How Does Your Religion Adapt to Scientific Discovery?

[SalixIncendium]

Cool signature animation, by the way

Thank you.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not at all (You missed my label on left - I am a strong Atheist Hindu. I do not give Gods and Goddesses any quarter). Energy as with Einstein.

My oversight. I missed the atheist part. In your path, do you recognize prana?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I find this to be a problem in my personal belief as well, assuming you're speaking of the life force/energy the Hindu refer to as prana.

Not at all (you missed my label on left - I am a strong Atheist Hindu. I do not give Gods, Goddesses ans Prana any quarter). Energy as with Einstein.

Prana is a bio-chemical process.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

In my religion(Hinduism) we adapt with ease with scientific discoveries. I know it can get annoying when everytime a new scientific discovery is made, a Hindu says "Oh, we knew that thousands of years ago" but a lot of times it is actually true and confirmed by non-Hindus. Sir Monier William said "The Hindus were Spinozas 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world." and John Adams, US president, said that Hindus knew about the laws of motion and gravity before Newton.

The reason for this is Hinduism is based on exactly the same epistemology that science is based on --- repeated observation, and induction of general laws from those observations. It is the only religion(other than other Dharmic religions) which is based on empiricism. Although not purely empiricism, as other means of knowing are also accepted, including intuition and supernatural perception, perception is accepted to be foundation of all knowledge.
Hinduism is also unique in that it not just postulates -- but will actually provide arguments to prove those postulations based on empirical facts. You will find arguments for atoms, gravity, evolution -- even quantum fields in Hindu texts 2000 years old. When I first discovered this I was absolutely spellbound. It is one of the reasons why I converted to Hinduism. Because there wasn't just arguments for atoms etc, but also, soul, reincarnation, karma, god, other realms based on exactly the same scientific logic. It was so compelling to me, it convinced me. I went from a hardcore materialist and atheist to a believer the more I read Hindu texts.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Paganism has no scripture and hence no problems.

Since it's Christmas let's say something nice about Christians. Christianity doesn't have a problem with science. Some fundamentalist Protestants do, but they are a minority of a minority.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The problem with this statement is that evolution doesn't require belief. It is a scientific theory so it validity is not in question given the evidence that supports it. Stating they "don't believe" in evolution demonstrates their disbelief in science. Many Christians I know will simply ignore scientific evidence in favor of what they were taught to believe.

[/QUOTE]

The first part doesnt relate to my reply. The last sentence, in some cases. Many Christians I know can care less about evolution. If they had an opnion, they either know near to nothing to form an intelligent opjnion (so we cant blamne them for their ignorance) or if they do know something, I dontknow many whose interest in evolution overides their belief in genesis.

A lot of generalizations on both sides sorry to say.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The last sentence, in some cases. Many Christians I know can care less about evolution. If they had an opnion, they either know near to nothing to form an intelligent opjnion (so we cant blamne them for their ignorance) or if they do know something, I dontknow many whose interest in evolution overides their belief in genesis.

If they're not to blame for their ignorance, who is? Or do we just accept the fact that they're ignorant and choose our subject matter carefully?

A lot of generalizations on both sides sorry to say.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If they're not to blame for their ignorance, who is? Or do we just accept the fact that they're ignorant and choose our subject matter carefully?

Yep. We accept it. Im ignorant of a lot of things but I wouldnt understans why people care about it. Gensis isnt taught in classes. Not here.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. Can you elaborate on this?

Ill be back ... contin.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Young solar system creation appeared to predict the strong magnetic field of the gas giants like Jupiter and them giving off allot of heat 2.5x more than they take in .. old earth science was taken by surprise

Many scientific breakthroughs were made by Christians and creationists in particular... the MRI... the atomic fountain clock... immunizations... etc... A prominent designer for England uses designs taken from creation as if often what wise scientists do: mimic creation

 

[whirlingmerc]

can you give an example of "Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions"
I can think of more examples of where scientific connector was discarded

 

[SalixIncendium]

can you give an example of "Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions"

A few off of the top of my head...

• Formation of the solar system
• Evolution (already mentioned)
• Age of the earth

I'm sure with some research, I can find more.

I can think of more examples of where scientific connector was discarded

Please, by all means, list them.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A hate to disappoint you but

• Formation of the solar system

• Evolution (already mentioned)

• Age of the earth

Solar system? no...The origin of the moon, and the variety of planets spinning vastly differently as well as the large magnetic fields and relative warmth of the gas giants says otherwise. The oort cloud remains a speculation

Evolution? no... no explanation for simple things like life from non life, sexual from asexual, vertebrae form inverter, we see species appear fully formed and a hand is waved and dots connected... and that's not 'science' that's dogma

Age of the earth? no.. there is conflicting data and not a slam dunk either... helium in zircons from radioactive decay suggests thousands not millions of years, C14 levels in cambrian diamonds is inconsistent with hundreds of millions of years, geological formations appear to be made catastrophically and not slow gradual and uniform as Darwin and Lyell thought. Levels of C14 in coal samples at vastly different claimed geological ages in the grand canyon don't support the classic geological ages.

So... no.. not really...

But what you are calling 'science' is the scientific method and scientific historical approaches PLUS philosophical assumptions of atheism which is a religious philosophy kinda like dealing a card off the bottom of the deck.

 

[Aštra’el]

My spiritual-religious system embraces science as a means of better understanding and connecting to nature, and of learning to harness nature to my advantage. There is no conflict. Science is my ally, not my enemy.

 

[Desert Snake]

'scientific discovery' isn't 'some theory'

 

[whirlingmerc]

scientific theories discarded include

the big bang
the big bang
and
the big bang

over and over the bounds of what we are certain constants
in support of it absolutely were between were wrong
over
and over
and over

it's embarrassing
and over
and over
and over

 

[1137]

I've been thinking, and this questions can go to atheists as well. Not all, bit many at least one. I often see it denied that religion can be of benefit, even though we've scientifically shown it. They'll deny the importance of the mind like with placebos, despite the science behind it. They accept material reduction despite the lack of both science and reason. I've even seen them treat science as entirely complete and unquestionable.

Since real science was created by God, there is no conflict between science and religion. On the other hand most religions are not based on God's teachings and much science is just theories and guesses that have not been proven. That is when there is conflict.

When did god create science? Well, your god specifically. And which theories do you find unsatisfactory and guess based?

That's a guru I would advise against following.

You're opposed to adaption?

 

[Desert Snake]

You're opposed to adaption?

This question/statement implies that something would have to be 'adapted'


that has no indication of happening, aside from the fact that certain scientific theories are most likely wrong, anyway

 

[1137]

This question/statement implies that something would have to be 'adapted'


that has no indication of happening, aside from the fact that certain scientific theories are most likely wrong, anyway

Which theories? Side question, would you give your sick children medication?

 

[whirlingmerc]

'would you give your sick children medication?'
Louie Pasture was both a Christian and Creationist making the question a bit irrelevant
The scientific method goes back to theist and Christian Sir Fransis Bacon

 

[Desert Snake]

Which theories?

singularity Big bang theory, for example. I've been advising people to abandon that for ages, search function could find those posts, if you're interested.