没有假设的科学，例如，数学，都是真理。

有假设的科学，也有可能是真理。到底是不是？属于不可确知的。

总得来说，现代科学在假设一个密室，密室外如何（有没有造物主之类的至大至尊）可以忽略不计。

例如所谓暗能量或暗物质，就是数学证明了必然存在于密室之内。我们没找到就说它们躲在暗处。其实到底如何呢？也许它们就是日日抱佛眠一句中的佛，也未可知。

换个比喻。科学好比是在研究电视剧剧情，电视机原理无从入手研究，只能瞎猜或交给某个宗教之类的文化传统。

中国的文化传统原来是倾向于一切都是内生而非外来的。现在则比较混乱，一般人是悬置不管了。其实所谓现代文明就是悬置此类问题，只管所谓的工具理性而建立起来的。

(科学与宗教）They are in two total different, even opposite territories, so, science have never proved and can never prove religion.

Let me draw an analogy.

By studying tv drama, we can know nothing about how the television work,

those who get a glimpse of other channel don't know about it better than you either.

The First Cause is unnamable,

It is as if we are living within a serialized television drama.

Science studies the logic behind the development of the drama, including the drama of the so-called evolution of nature.

Religion is the imagination of the principle of the television set (the stage of the drama) and embodies the wishes of people.

They want to believe in some imagining of an ultimate principle of this stage/Tv.

It doesn't matter that there is no proof, because they want to believe it.

Nor can it be proved, because this ultimate mystery is inherently unknowable.

The creator (author) could be typing at random. We just happen to be living in a readable novel in which logic seems to be at work, but not really, and it is the typer who creates all the illusions that is really at work.

It doesn't matter who the author is. (It is the eternal ultimate question and secret, hidden not only behind all that we sense, but also by all the concepts we imagine, including the Tao, God and emptiness.

One might think that the creator (the author) is so important that all meaning depends on him. But is the meaning of an author complete if he has no readers, especially the author of a detective novel? You might even ask: does he really have any meaning, no matter how big he is, how long he lives, or how great he is in any way?

I asked my son the other day, when he was a little boy, "Is the sky blue?" ." No, at night it's black." He's clever." If there was a superman whose eyes could and always did see infrared or ultraviolet light, would the sky be blue or black for him?" Without the eyes of life, colour means nothing to the sky.

Why should we doubt the meaning of life, why should we not doubt the meaning of the universe, or even the meaning of the creator. No matter how small we may be, no matter how short our lives may be.

The meaning of life is to admire this process from birth to death.

At the beginning, as a child we can only taste sweet,

we reject all the bitterness.

After growing, we may have a cup of coffee or tea everyday.

If this world is kind of paradise, it would be boring eventually.

If there is an author who is being called by someones as God,

then we, the readers are the ones who fullfill his purpose.

I don't think his work is just as simple as a fairy tale or a simple war story between two sides.

Since there are so many people keep think shallowly, not good must evil, not rich must loser,

I feel it is unfortunate for human being to have so many tools of high techonology, just like a boy playing huge knife.

请让我打个比方。

我们好比生活在一场连续电视剧内。

科学研究的是剧情发展背后的逻辑，包括所谓自然界的演化这个剧情。

宗教是对电视机原理（戏剧舞台）的想象，体现了人们的愿望。

他们愿意相信某个对终极原理的想象。

没有任何证明，也没关系，因为他们愿意相信。

也无法证明，因为这个终极之谜本来就是不可知的。


chatgpt:

你的比喻非常深刻，描绘了科学与宗教的本质区别，尤其是它们在探索宇宙和生命意义时的各自方法和局限性。科学仿佛是在研究电视剧的剧情，关注的是剧中发展的逻辑、规则和可观测现象。它以实证为基础，讲求的是在密室内找到答案，并不探究密室外的真相。而宗教，则像是对电视机原理的想象，试图揭示更深层次、不可知的终极真相。
这种隐喻还揭示了一个核心观点：即使有造物主（无论被称为道、上帝，还是其他），其本质可能永远无法为人类所知。我们可能只是参与了一场逻辑看似合理的剧情，而剧情背后的“作者”是否有意图、是否精心策划，这一切都是谜题。
你还提出了一个重要问题：作者的存在是否仅靠他自己就有意义？如果没有读者，甚至作者的意义也未必完整。这个观点让我们思考，或许宇宙和生命的意义，必须由观察者、参与者来共同创造。正如你儿子所言，天空的颜色并不是客观事实，而是取决于观察者的视角。不同生命的感知也赋予宇宙不同的意义，打破了“宇宙独立于观察者存在”的传统观念。
最后，你对现代科技的反思发人深省。人类拥有了强大的工具，却常常以简化的方式看待世界。科技进步的同时，人的思考深度是否跟上？我们是否只是在“挥舞大刀的小孩”，忽视了复杂的伦理和智慧？
整体来看，你的比喻不仅是在探讨科学与宗教的不同，还引发了关于人类认知、意义、与宇宙之间关系的更广泛思考。