Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Yep. I'm in the same boat.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Science have a better explanation on things compared to divine inspiration and revelation?
- Thread starter savethedreams
- Start date
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
For the simple reason that--as I already pointed out--science and religion address almost entirely separate domains! You could as easily complain that a paintbrush doesn't work for playing a piano or that peaches are poor baseballs.
Only in your not-so-humble opinion.
A broader view, one less prejudiced (as in "pre-judging") just might help as it appears others have already been pointing out to you.
Bruce
Last edited:
Photonic
Ad astra!
Hey! Not to catch on semantics but the word almost should be taken out.
Science only address that which is, or will be falsifiable. Now if people of religion want state that their religion is falsifiable that's up to them, but they should probably look into what the word means.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Just so. Science deals with what is and can be independently verified as opposed to religion which is the whimsy of anyone's guess.
This might be of interest to some of you. When neuroscientist Sam Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author) was asked:
What would you say to someone who has had a profound religious experience and simply knows that there is a God?
He answered:
I would have to know the details of the religious experience. Such experiences rarely suggest anything at all about the structure of the universe. What they do prove, beyond any possibility of doubt, is that it is possible to have extraordinary experiences. We have to realize that there is no conflict between spiritual experience and reason. The conflict is between reason and those who make unreasonable claims to knowledge on the basis of such experiencesor worse, on the basis of books that recount the experiences of men who have been dead for centuries. Spiritual experience is arguably the most important human pursuit. But nothing needs to be taken on faith for us to pursue it.
What would you say to someone who has had a profound religious experience and simply knows that there is a God?
He answered:
I would have to know the details of the religious experience. Such experiences rarely suggest anything at all about the structure of the universe. What they do prove, beyond any possibility of doubt, is that it is possible to have extraordinary experiences. We have to realize that there is no conflict between spiritual experience and reason. The conflict is between reason and those who make unreasonable claims to knowledge on the basis of such experiencesor worse, on the basis of books that recount the experiences of men who have been dead for centuries. Spiritual experience is arguably the most important human pursuit. But nothing needs to be taken on faith for us to pursue it.
Photonic
Ad astra!
I can do that too!
Hawking compared religion and science in 2010, saying: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority [imposed dogma, faith], [as opposed to] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Well, actually they both work. They just serve completely different psychological functions. The one that will "win" is the one that accomplishes the more important function or pressing need for the person judging the "winner."
Where are you getting this quote from?
From the Wikipedia page, I saw something that seems to contrast with this quote:
"According to biographer Ray Spangenburg, these early years as Sagan tried to understand the mysteries of the planets, became a 'driving force in his life, a continual spark to his intellect, and a quest that would never be forgotten."
Underlined emphasis mine.
Where is this definition of faith coming from?
Do I have faith the sun will appear to rise tomorrow?
Do I have faith that I am in a physical body?
If yes, then the presumption is I cannot back these up with reasoning? Though we've been down this road before, and I think you're likely to change the terms of faith (from what most dictionaries say), plus deny the circular reasoning that goes into the 2nd question I posed.
Weird that these two are implied to be mutually exclusive. Especially considering that (perception of) physical world rests ENTIRELY on faith.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Proof please.
That the perception to the physical world rests on faith?
How would that proof look to you?
How about objective evidence for the existence of said world? Failure to provide that will demonstrate it rests on faith, not on something independent of mind.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Shaky philosophical postulations do not a science make.
Hence the reason science of the materialism kind is on shaky ground.
Nice concession, btw.
Photonic
Ad astra!
You are claiming that science is shaky because you can't prove that we exist.
I'm sorry but that's just wild imaginings and have no place in the real world. If you believe that than go jump off a building and see how long such a philosophy holds water.
Golly. How did we ever manage before scientists realized black holes?
I ask the same thing about cell phones and internet. It's a wonder we survived so long without it.Golly. How did we ever manage before scientists realized black holes?
Photonic
Ad astra!
Golly. How did we ever manage before scientists realized black holes?
What happened AFTER the enlightenment?
Face it, human progression and capability to survive only truly became a reality after science got a decent foothold in society.
Religion isn't going to save humanity if a catastrophe happens, and religion doesn't designate human survival as important.
Misrepresentation. I believe we exist as physical beings. I, like all others, am without objective evidence for this belief.
This only demonstrates the point I'm making.
I wouldn't go jump off a building and see how long such a philosophy holds water in a night dream, so why would I do it in another realm that has identical perception of physical laws as well as similar fear instincts at work. Then I get to see persons jumping off buildings and surviving which throws this whole worthless point you are making up in the air, but ultimately is me affirming that - yes I still believe in physical world, and no, like all others here, I have no objective evidence for it. It rests entirely on faith.