ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Science - The New Religion

Updated on April 4, 2011

It seems that those in charge of our conventional view of science have become just as dogmatic,in their basic beliefs as many of the conventional religion's and even the fundimentalist religions in the history of our world. There are many sects,with many different views on the theology concerning basic beliefs where science and religion clash. It seems religion has been given the upper hand and science has somehow joined religions when it comes to dogmatic beliefs.

Especially when we talk about the origin of life,and the contraversey between evolution and creation.Science has become the new "Church" of Darwin's theory of evolution.It's strange though,even Darwin himself ,admitted that there is room for doubt,about his theory.

The corunderum here is ; the universities that we have today ,originated from within the Roman Catholic church .So,it comes as no surprise really that science has become to some extent indebted to the church,for the knowledge we have today ,even though the individuals who brought us that knowledge were persecuted for doing so.when ,their views collided with the views of the church,religion,or the pope.

So,why is it that today we still  find ourselves divided and our leaders divided within themselves.Some are not even divided.They appear to be dogmatically following the line of "we are not going to change our basic beliefs ,even if there is evidence to the contrary."

If,that is not dogmatic ,I don't know what is.

It,may have something to do with a time honored respect for old knowledge from which the whole of science and religion depends in order to be respected as institutions of learning.The early Roman Catholic church leaders were just as dogmatic,when scientific studies went against the teaching of the church,for obvious reasons. 

I can understand this from a personal point of view,no one wants to be critisized for what they believe.However,I know that I may have to change my views,when confronted with new knowledge.It's a part of the learning process.

The insistance of Infallibility,is the achillies heel of religion ,just as it is,in science..

An infant who knows nothing,has the greatest ability to learn.

Such as the program for sale called "YOURBABYCANREAD"

Adults,have the advantage of knowledge,and yet an infant can out learn an adult within a very short period of time.This,is because a infant child's brain is empty and growing ,learning every second of everyday for seven years,which happens to be the number of years it takes for the human body to replace every cell in the body.

Once,the brain has reached a point that it,can consciously choose to learn ,what it's interested in learning,that knowledge may be changing at the same time.Knowledge is not necessarily static or constant.Our perception of that knowledge may have to change,as we evolve intellectually.This happens to be true of interpersonal knowledge as well as scientific and religious.This is not to say that there is not a unifiying aspect between all knowledge.We,may think differently about the same exact thing.That doesn't change the fundimental principles of what we disagree about,just what we think those fundimental principles are.

In,chemistry they teach us that solid objects are mostly empty space.If, I didn't know better,I'd say that what we were taught in chemistry was taught by a magician,a religion.or even a huckster or hypnotist.

The conscious,and subconscious are two parts of the same brain.One part - "the conscious" we are aware of.The subconscious,we may or may not be aware of ,but we have both ,even if,we are only aware of only the one.

Our mind is serperate from our brain.The brain ,being the physical organ,and the "mind","spirit",or "soul" being in control of the concious part of the brain.

It's been said,that hypnotists can't control a persons body while under hypnosis.I disagree.

I think people are told this to make them more comfortable with being hypnotised.

It's also been said that,some people can't be hypnotised ,without voluntarily doing so.I agree.

I do ,believe mass hypnosis has been used ,in politics and paid commercials for consumer items.

This,is an example of influencing the subconscious brain.

Exsorsim,is performed by a member of a religion ,to rid the brain of an unwanted entity,spirit,or soul.

The very same thing ,could probably be done using drugs,in order for the brain to be less suseptible to an outside influence,or the other way around,as when given a drug,to make someone tell the truth.

Science is the religion of the concrete whereas religion is the science of the spiritual,or soul.

Where the two meet is the convergence of the two into a new synthesis of the understanding of both.Until then ,there will be a war between the two.One side thinking the other is wrong.

There,is a concerted effort ,by some who control science and religion ,to control peoples minds ,and in doing so ,their bodies as well.

This is a reference to the "mark of the beast"


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • someonewhoknows profile image

      someonewhoknows 8 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

      A M Werner --- Religion and Science are like the two sides of the same coin.One side says "In God we trust",and the other says this coin has a specific value.The next thing you know the value of that coin changed.But,we still trust,that it has some value,whatever that happens to be at any time.Most likely,the value will never be zero,even if,it has little "real" value.What i'm saying is we place a value on something for a reason.Wheather that value is based on perception ,or reality ,it still has some value to both sides.Scientifically ,speaking the chances are that the side with the most physical weight,has the most intrinsic value.Then there is ,the sentimental value,or collector's value,which can be greater than the "real" or intrinsic value.

      So,ultimately we end up having to decide for ourselves what value we place on something.Either physical or spiritual

      The same thing be said of books.Science,religion,fact or fiction.Fiction is based on our perception of some kind of reality.So,why isn't it possible that we base our reality on fiction?

    • A M Werner profile image

      Allen Werner 8 years ago from West Allis

      Interesting. You did say, 'We are not going to change our basic beliefs, even if there is evidence to the contrary'. Is this the science point of view or the religious point of view - or both. I think whenever someone says 'evidence' in science and religion, both know there really is no such thing because down the line, years in the future, someone will discover something that altars and changes it (for religion it is not the truth that changes, just our perception of it). I do like the reminder of basic chemistry and that a solid object is basically open space. That means there is a lot of room in everything for things we can't perceive to move around and do things - even purposefully. Peace.

    • someonewhoknows profile image

      someonewhoknows 8 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

      Msorenson -I agree,it will be hard to expect everyone to comply with Total control over their life.That will not stop those who want to do it from trying to enforce it upon everyone.Those who will not accept it,must fight for their freedom.Those who will go along to get along,are no better that a beast to be taken to slaughter.Animals are instinctive,humans are intuitive.

      Don - fundimentalist believers,wheather it's science or religion seem to me to me hyponotised.They can't see anything through their own independent thought.At,least ,it looks that way to me.Then again money,and power can play a role as well.

    • dusanotes profile image

      dusanotes 8 years ago from Windermere, FL

      Thanks, someonewhoknows, for that thought-provoking Hub. I don't agree that science is taking the place of religion, and I don't think you said that...directly. The greatest scientist who ever lived was Jesus Christ. He learned his alchemy and physics from his Father, God the Father. When you think about it, someone had to have the brainpower to create the universe, and it was God. He is still in control as scientists, global warmists, Obamists, radicals of every nature scurry around trying to see how they can exploit something for monetary gain. Religion is not for monetary gain, something we need to tell our liberal friends.

      As far as politics, I agree with your statement: "I do believe mass hypnosis has been used in politics and paid commercials for consumer items." But what has that to do with true religion? Your thesis took you off in many tangents and I think I know the answer you would give. Thanks for being such a solid-based thinker, someonewhoknows. I always enjoy your Hubs. Don White

    • msorensson profile image

      msorensson 8 years ago

      Yes I am familiar with the bible "mark of the beast". I tend to take things literally [smiles] control of over people will be difficult to do, don't you think? There will always be one or two that can not be controlled.

      Thank you.

    • someonewhoknows profile image

      someonewhoknows 8 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

      I suppose you've heard of the mark of the beast?

      If,we allow our science to continue without a moral or spiritual guildence,we well find we will no longer have free will. As,you know the mark of the beast,is litterally total control over people.

    • msorensson profile image

      msorensson 8 years ago

      An intriguing hypothesis you posted here.

      I can not comprehend these two sentences, put together. Please elaborate.

      "There,is a concerted effort ,by some who control science and religion ,to control peoples minds ,and in doing so ,their bodies as well.

      This is a reference to the "mark of the beast"

      Thank you kindly