Science VS Religion

When you prowl the Internet, you can occasionally see people arguing about science versus religions. Usually both delegates have pretty bad arguments: The science guy tries to explain what science is, while the religion guy tries to gain support from quotes of religious texts.

Religions try to explain the existence, and in a way try to link the progress in a life to the afterlife. Religions are works of imagination, no matter how strong an individual tries to believe or is impressed by a story. Religions are a pre-science way to understand or explain the happenings in the world, but most importantly ways to give a life a purpose. There have been beliefs probably for millions of years. People tried to explain why some disease killed somebody or why lightning struck a tree. Beliefs and religions come and go. Some more sophisticated religions contain references to real life. For example, no doubt Jesus lived, but was he really “a magician” or a miracle maker? It is more likely that he was an extremely influential person with pretty good insights to life, but everything else around it is probably fabricated or misunderstood. People tend to have an ability to magnify the real happenings and fill empty spaces to have an uniform story to pass on to next generations. It is like a habitual trait. People need structure. Trying to connect the existence, reason for it and real life occurrences to one explanation is kind of far fetched. If somebody dies, why does it have to be a will of a god? It could also be that the god had nothing to do with anyways, so you are practically blaming the god for no reason, which is heresy and blasphemy?

I have never read any religious texts completely, mainly because the executions are outdated or themes are kind of childish. I started to read the bible, but I had to stop when there started to come out a list of some kind of family tree of a guy(?). I actually have something better to do in my life, than read something, which does not have any actual relevance to reality, or the reference is long gone. It reminded me as if I started to read a phone book, and from that trying to understand life. I believe that many religious texts have good intentions and life advice when reading between the lines. But so does reading a phone book, which tells plainly that there are just people and this is the list of life? People tend to explain things that they do not understand. There are also psychological factors that can affect the perception of an individual. Somebody was probably in psychosis or on drugs, who knows?

Where is the problem? The problem is when a person tries to convert another person or push predilections onto somebody else. Is it right to exploit a person who is vulnerable to believe whatever is there and sounds good? Is it right to enforce beliefs to somebody who does not want to believe? Same goes another way, is it right to enforce thoughts on somebody who does want to believe? Does this actually mean that your religious beliefs are wrong if you are trying to enforce your beliefs? Is it evidence that if there are multiple religions, they are probably all wrong? In the end, it could even escalate to violence, which is proven many times in history. Anyhow, religious texts are always prone to be exploited by somebody who is narcissistic, psychopathic and power hungry, or more commonly self-righteous. This is where religions are at their weakest. People like to prove that another person is wrong. It is a continuous loop, which does not prove anything.

Thoughts. People are built from thoughts? It is normal to have thoughts and feelings, that is what makes us people, humans. This is how science explains life. Science is a key to everything, to understand the lock of existence, is probably the most religious way to explain science. Science can be right or wrong, but the difference to religions is that science evolves, innovates and reforms its concepts and implementations. Science never claims to be the ultimate truth, as some religions do, but it is the most sophisticated tool to understand “the truth”. For example, religious beliefs and texts are built around predefined concepts, there are boundaries. During the test of time, either the religion will disappear, it will stay as a hollow shell for a tradition, or the texts will get adjusted. By adjustment, I mean somebody uses his power to interpret religious beliefs/texts to match the purpose of the belief and religious agenda to the current ambiance or attitude of the population, as if trying to rebrand the old ways. Religion is prone to be mismanaged by a man, and a vector can be made that it is a will of a man. Religion is the feeling of presence of a supernatural force, and a journey is to honor by worshipping it and finding markers leading to the righteous path. From a “scientific” point of view, it is completely normal to have feelings, but the difference between right and wrong is how extreme these feelings are driving an individual to a path, how ill the methods are to enforce thoughts. Probably the most common sense method to spot an individual, who has lost the way of the god, is the one who does not understand that there are other people around, who believe in other realities. Belief is an individual feeling and it should gather around people who believe the same way, not enforce it on those who do not want to. This is what divides a man from right and wrong, ill and sane.

