๐‘บ๐’‘๐’Š๐’“๐’Š๐’•๐’–๐’‚๐’ ๐‘ฑ๐’๐’–๐’“๐’๐’†๐’š ๐’•๐’ ๐‘จ๐’ˆ๐’๐’๐’”๐’•๐’Š๐’„๐’Š๐’”๐’Ž

in religion โ€ขย  6 years agoย 

Politics & Religion, two subjects that we are told never to discuss in polite company. In an attempt to explain myself, I am going to broach the latter subject, which unfortunately has caused a few friends & even family stop speaking to me. Religion is a tricky subject. People tend to get emotional when one doesnโ€™t conform to their beliefs yet get just as upset if someone expects them to conform. Iโ€™ve seen seen any value in getting angry or hating someone because of what they believe (or donโ€™t believe). I find social bonds & friendships more fulfilling when you value who a person is, as a whole, rather than what โ€œtribeโ€ they claim. Nevertheless, Iโ€™ve lost relationships because people discovered I didnโ€™t follow their doctrine.

I donโ€™t really like using labels because they tend to force people into a box but if I have to give myself one I would say Iโ€™m agnostic. Though, I didnโ€™t start life out that way. My Father is Catholic & my Mother Pentecostal, so I was baptized (christened) Catholic. In elementary I attended catholic school, went to Sunday school, & was even an alter boy. These are what I refer to as the โ€œindoctrination yearsโ€ in ones life. Itโ€™s the learning of what ones โ€œtribeโ€ expects you to believe before one has the mental fortitude to question those beliefs. For me, the acceptance of this biblical explanation & dogma was not easy and frequently impossible. My curiosity would force me to ask questions. Questions I didnโ€™t know were not supposed to be asked. Questions like โ€œWhat did the animals on the ark eat since animals eat other animals?โ€, โ€œDid no one else know how to build boats?โ€ & โ€œWhere did Caine & Sethโ€™s wives come from?โ€. After getting punished by nuns & my parents I learned to keep my inquiries to myself. Though I would leave catholic school after 3rd grade, I mindlessly claimed Catholicism as my religion up until my teenage years.

Maybe it was because my parents had strayed from the rigidity of weekly service or maybe because my mothers side of the family was Pentecostal, whatever the reason in my teenage years I was never prohibited from attending churches of different faiths. These years are what I would come to call my (first) โ€œCrisis-of-faithโ€. I had a nagging in the back of my mind for answers. Answers my current proclaimed faith wasnโ€™t providing. Unfortunately, attending services wouldnโ€™t provide answers either. Each service was little more than a summation of a passage or few. A parable & the faiths interpretation of it. This didnโ€™t go deep enough for me. I decided a better course of action would be going to the source material myself with no preconceived notions. To this day I donโ€™t know any Christians who have read the entire bible, cover to cover. I did it twice. I wrote annotations in the margins that referred to a folder of my own notes. I would go into deep though about sections attempting to make sense out of contradictions. I would read other books that attempted to explain some of these. All of this got me absolutely no where so I went even deeper. Researching Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, ect. I also dove into historical religions such as Greek Gods, Norse Mythology, Zoroastrianism, Paganism, ect. I learned a lot but nothing provided answers. Desperate & exhausted, I conceded that I would stay catholic & moved on.

A few years later I got back involved with my love of science & more specifically physics, astronomy, & cosmology. It was during this time I developed great reverence for something Iโ€™ve long known to be exceptional, the Scientific Method. When applied properly the scientific method uncovers empirical facts & truths about the nature of reality, nature, the universe, & more. Itโ€™s a flaw correcting path toward enlightenment. It was during this scientific journey that I faced my (second) โ€œCrisis-of-Faithโ€.

A modern misconception, science is not inherently opposed to religion. The conflict arises when occasionally science uncovers truths that dispel a part of religious dogma. This happened with Copernicusโ€™ & Galileoโ€™s Heliocentric model. It happened with the mounting evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years old. It happened when Edwin Hubble uncovered evidence that led Catholic Priest Georges Lemaรฎtre to form his โ€œBig Bang Theoryโ€. Compelling as they are, this is not what turned me away from religion.

