Science and Religion?

The issues between science and religion are often insurmountable and intractable but only when neither science or religion has the perspective of the “truth”.

The differences between how we discover the truth and how we verify or corroborate the facts leading up to a repeatable truth is often at the forefront of the controversy between science and religion and in both there has been a long history of denial, fraud, and deception, both purposeful and unintentional.

In the past religious dogmas held sway over the direction of virtually all information and had in its power the ability to accept or deny the steps of men toward truthful endeavors. In a general sense, that statement is true. Religions, mostly the few at the top and those in power did look negatively toward science and its perceived risks toward that power and control.

Even today with the advances in science reaching out in all areas of human development religious leaders are skeptical of the constant changes and obvious wonders that sciences seem to offer, competing with the past miracles of the Bible and offering comforts and conveniences for all from the constant pressures of life.

Good science is good, while bad science is deplorable. The same can be said of religion, good religion is great for the wellbeing and betterment of humanity, but bad religion destroys the human soul, even if you don’t believe in the soul, you get the point.

In the present science has taken the vanguard in search for truthmaking postulations and creating models that enhance their theories. Science has usurped the role of truthful arbitrator, they have become the judge and jury regarding what they believe is worthy of the truth or at least their role in its acquisition.

The truth may be debatable but once established it should never change, if it does change it was not the truth. Truths are constant. Incremental truths that form the foundation of greater truths help establish a pattern of thought and action for the pathway toward complete understanding.

From the perspective of religious theory or from scientific theory the search for truth is the motivator for all discovery.

One example is the religious scientist Galileo who proved his scientific worth through his contributions and modern perspective. Galileo has been called the "father of observational astronomy" the "father of modern physics”, the "father of the scientific method", and the "father of modern science". Galileo Galilei was then convicted of "vehemently suspect of heresy” and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

Despite what the “church” did, Galileo was right, and the world has discovered that science is a viable source of discovery toward that elusive goal of complete understanding, or the truth. Religious leaders at the time were unaware of the leaps toward understanding before them when confronted by Galileo and reacted blindly. It took a few hundred years in some cases for those in religion to catch up.

If the goal for religion and science are essentially the same, why is science and religion at odds when both are trying to achieve a measure of understanding? We know that most of science is based on incremental achievements with some dramatic advances along the way. It is also understood that those advances are increasing, with some at an alarming rate bringing man closer in many ways to the essential truths of life.  Science relies on facts and theories.

Religion is a faith based approach that works in areas that are unproven and not factual but has helped to achieve overall goodness and positive attitude of life in general, and when seen in its totality and compared to the harm that it’s caused the net effect has been positive. Billions find solace in the morality and in the connection to a greater purpose but like science, the cause and effect of individuals is often a major cause of concern, but when viewed through political eyes the risk of death is compounded exponentially for both science and religion.

The basic rift between religion and science is within the process of discovery. Scientist utilizes the scientific method as outlined by Galileo and is "A techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

When look back into history it is very easy to see the compounding mistakes faulty science has created. Too often modern scientists have forsaken the founding principles of scientific research and filled the gaps in their research with a variety of creative patches. See the article attached:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/10/21/how-science-goes-wrong

The result is widespread speculation based on incomplete conclusions. When a scientist states the “the science is settled” It really means that their tired of trying to find the truth or are too invested to admit the failures they’ve found in order to continue riding the gravy train of modern science funding.

Religions have also fudged their findings and create scenarios that are unsustainable, not repeatable and fall into the category of sleight of hand or inspiration.  Should we throughout all religion because of the dubious attempts by some? If your answer is yes, then should we abandon science as well for the same reasons?

Most of religion is an everyday practice toward what is right vs what is wrong and the choices its followers make to live according to those principles they believe will help them achieve peace of mind and eternal joy. Science is also an everyday process of substantiating the work of others and expanding those fundamental principles of partial truths. Both make claims, and both create positive choices for their followers. 

