Political science groups often define that they are not religious in their theoretical concepts. But is this really true?
First we must define what is religion? Religion in fact is a belief. Now a theory is a belief. Soon theory is a religion. The difference of beliefs is in the amount of logical concepts it accepts.
For example a group of scientists believes that the universe is flat, others believe it is curved, each group has a block of concepts they claim to be true. But why does the scientific community accept all two groups but do not accept who believes the universe was created?
Because of a detail, I'll give you an example. In the Bible we find the following verse.
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
If I read and only say that the verse is true independent of my reasoning, then the scientific community determines that the individual is seeking to escape from reason, and then determine that this concept is not scientific.
That is, if we do not read with rational criteria we could create the universe according to the model. This model is a kind of universe pattern of the ancient Semites, or rather the ancient Middle Eastern culture. Among them we have the characteristic of having the concept of flat earth. But what's the problem? It is that the laws that we coexist so much would not support such a model.
See water on top, water underneath, a dome, stars glued to the flask. It would be impossible to use the law of gravity on such a model.
So what to do? Where is the problem? The problem is in how to read the text. We can read the text as an overview, or a vision limited to our concepts. But how is that?
If I see a pencil in a glass with water, the common sense is that the pencil is broken. But is it broken? There are laws of refraction that explain what is happening, when these laws are based, then the person understands what is happening. But if the person does not accept that there are these laws the person will say that the pencil in the water breaks and out of the water it by magic fixes.
Thus the universe as flat earth is the sight of someone using the rule that the pencil is broken and not broken inside the glass with water.
Let us now construct the verse with logic.
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Assumptions, for God.
It is impossible for the laws of the universe to evolve.
It is impossible for the laws of the universe to manage sentient beings with laws lower than these conscious beings.
It is impossible for a conscious being to be more complex than the universe they hold.
First conclusion: God composes the most complex consciousness the universe possesses.
Premises, for Creation.
The laws of the universe are extremely complex to be random.
It is numerically impossible to imagine probabilistically that the universe that we live arose at random.
Both earth and sky are analyzed that depend on time and therefore need a beginning.
Second conclusion: The universe was created.
So using the scientific logic we have that verse that says:
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It is rational and extremely plausible.
And even now building a rational logical concept, as the scientific community advocates, even so the political system of the scientific group, will consider that no matter how scientific the rules follow, if we cite the existence of God, then by closed political decree, its conclusions are as if he had not built a rational logical concept.
So much of the population has a great prejudice about creationism, and the mixture of science with the concept of the existence of a universal consciousness.
People may even say no, but just do a test. Imagine being told about digestion in a medical class, and that food is passed through the stomach, then through the intestine, and that the intestinal flora is something that digests what the body can not, and that in the end the speaker says, "See how God is wise." The question is. Would you accept it scientifically, or would you bias what he said? Separating one thing from the other? And if you separate, would you accept the previously exposed scientific logical analysis, or would you just ignore it, out of prejudice?
Creation, evolution, cosmology, science, Genesis 1: 1, entropy, flat earth, scientific theory, faith
Is Science Never Religion?
Theory is a type of religion.
theory
speculative, methodical and organized knowledge of a hypothetical and synthetic character.
Without using something rational it becomes irrational. Irrational is not science.
Physical laws tested in the laboratory. They are not theories.
Blind faith.
Just say that something is.
Scientific faith.
Build logic for the existence of something.
Physical laws are constant.
Law of Entropy.
Probability impossible.
Need of time.
Scientific community in their theories, make up as a religion of exclusivist thinking.
Education in general is prejudiced about the creationist system.
Do you test to see if there is a concept of prejudice or not?