Science is an idea of thinking in the context of finding evidence. Classical fallacy between religious and scientific people in the Internet is an argument similar to this: Triggering effect could be (not making a remark that it is always a fault of a religious individual) that an religious individual brings in something religious to the table in the subject of, let say, sports. We can even take more specific subjects, for example Mixed Martial Arts and Khabib Nurmagomedov, and his glorious success in life. A religious person says that the success of Khabib is because of a god. Scientific guy says that there is no god. Then the interaction between these guys takes a lane of cluttered perceptions of realities, which actually proves the point. Religious guy says, which is actually something that somebody has said, that if you can not touch or see gravity, it does not exist. The last notion from a religious “proof” is probably the simplest rhetoric I have ever seen, but it is also proof of the quality of the mob. The mob means a generic population who can not think more sophisticatedly, probably lack education, has limited understanding, but still have to take part in an argument. The argument keeps going on and on in the same lane of nonsense, both guys trying to poke each other with some derogatory ideals, in simplest terms, just to hurt each other. And it is not just only about this case sample, but it is probably happening widely in the whole Internet. Is it really surprising? No, actually it is not, you can see the same quality of talk in any local pub around cheap beer (or other substance) in any part of the world. Or the kids in the local kindergarten having an argument over who has a stronger father. The point is, if you are a believer of science, you are probably wrong. If you are a zealot of a religion, you are probably wrong. Why is it so hard to keep some slack in your thinking? Why is it important to always be right and somebody else has to be wrong? I think the key for thinking is the classical phrase, I know that I do not know. Let people believe what they want to believe. Let people experience life on their own terms.

Another case study was when I had an argument with a person who had a background in science and in scientific institutions. The argument was about the subject of intelligence and motivation. The subject raveled around a board game. I said something similar that I do not have the intelligence to beat my opponent, and the opponent said that there is only motivation. The argument evolved a little while and the person deemed that the only difference between people is the motivation, in his words people are pretty much equal, for example in intelligence. I tried to illustrate the intelligence part by taking an example of Magnus Carlsen, probably the best chess player in the world. With simplified terms and Magnus Carlsen, I tried to explain that intelligence is a physiological trait, determined by brain tissue, which derives a usage of memory and pattern recognition. The other person insisted on his beliefs, and explained that “motivation is a complex thing”. I do understand that there is a motivation, which is the defining factor between a person who has motivation and the other who has not. But in my opinion, motivation is only a beginner attribute. It is not a magical well, which will give a person supernatural powers to exceed the physiological definitions. Motivation can be measured by time. With that time, you can train, study, focus and do whatever you believe helps to achieve victory, even cheating. If there are two individuals who have the same amount of motivation, the only separating things are the physiological traits and sometimes luck. That is why there are rankings, for example in chess or intelligence quotients. I could not ever beat Magnus Carlsen in chess, even if I practiced 24 hours a day for the rest of my life, with the best help I could get in the world. This is the fact. Even my psychologist said in my evaluation that my intelligence is lower than most people have, mainly because of poor memory usage, and I can not do anything about it. But the other fact in this argument, is that the other person is not familiar with the competitive world: He does not like or play video games, he does not watch sports or he has never taken part in any competitive sports. Practically he did not have a perspective to the subject at all, which is why he believes this way. We happened to play a board game, and the argument got him naked, even though he is a very bright and intelligent person. I did not start bickering about it much, I just let him believe what he knew. Nothing I could do about it. There is a darkside, though. Some people purposely mask their achievements under the motivation, even if it is obvious that they are cheating, for example in the competitive bodybuilding business. Substances are “illegal” in sports, so it is good to have a chance to give the audience false impressions of what is possible and what is not.

The Life

What is life? Life is a progress of evolution to mold the future of organisms for greater existence and survival. But what about individuality? Does life have a purpose for a unit? It surely feels extremely personal experience, considering how sinister and dangerous our surroundings are. Can you really trust anything? Can you trust a fellowship? To some extent, yes, considering friends and family, but does it really give consolation to the grim dark fate we all are going to face? Absolutely not, of course if you are expert at ignoring it, then yes. What about the status of your life, does it matter?

I am a narcissist, who is working extensively to suppress the inner stem of vanity. I have always wanted to be the best of the best, to be a legendary or at least elite on something. Usually when observing other people, there are lots of people who triumph and some do not. In my case, it is somewhat sadistically hilarious to observe my own life goals to be failures, and actually see how these failures feel in contrast to an extremely narcissist tendency of craving for excellency.

When I was a child, I wanted to be the best ice-hockey player, and I was pretty good at skating and fast for using a hockey stick, but I never had a chance to play in an actual team. The reality check was the individuals who were playing in actual teams, who could beat me in it by physical profiles and skill. I always played solo, while hockey is about team play. I am glad I did not pursue it, because I played for myself, not for the team.

Later years I wanted to be the best at arts: drawing, painting or digital arts. The real fuel for my purpose was the reality that I managed to get into an arts academy, which was hard for me, but it actually deepened my delusions of being an influential figure in the arts. It was a great feeling though, to feel that this is it, I actually found it, I have a divine purpose, this is the sign and everything is possible between earth and sky. The signs were already from early childhood, everybody praised my artistic skills in paper and everybody supported it in school and home. But there was always a looming menace in the background. What if somebody is better, what are the odds? There was actually a person who was better than me in my childhood, who was technically better, mainly because he practiced more than I did, while I merely practiced in school when I had to and rarely in my free time. I was jealous of the opponent, but he was a good guy and I actually silently venerated him best I could in my narcissistic head.