It is obvious that not all science is good nor is all religion good but for the most part, the endeavor toward the truth should be allowed in both attitudes of acceptance. I don’t see the conflict as destructive or mutually exclusive but as a differing perspective searching for the same truths. Not unlike competing theories within science or rival sects within religion.  

You may feel profoundly different and want to remove the competition altogether but that would be a huge mistake, not only for your side of the controversy but for humanity. If you balance all the good of both with all the bad. For example, the inquisition vs social media, what is worse? Compare deaths due to science and deaths vs religious wars? 

These are hard numbers to tabulate. Religious wars are not strictly wars over religious beliefs, many were but most had political motivations attached and those wars may have been perpetrated by leaders who did not follow the precepts of their own religious order. It is a mistake to attribute all wars of the past and the associated deaths with religion as it is a mistake to do so with science. 

Should we blame science for the current opioid crisis? Or from a more general nature should we place blame on science for the deaths and damage due to global warming and its effects from industrialization due primarily from scientific advances? 

Within both categories, the lists of negative effects can be never-ending as we point the microscope of hindsight or a telescope into the future and attempt to predict or associate the deaths that have occurred and the deaths that might occur. Instead, we should all look toward the Good science and the Good religions and glean what we can to improve our lives toward our own search for the truth. This is not a race toward the truth, winner takes all but an effort to live by the truth, whoever finds it, whenever it is found. 

Have a great new year.

The death of men

As a man, the idea of being emasculated is frightening.  The very thought of succumbing to the effects of such a condition is beyond my capacity to willfully consider, but even if it happens, my consciousness would attempt to protect my fragile ego by denying the effects, even as I and we capitulate our will, surrender our desires and give up our manhood, making excuses like, “we’re doing the right thing” or “it’s better for society”, or my favorite, “that’s what women want”, sealing our powerless and impotent existence to the choices of others who want nothing more than to enslave us, control us and manipulate our very essence and genetic sovereignty.

The role of men has been vigorously debated and for the most part, thrown into the dustbin of relevance as most of the issues revolve around the abhorrent actions of a few sexual predators and selfish tyrants destroying any good will than man used to have.

In our country and in the world, man has been forced to relinquish their standard roles of provider and protector to the enraged and willful desires of women.   Not all women and not even most women but loud and hateful women who care nothing about the damage they are doing to men and boys. 

Nature or God or whatever you think is appropriate has a plan.  If you don’t believe in God so be it, nature will suffice.  Both are working from the same playbook and both have the same goals in mind for man (and yes women too) despite what we have collectively allowed to transpir men and women have differing roles, differing perspectives and when combined become greater than the sum of their individual parts.

There is a thing called genetics that defines all that exist.  There are some exceptions but to date those exceptions are minuscule.  99.93 of all humans are genetically defined as either male or female.  Gender is a different story altogether and encompasses awareness, the developmental process and a score of variables that affect the self-identification and how an individual relates to others but in the topic of male and female, there should be no debate.

Society has clouded the reality of birth with the notion that by invoking a simple choice anyone can change who they want to be genetically.  I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but changing what you are is 100% impossible.  Changing who you are is a different process.   The confusion for many comes from the desire to be different than what you were born to be.  Failure to follow the natural course is one of the causes of man’s self-emasculation.

We all have the right to fine-tune who we are, enhance or disrupt the essence of what makes us, us.  Our attitudes, our desires, and goals but anything we wish to accomplish must be within the parameters of what we are.  That is not a limiting condition but one of the endless possibilities and potential. 

Many men, and for a variety of reasons are not happy with their lives.  They then move in directions contrary to their genetic foundations, moves that not only alter their behaviors but alter their perceptions about who they are and their role in society and life. Determining the exact percentage of those who identify as gay, bi or whatever is extremely difficult, but the following link helps to define the numbers, the sources and the difficulty associated with understanding who is gay, who is straight and who is something else. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

That discontent and the erroneous percentages of a ground-breaking research project has influenced the thinking of most toward total acceptance of the idea that “Gay is Normal”.  While being gay is defiantly a choice as supported by the Kinsey’s headline finding that “at least 37% of the male population has some homosexual experience between the beginning of adolescence and old age”, meaning physical contact to the point of orgasm, meaning acting at times gay but deciding to remain heterosexual, getting married, having children and choosing the sexual style to maintain that perception and genetic predisposition. 

