A king's grandson's big mistake

Originally posted by whereu: ↑

An attempt to find a common language between science and religion is a very difficult challenge.
Consider this:
Science is based on ideas that can be supported by rational reasoning and evidence. An important part of science is that ideas can be falsified. Ideas are often challenged and confirmed, modified, replaced or rejected. The focus is on the understanding of existence. Science admits when it doesn't know.
Religion is based on faith. The source of the faith is often, but not always, based on writings attributed to a supernatural entity. It is always based on some supernatural creator whose existence is also based on faith. Ideas are typically set with little room for advancing knowledge through challenges and many by there nature cannot be falsified. The idea of a supernatural creator is an example of this. The focus of religion is mostly pleasing the assumed supernatural creator. Religion doesn't admit that it doesn't know

You posted: And as far as the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are concerned, they have already determined that the universe was Created. This is not evidence that you or the majority of the scientific community will ever accept.
That is the language of the religious. The assertion that the universe was created by an unknowable creator cannot be falsified and is based on faith. Fortunately, the majority have often shown to be wrong. On the issue of never accepting, I agree because this is not evidence.

Science most likely will never have access to empirical evidence that the world has a Causation, because the Cause can't be part of what it Caused. So if you rely on science alone to prove Creation, it will never happen. If you rely on some kind of personal experience, then this has no basis in reality, it is only human perception.
That sounds right to me because your assertions are based on faith and not on evidence, and cannot be falsified. This is not science but religion.

Expand

Just saying that neither religion, nor science can prove God exists or does not exist, but the fact that the vast majority of people believe in a God and a Creation in a sense makes it real. It Creates its own perceptive reality and we are all subject to this reality. You being on this site is one example of that reality. Now that might not seem much of a statement, but science has made astonishing advances and it still hasn't penetrated those big questions as one would hope that it had. I think if this universe formed without a cause then we should be able to figure that out and maybe we will.

I understand the boundaries between science and religion and they are vast when it comes to science and fundamental religion. Far less so with a religion like the Baha'i Faith. Even so it probably doesn't matter because the religious cat is out of the bag and nobody is going to put it back. Religion and spiritual belief is a phenomena that maybe science should shine more of a light on. Maybe it can be switched off in the brain. Maybe it's an evolutionary delusion essential to our early survival. Maybe there is a truth behind it?

Probably best if science just keeps knocking down the superstition and dogma of religion and pushing into the unknown and one day an answer might materialise.

I don't really care that much anymore. Some kind of an answer used to be a big deal for me, but beyond a select few, I find people to be vexatious.