Science

The aim and purpose of Science however is completely different. The purpose of science is not to take a conscious being on a journey, subjective in nature. It is to establish principles, almost always in the language of mathematics, which describe the regular processes active in the natural world – we call them laws. In other words, science pertains to the objective realm.

If this is true, then religion and science are not even disciplines of thought within the same category! 

To ask whether science or religion has the 'truth' or 'true' answers to a question makes no sense. It is a ridiculous comparison – which means that, a society who accepts this premise is ridiculous, for having allowed such an obvious failure of reasoning to go unnoticed. It is like asking, "what is better food or water?", when both are vital.* To be clear, no one is suggesting it is necessary to adopt any specific religion, rather the emphasis is that we engage in the contemplation of sublime, non objective truths.

xv.

Science is limited to and pertains to the behavior of observable or indirectly measurable phenomena -- not their ORIGIN. Religion pertains to the active contemplation of events that are too beyond our material senses and understanding to 'know' or which occurred before the beginning of time. Religion does not in any way exist to explain in an ongoing investigatory fashion the behavior of the natural world. Nor does it seek to further human understanding in engineering, computation, space exploration, physics, etc. It communicates to us ideas or concepts not expressible in language, and which pertain to our subjective realities – it pertains to ethical or moral codes and speaks of conscious realms (dimensions of mind) beyond our objective or concrete understanding.

It is conceivable that cells within our body could communicate with each other, yet they cannot, individually, communicate with 'us' -- our mind, our plans, ideas, concepts, dreams and social fears are utterly beyond their comprehension and experience in every way.  They may only 'feel' through 'intuition' what our intentions are.  Religion is a gateway to such an intuition, where we are like the tiny cells, and the macrocosm (solar and galactic systems, etc.) are US.  Hyepr-conscious beings beyond comprehension.  While, also true is the fact, we are they.  Ponder on this.

Science doesn’t Say Things

Science is not a thing. Science does not ‘say’ anything, people say things; people make observations, inferences rightly or wrongly, and statements … science refers to a method of observation and inference pertaining to how we structure, interpret and order the world around us. The strength of any science is to demonstrate. Theoretic accounts which may not demonstrate (or in principle be demonstrated, as in the case of Universe creation) are not worthless, yet they are not science strictly speaking.

The scientific method is distinct from the institution we call the ‘scientific community’. One need not be a scientist to approach evidence scientifically. Nor does being a scientist guarantee a scientific way of mind. Also, the ‘scientific community’ is not a homogeneous entity, rather a combination of quite drastically distinct disciplines. (The Newton Principle)

Science vs. Bias

The goal of science is a more perfect understanding of the world. The purpose of the scientific method is to mitigate or neutralize human bias. Bias refers to the fact that every time we encounter a situation, we have an expectation. Sometimes this expectation is based upon how we are conditioned to expect things to be, how we want things to be, or how we don’t want them to be. Often times, how we expect things to unfold is based upon an incorrect assumption we’ve made about the world, ourselves or someone we know. Bias, then, is the allegiance to, or insistence upon the Unfounded. It is not just the enemy of Science, but constitutes the precise intellectual vulnerability she was erected to eradicate.

What the Scientific Method does (or is meant to achieve) is first and foremost systematically counter our Inherent Biases. This is achieved by establishing a standard of:

Independent Corroboration: having two or more groups increases likelihood of bonafide discovery and not partial interpretation of data.

Expression of Principle It isn’t enough to say “I expect such and such to happen” one has to describe ‘why’ in universally understood or recognized terms, pertaining to known mechanics, laws, or behaviors of natural world.

Falsifiable Predictions If a theory is correct, then one should be able to predict how a novel system should behave, if said to be governed by laws relevant to the theory.
The ability to test hypotheses by making predictions, and to have others confirm these results by replicating the process is the cornerstone of how bias is removed.

A hypothesis is a principled account of how a system should behave and why – it must be rooted in principles and testable.

Legitimate science (simply referring to operational science, the proper domain of science) is safeguarded by demonstration (in the form of replicated experiments); and prior to demonstration, hypotheses are grounded in the theoretical principles pertaining to them. The domain of inquiry pertaining to science are those matters which can be tested, observed, measured directly or indirectly, and expressed in a principled way (typically in the language of mathematics).

The objective world, in other words*, is the domain of scientific inquiry.
Examples of STEM science accomplishments/contributions.
Examples of non STEM sciences non-contributions to anything.

