Religion and Science

[paarsurrey]

The truthful religion and or its revealed scripture does not claims to be a text-book of science. Right?
Even those persons whose ideology or whose world view is deprived of a scripture from G-d can participate in the discussion.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The truthful religion and or its revealed scripture does not claims to be a text-book of science. Right?

Religion is a deeply personal matter. It is doubtful that a single religion can ever be truthful for many or most people, unless perhaps if it is highly customizable. Hinduism comes close, but even it would be under considerable stress to fill such an ambitious bill.

Revealed scrpiture is subject to similar considerations, except that of course it is by nature not very customizable at all.

There is some overlap between science and religion, mostly when it comes to social duties, but not too much of it. It is difficult to imagine a scripture that would be very inovative from a scientific perspective, among other reasons because scripture can't learn from new research.

As for what any specific religion or scripture might claim to be, I don't think there are too many hard rules on that.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't understand what "truthful religion" means, much less how to assess it.

However, I do understand that the widely-recognized religions of the human species are not sciences, and if they claim to be sciences, they're full of it and treading into the realm of pseudoscience.

I'm also pretty sure that the absence of a scripture does not make one "deprived."

 

[rusra02]

The truthful religion and or its revealed scripture does not claims to be a text-book of science. Right?
Even those persons whose ideology or whose world view is deprived of a scripture from G-d can participate in the discussion.
Regards

Right. However, I believe the Scriptures inspired by the true God would not contain inaccurate statements contrary to proven scientific facts.

 

[Augustus]

The truthful religion and or its revealed scripture does not claims to be a text-book of science. Right?

Yes, of course.

There is a strange trend though where some people like to pretend that their scripture contains numerous advanced scientific theories and that anyone who doesn't agree with them is dishonest and churlish.

 

[Sunstone]

Right. However, I believe the Scriptures inspired by the true God would not contain inaccurate statements contrary to proven scientific facts.

Proven? That's not something science often, if ever, does. Instead, science can and does at times provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in favor of some notion. But proof? Proof is for politicians, pundits, and preachers.

 

[rusra02]

Proven? That's not something science often, if ever, does. Instead, science can and does at times provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in favor of some notion. But proof? Proof is for politicians, pundits, and preachers.

For example, the Bible correctly stated that the earth has no visible support in space, a fact pretty well proven by science. (Job 26:7) This was written some 3,500 years ago, at a time when all sorts of fanciful notions were believed about the earth, such as the notion that the earth was supported on the backs of elephants.

 

[Skwim]

Right. However, I believe the Scriptures inspired by the true God would not contain inaccurate statements contrary to proven scientific facts.

This is nothing new because as we know from your previous posts, if you did it would be tantamount to admitting the Bible can be wrong, which is against your faith. So, no matter what issue the scripture v. science debate is about, scripture is the winner by default.


.

 

[rusra02]

This is nothing new because as we know from your previous posts, if you did it would be tantamount to admitting the Bible can be wrong, which is against your faith. So, no matter what issue the scripture v. science debate is about, scripture is the winner by default.


.

The Bible was completed some 1,900 years ago, and parts of it were written some 3,500 years ago. Despite that, the Bible accords well with proven science. I find that remarkable.

 

[Skwim]

The Bible was completed some 1,900 years ago, and parts of it were written some 3,500 years ago. Despite that, the Bible accords well with proven science. I find that remarkable.

Just what is this "proven science" you're so fond of? Or shouldn't we expect a reasonable answer, if any?


.

 

[rusra02]

Just what is this "proven science" you're so fond of? Or shouldn't we expect a reasonable answer, if any?


.

I gave the example of the earth hanging in space without visible support. Or the fact that the earth is spherical.

 

[Sunstone]

For example, the Bible correctly stated that the earth has no visible support in space, a fact pretty well proven by science. (Job 26:7) This was written some 3,500 years ago, at a time when all sorts of fanciful notions were believed about the earth, such as the notion that the earth was supported on the backs of elephants.

If someone came along with a "theory" that the earth was held up by undetectable elves, science would not, logically, be able to disprove that theory. The logic of the sciences simply does not allow for such a thing as proof. At best, the sciences can say that "there is little or no evidence in support of such a 'theory', and there is an overwhelming weight of evidence in support of an alternative theory."

 

[Deathbydefault]

The truthful religion and or its revealed scripture does not claims to be a text-book of science. Right?

What religion or scripture is truthful? It must be a person to person thing, huh?

Even those persons whose ideology or whose world view is deprived of a scripture from G-d can participate in the discussion.
Regards

thankfully not dictated by*

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
The truthful religion and or its revealed scripture does not claims to be a text-book of science. Right?

What religion or scripture is truthful? It must be a person to person thing, huh?

Every revealed religion is truthful in origin and the Word its founder received from Go-d was also truthful, later their followers could not keep their scripture in its original form. They have now the glimpses of the original Word revealed. Presently only Quran is with us in its original Arabic text and contains the essential and core teachings of the other religions also.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Even those persons whose ideology or whose world view is deprived of a scripture from G-d can participate in the discussion.
Regards

thankfully not dictated by*

I don't get you. Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[Deathbydefault]

Every revealed religion is truthful in origin and the Word its founder received from Go-d was also truthful, later their followers could not keep their scripture in its original form. They have now the glimpses of the original Word revealed. Presently only Quran is with us in its original Arabic text and contains the essential and core teachings of the other religions also.

So it is a person to person thing....

I don't get you. Please elaborate.

I was correcting your mistake.

 

[paarsurrey]

So it is a person to person thing....

Truth is for every person, individually or collectively.
Regards

 

[Deathbydefault]

Truth is for every person, individually or collectively.
Regards

Of course, but there are those that would claim things as true without ever being able, or ever being willing, to demonstrate their truth.
That is where personal truths, false truths, and the like come into place.

Can you at all demonstrate your previous claims as true? Please do so if it's not too much trouble.

 

[Mackerni]

The truthful religion and or its revealed scripture does not claims to be a text-book of science. Right?

Many religions see that they fit alongside scientific claims, even stating that science supersedes religious claims. Science, on the other hand, has people that claim the validity of religious claims. Those who tend to be both scientific and religious want to see a merging of both worlds. That, it's not faith vs science, it's faith and science. I see it more as people should have faith in science.

 

[firedragon]

For example, the Bible correctly stated that the earth has no visible support in space, a fact pretty well proven by science. (Job 26:7) This was written some 3,500 years ago, at a time when all sorts of fanciful notions were believed about the earth, such as the notion that the earth was supported on the backs of elephants.

But it also says that a woman giving birth to a girl is unclean for double the time as a boy. Whats the science about that?