What are your thoughts on this quote having to do with science and religion from the movie “Angels and Demons?
Posted by admin in Finance Sunday, 5 December 2010 18:05 31 Comments
“There are simply some things science is too young to understand.”
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Is science the youngster who thinks he knows everything, while religion is the wiser old fellow who realizes he knows very little? Whether you are atheist, agnostic, religious, spiritual, etc., what are your thoughts/opinions on this quote?
Yes, I believe this to be true. In time we will know all.
“There are simply some things religion is too old to understand.”
Makes a lot more sense. Which has probably been quoted before too.
Yes, and no.
God created science…”we” just dont have all the answers.
I think its a crock. It implies religion somehow has some special knowledge based simply on having existed for longer than science. Science isn’t about knowing a lot. It’s about learning a lot. Religion tends to stifle questions, having already invested in the answers they believe in. Science at its best continually tests and challenges even what it already knows as it attempts to learn the new.
Absolutely. There are a nearly infinite number of truths that science has not yet discovered or fully explained.
But that does not mean that ancient superstitions (known by the name religion) know all truths either. Indeed, I feel confident that they encompass far fewer truths. Science is at least an honest search for the truth. Religion sifts through facts to support a foregone conclusion, denying those truths it encounters which do not.
oh god, i hate dan brown!
The Bible states that in the end time knowledge and wisdom will increase. That statement is proof that no one or science knows everything.
“Is science the youngster who thinks he knows everything, while religion is the wiser old fellow who realizes he knows very little?”
No, religion is the old person who is stubborn in their delusional and archaic beliefs, while science is the young person who is willing to learn and challenge preconceived notions.
Yes. The Bible, or writings, have been around for at least 4,000 years. Science has not been around that long. The Bible proves science. The Bible has never been found to be unreliable.
“There are simply some things science is too young to understand.”
That’s totally true. Science is a method for learning and we will never be able to understand everything. So it’s like we are constantly in school still having more to learn.
http://underdogtheology.blogspot.com/2009/01/renowed-scientists-on-intelligent.html
Renowed Scientists on Intelligent Design
Religion in general is here to pass on knowledge. How do you leave knowledge to Generations down the road? You make a ritual out of it. So that even if it is not understood, it gets passed on. Science as we know it has only been around since maybe 500 AD. While religion has been around as long as man has walked the earth.
just the fact that the earth SPINS is a fairly recent discovery, and the church refused to believe it. the church insisted the entire universe revolves around the earth,
and the church PUNISHED Copernicus for even saying it
i’d say religion was wrong about a LOT OF STUFF
[...] there is so much more…like the frosting on a cake; what flavor is the cake if you … bible finance – Google Blog Search This entry was posted in Debt Free Living and tagged Having, quote, Science, This, Thoughts. [...]
well actually its Dr.science who knows he doesn’t know it all
and Mr.religion thinks he has all the answers
Science has been around as long as religion has. It took science to create Stone Henge and the Pyramids.
Old people can be very ignorant and stubborn, because they grew up in times were ignorance was encouraged.
Just because something is old, does not automatically make is wise or right. Wisdom comes from knowledge. If religion is too stubborn to accept the discoveries of modern times, it is too ignorant to understand many modern discoveries.
It is merely a comment that we cannot explain everything with Science, not that we should accept ridiculous religious explanations in lieu of a scientific one…
I dont think I would put it that way, but in some ways I agree with it. Scientists can be as dogmatic about their world view religious choices as any religous folk.
Science and religion are more alike than often realized. What is often called science is a materialistic philosophy of naturalism taken religionsly and axiomatically before looking at the daa and using the scientific method. The problem is the hidden assumptins and philosophies are rarely examined and often it is the scientist who has the lower level of awareness of his or her own assumtions. The examination of the data is often more telling of the assumptions brought to the table than the data and biases the conclusions.
>> “There are simply some things science is too young to understand.”
~~ That, I agree with. There’s a lot we do understand, but far more we don’t. No scientist worth their salt would say otherwise. It’s the search for understanding that keeps us going.
>> !s science the youngster who thinks he knows everything, while religion is the wiser old fellow who realizes he knows very little?
~~ I’d say science is the youngster who realises he has much to learn, while Religion is the older fellow who thinks he knows everything and often refuses to listen to the young.
Makes sense to me…in fact, the Bible says that the greatest wisdom of man is like foolishness to God. I take that to mean that no matter how much we think we understand, there is so much more…like the frosting on a cake; what flavor is the cake if you only taste the top layer of frosting on it’s highest tier? Religion and scientific methods were both invented by the created. God invented relationships…especially with that first marriage between the first two humans made in the image of God….
