Basic philosophy quickly differentiates between the human-experience and the reality of 'our universe': subjective inner-experience as opposed to objective actual-reality. They are not the same.
For those of you of a level to understand this, let's examine why science needs to reform...
Scientists are human too. They observe the universe through sense-based experience. They cannot escape their own experience of the universe.
They cannot experiment with or contemplate anything other than the sensed-universe. Even their tools and templates exist within their experience and measure parameters and discern laws (order) amongst that experience.
Every scientific understanding or theory of 'the universe' should relate to this fact that the universe we observe is Self-experienced... but it doesn't (hence the need for reform - more later).
No science relates to a 'real world' because no scientist can observe a 'real world'.
In the whole history of philosophy, there is not a single sound-argument which promotes the reality of our universe beyond the experience of it (btw, such a "sound-argument" is not something which negates the irrational nature of individual religious ideas, or 'religion' as a whole).
What is science doing when it denounces religion? Perhaps philosophy can denounce religion, but science cannot. Certainly, science cannot denounce the idea that 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced - created this universal experience.
Closely observe science. It's theories ASSUME the realistic nature of everything that is observed. Consequently, it's theories mirror this ASSUMPTION.
Consequently, some current theories run-along the line that 'the universe' of real objects existing in real space-time came into being from and extended into NOTHING. Philosophically, such theories can only be judged - with all due respect - as retarded. Such are the consequences of assuming a reality which we cannot experience nor rationalise.
I'll just mention some more important rational blunders:-
1) 'Brains' (objects within experience), are the cause of experience!!!
2) QM - real particles within the real universe, have the ability to emerge from nothing. Yet no scientist has ever observed a real particle!!!!!!!!!
3) Science does not understand why Relativity is at-odds with Newton's Laws of motion. Well, the answer is obvious - Newton was talking about the motion of absolute-objects in an absolute-universe... whereas Einstein (albeit ignorantly) discovered that The Self, alone, is 'absolute'... and all experienced-objects are relative to IT.
Science has progressed so far that it's walked up it's own ass via assumptions of the reality of the world. It's been corrupted by such assumptions. It's theories revolve around such assumptions. Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated. Only scientists such as Dawkins are popular amongst the materialistic masses.
It's gotten beyond a joke - not just because it's wrong (science should not be based upon assumption, like the religions it's members have consistently mocked) - but because until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress.
Okay, religion - as we know it - is not the answer. But neither is science - as we know it.
Reform is inevitable. What say thee?
For those of you of a level to understand this, let's examine why science needs to reform...
Scientists are human too. They observe the universe through sense-based experience. They cannot escape their own experience of the universe.
They cannot experiment with or contemplate anything other than the sensed-universe. Even their tools and templates exist within their experience and measure parameters and discern laws (order) amongst that experience.
Every scientific understanding or theory of 'the universe' should relate to this fact that the universe we observe is Self-experienced... but it doesn't (hence the need for reform - more later).
No science relates to a 'real world' because no scientist can observe a 'real world'.
In the whole history of philosophy, there is not a single sound-argument which promotes the reality of our universe beyond the experience of it (btw, such a "sound-argument" is not something which negates the irrational nature of individual religious ideas, or 'religion' as a whole).
What is science doing when it denounces religion? Perhaps philosophy can denounce religion, but science cannot. Certainly, science cannot denounce the idea that 'God' - The Creator of All that is experienced - created this universal experience.
Closely observe science. It's theories ASSUME the realistic nature of everything that is observed. Consequently, it's theories mirror this ASSUMPTION.
Consequently, some current theories run-along the line that 'the universe' of real objects existing in real space-time came into being from and extended into NOTHING. Philosophically, such theories can only be judged - with all due respect - as retarded. Such are the consequences of assuming a reality which we cannot experience nor rationalise.
I'll just mention some more important rational blunders:-
1) 'Brains' (objects within experience), are the cause of experience!!!
2) QM - real particles within the real universe, have the ability to emerge from nothing. Yet no scientist has ever observed a real particle!!!!!!!!!
3) Science does not understand why Relativity is at-odds with Newton's Laws of motion. Well, the answer is obvious - Newton was talking about the motion of absolute-objects in an absolute-universe... whereas Einstein (albeit ignorantly) discovered that The Self, alone, is 'absolute'... and all experienced-objects are relative to IT.
Science has progressed so far that it's walked up it's own ass via assumptions of the reality of the world. It's been corrupted by such assumptions. It's theories revolve around such assumptions. Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated. Only scientists such as Dawkins are popular amongst the materialistic masses.
It's gotten beyond a joke - not just because it's wrong (science should not be based upon assumption, like the religions it's members have consistently mocked) - but because until 'science' formally reforms to a position obvious from this post, humanity will not progress.
Okay, religion - as we know it - is not the answer. But neither is science - as we know it.
Reform is inevitable. What say thee?