In the arts academy, the self importance got a little bit out of hand. While I was there, while working really hard, my ego grew and grew, and I actually started to build a vision of being an elite “player”, maybe even a legendary artist among the greatests. Was the entry to the arts academy a divine sign or was it an odyssey? Yes, it was an odyssey, a zany trip to delusions. I had skills, but only in a class of thousands of other artists in the world, not including those who are actually even better. How did I know? The reality check was that nobody is interested in my work. I tried to seek display time in various galleries, but they were not interested. “The national gallery” said that I need to go through a ladder of lesser galleries and build some sort of CV. I asked from a couple of lesser galleries, but some never answered or there were time tables. From these, I made a quick judgment, that if my work would have made an impact or it would have had any artistic value, somebody would have paid attention. Even though the sample (galleries) was generally quite small, I drew the quick conclusion that nobody is interested. I understand that building an artistic profile might require lots of work, but at that point the well was already exhausted.

Does art need recognition? In my world, yes. What is the point of living if there is no grandeur? The life support of an artist, in my opinion, is that to produce art it stems from a well of motivation, and the well is filled by response and admiration of an audience. My well is depleted and all I can do is just to quit, because it was all about an odyssey. I had no grand plan for what other prosperous people had. The bone that is left is probably the evolutionary purpose. Just to acknowledge it and focus on death, because that is what life is about. To figure out death? Well I am pretty sure, with my way of life, I will not die within ten years. But there are lots of environmental effects which affect the end result quite drastically: diseases, pollution and people. My empirical view is that my genetic makeup is quite ordinary, so all these hazards have quite a good impact. I am pretty sure I will die in 20 or 30 years, although I want to live at least a little bit more than 40 years from now. Why? To test the time and evaluation.

Is it quite hard to sit down, look and see, to probe death for 20 to 40 years? Well, yes it is, at least for those whose interests are elsewhere. My current interests are in figuring out death, how and when it comes, because that is the way to be prepared. I am currently 38 years old, and I am fairly sure that my death is coming after 20 years, because of environmental effects (pollution and people). The point is not figuring out what is becoming after death, because that is just a waste of imagination (religion and other mumbo jumbo). The fact is that there have been people for millions of years on earth, and other life forms, and when I am dead, there will be others after me. Probably there will be blackness or incarnation, who knows, the identity is shredded and I do not exist anymore, and it is actually good, because my life had no purpose or grandeur. After my death, nobody remembers me, same as nobody remembers a person somewhere 2 million years ago. What is the point of sit and see? The point is to be prepared for becoming wrath, to be ready to die, to accept the horrors of losing self-preservation, losing the control of your life. Some say that “enjoy your life as long as it lasts”, but that is just a variation of attitude, something to do for someone who doesn't care or can not focus, or who is afraid of thinking about it (death).

Would it be easier to do a suicide? Practically yes, but if there is a creator, who tests you? Not referring precisely to any Abrahamic religion or other forms of imagination. It is just good to keep in mind that if there is something that tries to tell your purpose, and somehow guides you through life, and ending your life prematurely, would be a waste of the individual grand plan, and would be punishable by that creator. That is why death is something to fear, something to not take lightly. How to die? It is about preparing the mind for an equilibrium. You constantly know that you are inhaling toxic air (fibers, heavy metals, dusts, particulates, microbes, gasses …), all contributing to your death. It is 90% likely that you will die in a grand war. It is all about conquering fear. When you are in a battlefield, and a carpet bomb hits, you can close your eyes and accept it, because you knew this would be it.

Are these symptoms of loneliness? Would love save a lonely, depressed wanderer? It is surely something to do. Raising a family is a work, to generally waste your thoughts for. I do not generally believe in love, because it is a narcotic, to be dependent on something, like that would be the purpose of life, while it actually is not. Death is the purpose of life? An offspring is a good motivational, evolutionary concept for an individual who believes in it, but it does not save you from your doom. Also, it doesn't matter who breeds, because there would probably be someone who breeds anyway, and it does not have anything to do with you personally. Some people, like politicians or religions, these heretics of life, like to affect other people's lives, because it bothers them that you do not believe like them. It is a consolation against loneliness, that people gather around to feel unity in a dystopian world. Still, the individual life and death is a personal voyage. In other words, death comes within a person, while life comes outside of a person. Cynicism can be described as a great shield for defending fate. It is a heavy burden, but it is all you have in a lonely trip in a chaotic world, and it will ensure your safe journey to the gates of doom.