Skip to content

Religion and ribosome

March 10, 2006

Oct 21 2004 + May 17 2005 Dov, in Science Forums.

In Challenges, "Science and Religion are Irreconcilable", Bercan says "I think that religion can't be discussed scientificly and vice versa".

I think that religion should and certainly can be discussed scientifically just as ribosome and RNA and DNA, as religion evolved for humans and functions for humans in the same manner and for the same ends as the inter- and intra-cell biological factors.

Re the "vice versa", science may be and is discussed by religious persons, as they are free to discuss whatever they wish and in any terms they wish. If they discuss science scientifically their comments might be scientifically valid. This sounds incosistent and strange, but it is common and widespread because many so-called "scientists", technologically/informationally experts in specific subjects, regard themselves "religious", which is possible as religion means different things to different people. And this is scientifically possible and ubiquitous as religion is a tool for humans for fasioning various human phenotypes just as a ribosome is a tool for a genome for constructing various proteins.

I note an additional statement on the subject of religion/science :"However, none of the major religions agree or would ever agree with this theory of our origin or with its supplemental theory of the origin of religion. The current religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many other religions will never agree to this model because it would mean that their whole belief system is based on a lie to control the masses. This is where the current major religions and science are irreconcilable. A religion that accepted this model would be a radically different religion than what we normally think of when we say religion."

My reaction-comment:

A) Earth's human population, including all human phenotypes and all human education-socio levels, and including , yes, almost all "scientists" and all editors of printed and electronic scientific communications, are not yet rationally capable and certainly not yet emotionally/psychologically mature (must display and voice RESPECT to Spiritual/Religious/Holy matters) to understand and accept that ALL aspects of human cultures and civilizations are just other manifestations of, parallel to, intra- and inter-cell biological factors, evolved by humans for their survival-replication.

B)My attitude is that religions are NOT "based on a lie to control the masses", but that historically their evolutions were possible and enabled based on blind faith. I would love to see each and every aspect of "holliness" completely deleted from religions, while leaving the element of faith based on "rational moral conviction" and offering the most efficient/effective set of values/behaviour, combined with the group's traditions (phenotype), for fair/secure preservation/proliferation. My reasoning and feelings are that some form of deep conviction, even if it be "pseudoreligion", is required and "justified" for rationally and emotionally urging and convincing all humans to live in a fair cooperative mode…


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: