| Science and Religion [Locked - Redundant]
Posted: 5/14/2007 9:35:34 PM | The thread Does God exist, got me thinking about an experience that I had a few weeks back when a woman in a coffee shop told me that I cannot believe in science and religion at the same time. I am a Baptist and attend church regularly. For me the two are completely seperate and I do not like someone so close minded telling me that I cannot believe in the two at the same time. I also do not care to listen to the opposite end of the spectrum of Fundimentalists that claim that Science is wrong altogether...
So the question that comes to my mind is "Are there others out there that belive in God and understand Science and trust many of its observations?"
Science and Technology are great passions of mine and I do not understand how someone can claim that Science and Religion are mutualy exclusive. I believe that Science takes place because of our ability to observe our physical world. I assume that most people define science the same way, recorded observations of the physical universe. Experiments are performed to test theories and prove the observations are correct. Technology as we know it would not exist if it were not for science.
Religion to me is completely spiritual in nature. Something that cannot be proven through science because it dose not depend on the Physical Universe as we know it.
I would like to hear from both sides and see if in fact there is some middle ground that we can agree on. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/14/2007 10:09:10 PM | | I believe in both creationism and evolution,I think God created the universe and life but allows living things to evolve.Science has proven that living organisms(and man) have evolved over time but science still cannot prove how the universe and life started.Ask a scientist "how" cells multiply and they will tell you but if you ask "what" created the first living cell and they are stumped.There is too much order in the universe for it to "just happen by a big bang". | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/14/2007 10:29:53 PM | Thin films, primitive amino acids and a whole hell of a lot of time.
Science can eniterh prove nor disprove god, since ther eis no evidence either way - one cannot control for that which leaves no trace of it's existence, so one cannot design any experiment to test any hypothesis that involves god.
So, there is no reason at all why you cannot believe in god and practice sound science, lots of people do - you just can't design any experiments around it.
Maybe god wanted it that way, who knows? | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/14/2007 10:38:16 PM | | There are more and more places that I stumble into how science and religion DO go hand in hand.... we are just newbies in the world of knowledge. Do you recall the scripture in Luke where Jesus says that the stones could cry out????? Well, I have been reading a book on Organic Physics lately (Dancing with the Wu Li Masters: an overview of Phsyics) and it say that at a subatomic level rocks ( and other things) react organicly. OK. I think that is cool. There is life in those rocks!!!! It is just a tidbit that says to me "Heh, the fat lady hasn't sung yet" and all the facts are not yet known. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/14/2007 10:49:42 PM | | The reason people think you can't be religious and accept science as a way to understand the world is very simple. If you take the bible(genesis) literally, and belive the world is 6000 years old then science simply does not match up. Plus science(such as radioisotope dating) can be difficult to understand, whereas the explanation "God made it, he's a cool guy" can be understood by anyone. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/14/2007 11:01:22 PM | Science and religion started out for the same reasons... Just one looks from within and one looks within...
The problem is there is money to be made in both, so you have fakes of all kinds...
But some western scientific paths compliment eastern spiritual ones... That's the part I dig... | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/14/2007 11:10:49 PM | The problem is religious people being irrational.
What real scientist has made any money by being fake? Hint: there aren't any, because if science doesn't match up with the real world, it gets discarded as wrong. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/14/2007 11:18:30 PM | ^^^ That's true... They would be called a quack... The bad part comes when someone proves something that comes between a fatcat and his/her money and is called a quack... Up until recently, that's just what happened to the homeopathic community by the pharmaceutical... They are only starting to get recognition(and of course on the same note, there are some quacks in the homeopathic community)
What real scientist has made any money by being fake?
See the expose of one on the Noah's Ark thread in these forums... He may be a laughing stock now, but he made some coin off of it... | |
|
limen
|
Joined: 5/8/2007
Msg: 9 | |
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 12:11:19 AM | The religion is first type of politics - unite people under same believe (like a party) in order to be ruled easily, very well exploited in the medieval ages... Basically religion is a bunch of rules with tell you how to leave "better" life based on wrong explanation of the universal "power ", "energy","force", "truth"...e.c. name it... even GOD.... And poor people follow - go to churches, make donations, pray; do whatever cuz is easier when someone tell you "guide you" than figure it out for yourself - spatiality back then when people were without any education or knowledge [easy to manipulate].
Science tries to explain things witch are "seen", measurable, or at least was once like that.... Nower days science bumps into a problem [like antimatter and other quantum stuff] and goes beyond scientifically into a mystery trying to find solution.... => Means that science dose not have enough data yet, to answer the "question".... soon maybe; maybe never....
Anyways, we the normal thinking people, should have built for our selfs values and norms to follow based on our understanding of "Good" and "Bad" and not follow the religion ones - why some one else have to tell you...
So be above any religion - live you own fill filling life - make your decisions - built your own religion and be the only pilgrim; but Be Happy...
....Life is beautiful.... | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 2:56:42 AM |
The reason people think you can't be religious and accept science as a way to understand the world is very simple. If you take the bible(genesis) literally, and belive the world is 6000 years old then science simply does not match up. Plus science(such as radioisotope dating) can be difficult to understand, whereas the explanation "God made it, he's a cool guy" can be understood by anyone.
Not everyone who's religious takes the bible literally, not everyone who's religious is even christian. I have some faith, but I don't take any religious dogma literally, I don't think any religion has the truth, but I think they all might have a part of it. I also believe in science, evolution, and all that good stuff. I think science teaches us alot about our world and provides the basis for alot of handy things in life, but there's still a whole lot out there to discover and we might never get to it all. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 3:03:19 AM | Ok!! here i go trying to erxplain this. I am a Baha'i and as a baha'i one of the major principles we belive in is the fact that science and religion do go hand in hand and they need to for the betterment of todays society. If you can see science as the progression of humankinds enviroment and things like that and Religion as the moral ground and guideline on how to use the science we have in a correct propper way.
I found thiss article that explains our view in more detail i hope this helps you on your independant investigation. If you want to know more send me a msg and ill try to give you some more info if you wish.
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html
See you around | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 5:53:59 AM | | I am an atheist and to a previous post . I can not understand that god just made everything . Religion is far fetched to me . To the people that always say that god must have made this because how did everything just get here , my standard pat answer is - well how did god just get here? You see I admit I can not explain the simplest forms of dna that just eventually became and evolved into greater organisms, buttttt it makes alot more sense to me than some divine ,powerful being that just came to be out of nowhere. To those that believe in religion its all good , just not how I see it . | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 11:19:21 AM |
If you take the bible(genesis) literally, and belive the world is 6000 years old then science simply does not match up.
For those that have studied the bible, they might have noticed many things within it that do not agree with science, including the above. In my 12 years of attending a religious school versus my 6 years of studying science at the collegiate level, the only answer that I have ever gotten that I might be willing to believe was that God could have done all that religion teaches us because (for the example above) he could have created the universe 6000 years ago to seem as if it had origins older than several billion. If he created everything just a few thousand years ago, couldn't he also create fossils of dinosaurs that could be dated to 65 million years ago? Couldn't he also place the stars in such position at such velocities that make it seem as if they had been there billions of years with one central location as their origin? | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 11:38:51 AM | | That's the best argument I've seen yet, and I'm a little surprised it hasn't come up before. It's still superfluous, since science never requires and can never use God as an explanation. Doesn't prevent it, just can't use it. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 5:21:37 PM | Handyman 1973: I was educated by Catholics. I really like their proficiency in teaching - anything from theatre to physics. I was a doubting Catholic by 17, atheist by 19. I still like much of the message of monotheistic churches, full of mostly people who listen, weekly, to good advice on living harmoniously with their neighbours. I think teaching anything supernatural as truth undermines the logic faculty of the student.
Sactowndude: I have no trouble understanding abiogenesis. See xssve.
xssve: very diplomatic
aladybird: I agree, we are newbies; we don't know. We do know, however, that it is silly to believe in things for which there is not a hint of evidence. I could be wrong.
limen: RAmen
PSUgrad: you could say all that about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but why bother at all?
FrogO_OEyes: again, ain't that it.
The cool thing is that this thread got thoughtful reasonable responses. My vote? Faith is a practice that usurps our reason, but if I am not asked to share it, go nuts.  | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 5:42:53 PM | | The problem with that is that the universe has an appearance of history, as well as the appearance of age. We see stars of all ages, including the supernovas of dying stars. Geological evidence shows that the early earth went through millions of years with little oxygen in the atmosphere. Saying that God made things old asks us to accept that light from supernovas came from stars that never actually existed, and that the evidence for low oxygen was also faked. This makes God into a deceiver, since he created an appearance different from reality. Romans 1:20 says that God is to be "understood from what has been made." Saying that God made things old means we cannot trust what has been made. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 6:20:30 PM | Abiogenesis is just a hypothesis and has never been proven.
Several experiments have been done over the years but nothing conclusive has been established.
Maybe life started that way on earth but only God knows(wink,wink). | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/15/2007 7:09:37 PM | | what does abiogenesis have to do with the universe being created 6000 years ago? | |
|
| |
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/16/2007 12:02:56 AM | | vichycycl: You can say all you want about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the fact is for people who believe strongly in their religion, whatever it may be, can have that as a valid argument to have scientific facts that "prove" their religion wrong, to not necessarily prove their religion wrong. It puts it back to their belief system. You must keep in mind though, that it is a one way street. Always crossing from science into religion, and never the other way. Not my belief, just the most valid argument that I've ever come across. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/16/2007 6:33:41 AM | "xssve: very diplomatic"
It has the charm of being true: science raises problems for Theism, while there is little or no conflict between Deism and science, whether god or no is simply deferred until such time as there is evidence to examine.
Deism requires only faith, Theism, being interventionist, begs proof. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/16/2007 11:42:47 AM | "And among the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is that religion must be in conformity with science and reason, so that it may influence the hearts of men. The foundation must be solid and must not consist of imitations."
--‘Abdu’l-Bahá; Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p 299 | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/16/2007 2:01:41 PM |
Not my belief, just the most valid argument that I've ever come across.
It's not a valid argument, as it proposes a deceptive god, which is in direct conflict with the bible. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/16/2007 2:12:28 PM |
If he created everything just a few thousand years ago, couldn't he also create fossils of dinosaurs that could be dated to 65 million years ago? Couldn't he also place the stars in such position at such velocities that make it seem as if they had been there billions of years with one central location as their origin?
Why do you think he did this exactly?
Not only is this a ridiculous concept, it is, as sci4you has so eloquently pointed out, unbiblical. | |
|
| Science and Religion
Posted: 5/16/2007 4:06:51 PM | I personally don't believe that God would be deceptive, but I don't rule out the possibility. Romans 1:20 was mentioned as an argument against the possibility of God being deceptive, but the passage more correctly conveys the message that the reason we know God exists is because of all that has been created by him and does not convey that God is not deceptive. It's a long stretch to say otherwise. I don't know what version you used to interpret that verse, so I looked through several versions. Unless there is another passage that more clearly points out that God is not deceptive, than it's not "unbiblical". Besides, if God can be destructive (i.e. 40 days and 40 nights of rain), why can't he be deceptive?
Why do you think he did this exactly? As I mentioned before, I don't. I only stated it was the most valid argument that I have come across.
...this a ridiculous concept... No more ridiculous than every other concept. | |
|
Home
login 