My awakening was caused by something every scientist knows & everyone should practice, objectivity. Quite simply, I do not have enough evidence to say with certainty weather or not a deity exists. Itโ€™s the same reason Iโ€™m not an atheist. Yes, itโ€™s ok to form a hypothesis based on the information at hand but one should try to stay objective until one has the answer. For me, science provided more answers than anything else. You could say science filled the void of faith for me.

Religion can be helpful & good but frequently itโ€™s used as a way to teach people (questionable) morality & provide a figurative carrot & stick for obedience. I donโ€™t murder, steal, & rape because itโ€™s wrong not because a book or priest told me to. If, rather than prepare our entire existence for an afterlife, we focused on the here & now, we could make our own Heaven on Earth.

Posted using Partiko iOS

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order: ย 
ย  ยท ย 6 years agoย 

First, this is a great piece. I also do not follow blindly the words that are written by "man". In my case however this doesn't only include our preformed notions of religion, as I also consider our modern science as no more then the newest religion we are being taught. Now, don't get me wrong, I love science and it's ability to teach us. However, I also know that a lot of "science" is still just theories.(like and especially gravity.) Of my questions I have concerning science, one of the biggest is this.... If we live in a positive pressure system(our atmosphere, with it's gasses), and space is an absolute vacuum...what prevents our positive pressure atmosphere from escaping into the vacuum? The laws of physics(given by scientists) state that gasses will ALWAYS migrate from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. In my experience and according to scientific law, if a gas is to be contained under pressure...you must have a sealed system. Our atmosphere is the only example I have ever found that disobeys this scientific law. And on the reverse side...what stops spaces' perfect vacuum from encompassing us? And just one more thing that blows my scientific mind....Water never conforms to(and sticks) to the outside surface of any container.(it must be held on the "inside" of a bowl or cup to not lose or spill it.) However, Earth holds all it's water on the outside?? And we are going through space at 100s of millions of miles per hour?!? To me, it just sounds like more of man making up stories to keep us busy from finding out humanities true values, meanings, and purpose. Dear brother, i hope you have an awesome day. And thank you so much for sharing your views with us and allowing us so much insight into your life and your beliefs. I send my best loving vibrations your way and hope you the best.๐Ÿค—

ย  ยท ย 6 years agoย 

Thanks for the compliment on the piece. One of the biggest problems that most of us get hung up on is the term โ€œ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜บโ€. In lay terms โ€œ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜บโ€ means exactly what we all think, a system of ideas intended to explain something. Basically, itโ€™s best guess. In science that is called a hypothesis. Scientific theory is a little different. A popular reference website defines it pretty well:

A Scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A good example would be the theory that if I hold my hand on a hot stove top it will hurt. As many times as I do this it will always be a theory. It can never become scientific โ€œ๐˜“๐˜ข๐˜ธโ€ because they arenโ€™t the same thing. A law is a description of an observed phenomena. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it, nor is it intended to. Itโ€™s sometimes helpful to think of Newtons Three Laws Of Motion. They all describe observed actions & reactions of something in our reality yet they never seek to explain why they do what they do. Another is his Law of Gravity (Lแด€แดก Oา“ Uษดษชแด แด‡ส€sแด€สŸ Gส€แด€แด ษชแด›แด€แด›ษชแดษด), which states that:

โ€œแด‡แด แด‡ส€ส แด˜แด€ส€แด›ษชแด„สŸแด‡ ษชษด แด›สœแด‡ แดœษดษชแด แด‡ส€sแด‡ แด€แด›แด›ส€แด€แด„แด›s แด‡แด แด‡ส€ส แดแด›สœแด‡ส€ แด˜แด€ส€แด›ษชแด„สŸแด‡ แดกษชแด›สœ แด€ า“แดส€แด„แด‡ แด€สŸแดษดษข แด€ สŸษชษดแด‡ แดŠแดษชษดษชษดษข แด›สœแด‡แด. Tสœแด‡ า“แดส€แด„แด‡ ษชs แด…ษชส€แด‡แด„แด›สŸส แด˜ส€แดแด˜แดส€แด›ษชแดษดแด€สŸ แด›แด แด›สœแด‡ แด˜ส€แดแด…แดœแด„แด› แดา“ แด›สœแด‡ษชส€ แดแด€ssแด‡s แด€ษดแด… ษชษดแด แด‡ส€sแด‡สŸส แด˜ส€แดแด˜แดส€แด›ษชแดษดแด€สŸ แด›แด แด›สœแด‡ sวซแดœแด€ส€แด‡ แดา“ แด›สœแด‡ แด…ษชsแด›แด€ษดแด„แด‡ ส™แด‡แด›แดกแด‡แด‡ษด แด›สœแด‡แด.โ€