To recap so far: religious texts and practices pertain to the subjective state, ethical and transcendent quality of the individual – scientific pursuits seek to explain the objective world, the world observed and measured by our senses and instruments. Belonging to opposite domains (subjective vs objective,
immeasurable vs measurable) they [science and religion] are complimentary – and can no more reasonably be deemed superior or inferior, true OR false, than Hot and Cold can be called True and False! Or, to say that Hot is better than Cold when, both are defined relative to one another. This analogy is fitting because objective knowledge (about the world) is incomplete without the subjective understanding; (in the language of metaphor, emotion and intuition) and understanding must always be gained through contemplation.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” –Albert Einstein

There is a reason we teach children morals through stories called fables at a young age – the ethical truths they convey are best expressed through story, and such moral principles are as important as the practical skills of counting and mathematics. Certain truths may only be revealed or expressed through story.
All thoughts or beliefs based upon the premise of a false dichotomy are themselves false. This thinking – as we will discuss at length – is most dominant regarding life’s origins. We are led to accept that either we believe in a bearded man in the sky, or that life and the universe have accidental (non-intelligent, non purposeful) causes. What an absurd dichotomy!!!!!!!!! A (stereotypical caricature of a) religious person who claims “science is evil” and a secular person who denounces religion for being “anti-scientific” are both equally ridiculous for both are useful.

If figures of authority add more weight beyond what your reason alone is able to provide you, consider the following statements from the most historically acclaimed and transformative figures in Science.
Bohr: “Physics concerns what we say about nature”

Heisenberg: “Quantum theory provides us a stirring illustration that we can fully understand a connection though we can only speak of it in images and parables.”

Reconciliation

So, if we simply accept what the greatest scientists themselves have said, we arrive at the conclusion we’ve discovered ourselves through just a bit of contemplation: Science pertains to a specific aspect of reality – knowable, observable or measurable truths – and beneath these truths (or beyond them) there is a domain impenetrable to instruments but arrivable by contemplation, parable, metaphor and intuition. Truths that while not objective, are meaningful from a personal, sublime perspective.

----

If science and religion pertain to completely different aspects of life, they are not, then, in competition.
Conflict, then, is not real, but artificial – it is not intrinsic to science or religion, but is the consequence of undisciplined thought, or deliberate instigation by individuals or institutions in order to obscure truth, divide people, and assume power. Religion is inherently personal – as such, cannot be forced upon other human beings nor invoked in matters of public policy. Science is universal, and can be grasped, shared and communicated within the public sphere. If we look at the institutional history between the sciences and the church, this faux-conflict begins to make sense. We are caught in the crossfire of an institutional war that has NOTHING to do with the search for TRUTH, or the application of REASON devoid of BIAS. It is superstition, illogic, fear and ignorance being used to promote ideological agendas.

--%--

The Whole Truth

Because, as we discovered earlier all human behavior is controlled and coordinated by the mind, and the mind is patterned after beliefs and ideas, whoever controls the ideas and beliefs of a nation controls the nation. Whoever shapes the beliefs of a planet controls the world.
Whoever controls the institution controls you. And of course it won’t feel like you are being controlled, because you still think you are in control of your beliefs – but until you’ve contemplated the realities of cosmogenesis, biogenesis, consciousness and deity for yourself you are not free. No one can win your personal freedom but you.

Institutions such as Church and State exploit our innate desire to seek truths about the world. Consider that throughout history, human beings – even in times of war – have demonstrated a longing to discover, to reveal and uncover truths. That we have never, ever, not searched for a higher
understanding of the world. This is how powerful our curiosities are. And in an equally consistent and no less potent fashion, whenever large groups have resisted truths, it has been at the behest of the Church, State, Corporation or combination therein.

xxiii.

The state exploits the ideal of Freedom or liberty so that it may wage war or increase its control, while the Church exploits the Mysteries of our origin to advance its own (essentially) political agenda. Science seeks to dominate the narrative about our origin largely for being motivated by the institutional revenge against the church – seeing that the church never comes to power again.*

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Yet, to disagree with the state is not to hate freedom (in fact, exercising this right is the foundation of Liberty), and disagreeing with the church or the dogma it promotes is not to denounce or decry the creative agencies and intelligent processes responsible for the world’s creation.

The point is not to create a new ‘villain’ – because in truth, the villain is our own inability or unwillingness to improve our reasoning skills and