Oh Man.. Ya know the rev.'s gonna bring his G~Õ~D into this thread along with his eight million hits back up singers...
I thought I would start a thread here about the difference between scientific belief and religious belief.
Beliefs change, be they religious or scientific. A Universal law, don'tcha know...
Scientific belief is based on the principle that the universe obeys certain universal laws and that we can determine what those laws are.
Religion and spiritual science follows this same thought.
For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable and it must be possible to make a clear statement as to what will occur when certain other events occur.
I will follow this with the statement:
Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs.
It would appear that scientific facts are always changing, and that, is proven by the repeatability of error in observance.
For example if you drop a rock you should be able to describe the motion of the rock, and the principles you use to describe that motion should apply to all cases in which a rock is dropped. Then you can say that that description is a scientific belief. Scientific beliefs are developed by observation and experimentation.
Spiritual science claims similar principals, however observation is relative to states of conscious awareness, or the evolution of human consciousness, AND that the human is capable of speeding up or suppressing the expansion of awareness and experience.
Religion is based on belief and not so much on direct experience or repeatability of observation but more along the lines of repeatability in making the same statement toward a belief, like the reverend makes (ad nauseum) about his G~Õ~D and his superhuman ability to create an acronym of special importance. Churches then are made up of followers who are willing to listen to a belief, and then adopt the belief, regardless of whether they believe or experience anything relative to a belief.
Science has its own church of peers who accept scientific peer review regardless of whether their field is connected to the belief or repeatable observations of those who specialize in a particular belief.
Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs. These changes are normally adopted because they provide a better description of how the universe works.
Facts being relative to the association of the scientific community. If more than a few observe the same type of experience and it can be repeated using the same methods, it becomes a fact that it was observed, until another scientific study, following a different procedure regarding the same materials of study produces a different observation. Facts then become part of change, which is consistent with belief (no matter what camp the belief comes from).
Religious belief is based on the principle that there is an all powerful God (or Gods) who determines how the universe works.
Depends on the religion. Buddhism does not believe in a God, because it limits the omnipresent reality of creation to singular definitions. It (Buddhism) follows a different idea rallying around a principal which exists in all forms of matter and living organisms.
This God intervenes in the operation of the universe, rather than allowing it to operate under a set of unalterable rules.
Again yer limiting religion to one type. There are many religions and they don't all follow this narrow form of thinking.
You really should get out more..
The knowledge of this God is presented to humanity in the form of revelations to certain people (prophets) who then pass the information on to everybody else. The word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.
Now your are narrowing religion to the Judeo-Christian politics of the church and not necessarily the nature of religion or what created religion in the first place.
Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.
History will show that interpretation of the word of God is not a constant, just the word itself which originally was indicated as the fundamental nature of evolution in creativity as defined within space and time.
So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief.
Only from the stand point of defining ones self by the label of scientist or religionist. Standing outside of both, offers the perspective of similarity in form and function, where changing beliefs are based on levels of conscious awareness, evolution of mind and the ability to observe objectively and without an attachment to defining ones self by a preferred principal of reality where all realities are supported by universal law.
This has caused a lot of problems for some people over the years. I don't have a solution to this problem.
Bill Gill
No problem was ever solved at the level it was created. Your sweeping generalities are a symptom of a lack of understanding beyond the,
generalities are us on the shelf, mindset!