Though it seems complex he was simply stating very technically the observable actions when an apple falls to earth. Newton had no clue why or what caused any of this happened. It would take 150+ years & the brilliant Albert Einstein to solve that riddle.

This terminology being misunderstood has become so frustrating for scientists that some want to do away with these words altogether. Weโ€™re already seeing โ€˜๐˜ฎ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญโ€™ replace โ€˜๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ๐˜บโ€™ in some cases.

This is not to say that theories canโ€™t be wrong because they absolutely can. To me, thatโ€™s the beauty in science. This is a failsafe built into the Scientific Method. The answer or explanation for something can always be modified, expanded, simplified, or even retracted when we are presented with new evidence. Frankly, it just means keeping an open mind. I think humanity would be better off if we treated all subjects & each other like this.

Now, on to your questions. You are correct, we live in a positive pressure atmosphere & space is a vacuum. Common sense tells us that the atmosphere should evaporate. However when you consider everything at play in this system it becomes clearer. First, what makes the atmosphere positive pressure? After all, there are gas clouds in space & they arenโ€™t positive pressure bubbles floating along. Quite simply, the positive pressure is the weight of those gases exerting force downward toward the earth. Itโ€™s the reason the atmosphere gets thinner & thereโ€™s less oxygen the higher you go. Atmosphere is constantly pushing down on us but what causes this? Itโ€™s one of the strangest forces in the universe, Gravity. That atmosphere is made up of gases & gases are made of atoms like everything else. Even though itโ€™s minuscule, those atoms have mass. Gravity pulls on them the same way it does you or me. Itโ€™s part of the reason Marsโ€™ atmosphere is 1/1000th that of earths, Mars is around half Earths size. Jupiter is so Massive that pressures are thought to be able to crush carbon clouds into diamond rain. Particles of light, called Photons, are particles with absolutely zero mass yet strong enough gravity still can act on them. Gravity seems a simple notion but itโ€™s actually very complex. Different aspects of it confounded Newton, Einstein, & Hawking.

This is one of my favorite subjects & enjoy discussion with other curious individuals. Though I can go on about it ad nauseam. I really hope this helped to clarify. Have a great day.

Posted using Partiko iOS

ย  ยท ย 6 years agoย 

Awesome response. And thank you for it. I think we may have to agree to disagree.๐Ÿ˜ For when an apple is loosed from a tree, i observe an object that is denser then it's surroundings(atmosphere) that falls through said surroundings until it meets an object of similar or greater density(ground). Just as i observe a gravity so weak it cannot stop smoke or water vapor from rising. Yet, it was explained to me that it is what pulls the rain to the ground from the clouds.(once the droplet are big enough.) Once again density seems to be an explanation that seems more plausible. As the water vapor is less dense then the surrounding atmosphere, it rises. Then once it joins back together in the form of clouds, it becomes denser then it's surroundings, and falls.
Density/buoyancy rules my observations but feel free at a rebuttal should you wish. I do have to say, I absolutely enjoy talking to you. Glad I found you dear friend.(And I've lost friends and loved ones because of my beliefs(or lack there of) so I'm right there with you.) ๐Ÿ˜€ Keep up with engagement like this and you'll be huge in no time.

Thank you so much for being an awesome Partiko user! You have received a 0.64% upvote from us for your 130 Partiko Points! Together, let's change the world!

ย  ยท ย 6 years agoย 

Congratulations @erixink! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got more than 10 replies. Your next target is to reach 50 replies.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:

SteemitBoard - Witness Update
Do not miss the coming Rocky Mountain Steem Meetup and get a new community badge!

You can upvote this notification to help all Steem users. Learn how here!