How many experiences are required to institute a new gender?  My simple point is that the word gender has supplanted the word for biology.  The biological science is clear, what is not clear for many is the evolving gender role, especially for emasculated men and disenfranchised women.  Gender used to be static, there were males and there were females and in-between there were biologically dysphoric individuals, generally ranging from 1 to 2% with most of those being resolved through early medical treatments. 

2% of the population has green eyes as well but because sex is not involved the dysphoria of identity is not an issue. 

A reader posed a question to me the other day, “why do trees get it right?”  Trees spend nothing on their own behalf.  They have no specific agenda nor political motivation except to grow where they are planted.  Why do trees or nature, in general, succeed within their confined existence?  Do trees suffer from an emasculation syndrome?  There are some species that have different patterns of sexual behavior and even some like the worm that is both male and female (I think, I didn’t spend much time researching the worm).

The question of why does nature as a whole succeed where man does not, keeping in mind that our lack of success is actuated toward a small percentage of our population, but the effects of that small percentage have had resounding effects on the masculinity of males in general, that’s why we talk about it.  Nature follows the rules that have been instituted and are therefore more inclined toward success as a result.

We are forced to honor women by dishonoring ourselves, and in the process, we lose all respect for womanhood.  We are forced to acknowledge the self-indulgent identity of those who have forsaken their own natural individuality and in the process, we are left questioning ourselves.  Our ability to provide for our families is subjugated by our marginalized roles as husbands and fathers and our ability to protect those we love has been sidelined by the lack of loving relationships.  Men (not man and women in this case) have been marginalized and emasculated to the point where they are forced to find love where they can protect what they can and provide for whoever seems to come along.  You can buy anything in the world with money but like all things focused around money, they tarnish easily, are hard to handle and in the end, leave you broke and wanting more.

Many have said that men are responsible, many men are, but in no greater degree than everyone else who buys into the fallacy of a marginalized family, loose morals, selfish motivations and a serious lack of spirituality.  What good is a man without a family?  That is not to say that single men do not have value but in a societal sense is not procreation an essential aspect and is not the family a significant moderator that stabilizes that process?

The family is the foundation of all society, it used to be the reason why boys grew to be men.  Making a family used to be the central and singular reason for getting married and the framework that kept men home, happy and motivated toward upholding the vows of marriage but now it’s too easy to leave, too easy to separate, too easy to just give up.  You can look up the statistics on this one, in almost every category the family is in a drastic decline, taking its toll on the fabric of America and has contributed to the emasculation of men overall.

There are numerous reasons why males are failing to become men. 

1.  Girls become women by simply growing up, but boys have historically had to pass a test.  There are no tests today, boys no longer must show that they’ve become a man, regardless of their sexual preference.

2.  Social Media has infected our boys with pornography and gaming, stripping them of their desire to achieve or be responsible. 

3.  Education has devoted its efforts to the female psyche forsaking the learning needs of boys for girls.  

In his book, Boys Adrift, Dr. Leonard Sax explains that boys need — not want — to be responsible. If they are not needed, they don’t flourish.  Boys need to be responsible, they need, not want to be needed and our society has systematically destroyed those opportunities by portraying men as incompetent, immature and self-absorbed.   Hollywood has methodically enhanced the collective idea that men are no longer able and responsible and have done so very effectively.

We need our Men back.  We need our boys to grow into Men and we need our families back, two parents working together to raise their children to be Men and Women of great worth.  This will not come easy, especially now when we have allowed it to degrade, but we all need to fight for what is right.  The problem is that the boys that usually go off to battle and become Men no longer want to fight.  So, the emasculation continues…