So, some time ago I came up with a certain viewpoint... about science and religion.
And that is that in religious times, most people couldn't read (or write). And the Bible was the authority to govern "life", basically. But nobody could understand. It had to be "translated" to the common people.
And I just thought maybe science isn't all too different?? Because science is based mostly on math. Or statistics. "Proof". And guess what the problem is?? Most people aren't good at math. So they can't check themselves.
We actually need people to translate scientific studies, like in ELI5 on reddit for example.
To explain: it's me testing out a new viewpoint. And maybe even defending it. But I don't necessarily agree with this...
But to develop it even further...
You would have to draw a similarity between something written down, and having been calculated. And actually I think this is possible as well. Because you could say "anyone could write some kind of book, dictating how someone would have to live their life".
But to make the analogy to science it has to be math-related. But I do know some facts about for example statistics. And you might think at first that statistics form proof in one way or another. But they don't. They area actually so open to debate, open to whatever. You could get statistical proof for about anything. You just have to twist it in certain ways to deliver the desired outcomes.
Statistics is by no means proof.
So in biblical times the argument was "it's written down".
And in current times the argument is "it has been calculated".
But you can calculate anything.
You could think of it that way, at least.
So it might be considered an unpopular opinion.
The same existential questions religion was trying to answer, now science tries to answer.
And for example the singularity that started our universe?? It's cleaverly pushed back millions or billions of years, up to the very first few seconds. And that should somehow imply it's not that important at all. And that we "almost know everything", "everything except the very very very first millisecond or two".
That's a smart way of pushing something back.. or render it insignificant.
They never answered the questions that God was an answer to. Or heaven or hell. Or the meaning of life itsself??
What is conciousness?? We don't know. We did not back then, and we don't know now.
However science is seen as a good replacement for religion. And I might disagree you on that one.
First there were all kinds of person-based "Gods".
Then it became a single almighty God.
Now it's a bunch of particles.
And maybe in some time there will be that one God-particle, people have already talked about.
It's moved from someone, to something.
There is no difference really. And in a materialistic world like today, it even seems to make sense.
