extremes are concluded into a unity is first the implicit nature of both, the whole Notion that holds both within itself. Secondly, however, since in their concrete existence they stand confronting each other, their absolute unity is also a still formal element having an existence distinct from them — the element of communication in which they enter into external community with each other. Since the real difference belongs to the extremes, this middle term is only the abstract neutrality, the real possibility of those extremes; it is, as it were, the theoretical element of the concrete existence of chemical objects, of their process and its result. In the material world water fulfills the function of this medium; in the spiritual world, so far as the analogue of such a relation has a place there, the sign in general, and more precisely language, is to be regarded as fulfilling that function.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlobject.htm#HL3_729


It is the struggle for property but with this difference, that each are trying to say their property is the truely valuable, and the other is second best, nothing or at worst destructive, but as long as either is human property, they are both equally potentially destructive as healing.

Answer 6

. science will keep the scroll from superstition, the scroll will save science from idolatry. each is part of the same seamless garment

Answer 7

Depends on what science and what scroll, etc we're talking about.