If people would understand relationships are more important than adherence to some method or man made doctrines then the Commandments to Love God with all of our minds, bodies and souls, etc., and to Love our Neighbors as we love ourselves would actually be a way of life for more people…and peace would abound.
There are some things science is too young to understand……so let’s turn to superstition. When has irrationality ever steered us wrong?
Oh, and you got the youngster/wise old fellow thing completely backwards. Science, by it’s very nature, is about finding answers, not claiming to have all answers, that is what religion does.
Scientists should stick to the ground where their minds dwell. The heavens are mainly uncharted territory. It’s a guessing game.
That’s where faith comes in. It’s a beautiful thing.
There are things humanity is simply too young to understand. We’ve been on the planet for the bat of cosmic eyelash. And, no, most scientists don’t believe they have all the answers. If they have any arrogance whatsoever, it may only be in believing that at least they are asking the right questions.
Religions can, if used properly, cause us to ask the right kinds of questions. But far too many religious people only use religions to give themselves pat and comforting answers.
Seriously, God is as logical as is science. We often do not give God enough credit for being logical. Science is much more of an attempt to understand the logic of God as is religion. Whenever the religious folks can’t align scientific logic with the “supposed teachings of God”, they choose to say that it is a matter of faith. What faith? the faith of illogical thinking ? God is not as stupid as we often pretend that he is. Peace.
Of course I agree. We find out new things everyday.
I disagree or mostly disagree. Science may not understand everything yet and we may have to built a greater knowledge base before we can understand various things. However, the statement indicates that religion or other “older” things may have a greater understanding in some areas. This simply is untrue and relies on very subjective judgments.
Edit:
There seems to be an unfounded thought or “belief” that less developed people were more in “tune” with nature or spirituality or had some sort of special knowledge or foreknowledge. There simply is nothing to indicate that this is actually true and in reality there is much evidence to the contrary.
Haven’t seen the movie. It helps to know what the rest of the discussion was before and after the quote. If I was commenting on the quote itself, I’d have to agree.
Science is a relatively new field of discovery and when a new discovery is constituted, the result is given the name “proof” or “fact”. Using the scientific method means doing four things:
1. Observation. See something and take notes about what it is.
2. Develop hypotheses. This means an idea is made or a theory is based on what is seen.
3. Experimentation. Test the hypothesis to see if it is true.
4. Observation again. How does what was learned in the experiment change what is known about what is being looked at?
My sister works in the field of astrophysics and she and many of her colleagues believe that science and spirituality are now considered one and the same. The universe being created by the same creator and given to mankind as a tool to expand their own imagination and renew their ways of thinking and to further mankind’s understanding of who we are and why we are here.
Yes I agree with this statement. We are still our infant stage. Hobble will answer some of those questions we still don’t have answers too.
Who says Science is any younger than religion?
Indeed, it’s trivially easy to prove the opposite. Animals presumably don’t have religion. But crows, parrots, pigs, dolphins, primates and even dogs and cats, hamsters and rats are constantly observing their environments and exploring them in structured ways, implying at least the primitive (and certainly pre-linguistic) ability to form a hypothesis (i.e., create a model) then confirm, elaborate and/or change that model by reference to experience.
Once humans climb down out of the trees, we are all about science (or rather it’s practical sibling, technology). I was listening to an archaeologist lecture, the other day, about recent finds in the UK, and he made the point that neolithic homo sapiens knew how to flake flint to produce ultrasharp, long-lasting edged implements in ways that modern, highly-motivated artisans equipped with all manner of tools cannot yet duplicate. 15,000 years ago, and those guys knew flint backwards and forwards. And they knew fire and peat and insulation and pigments and painting. And planting and harvesting and gathering. And what time of year the aurochs migrated, and so on. Their heads were just as full (if not more full) than ours with all the technological stuff of life.
And yes, most probably there was some spirit/shaman stuff in there, too. But to suggest that religion is older than man’s first attempts to understand and master the world is … just dumb. Nobody has time to think up complex pantheons of gods if they’re not killing enough aurochs to put food on the table, y’know? So at the very least, you have to assume that primitive religion and primitive science emerged at about the same time.
I say ‘at the very least,’ because to me, it seems fairly obvious that religion itself is the result of a quasi-scientific enterprise to model, understand, and ultimately control the world around us. So in fact, you could reason that science, not religion, is the elder discipline.
“Religion and Science aren’t enemies; There are simply some things science is too young to understand.”
I agree with the quote. Religion is the teacher with the rebellious and stubborn student: Science.