Is it good to mix Reason with Religion?

[questfortruth]

I do not mix Science and Religion together. I mix Natural Theology and Religion. Science appears to be an anti-religious organization (for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church). Natural Theology studies nature as well, but welcomes and does not prohibit references to Religion and God; before the beginning of any study or research activity, prayer takes place to drive out demons and UFOs from devices, computers, and brains. And what demons influence the measuring equipment is evidenced by the fact that cosmic rays flew out directly from the Earth, not the cosmos:

"Antarctica's Spooky Cosmic Rays Might Shatter Physics As We Know It,"
Bizarre Particles Keep Flying out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter Modern Physics

Derek B. Fox, et.al., The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard Model Particle, and Supporting Observations from IceCube, arXiv:1809.09615 [astro-ph.HE]
The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard...

So, to make the "peace deal" between Reason and Faith, one needs back the Natural Theology with its school prayers. How is prayer indifferent to God, when Jesus Christ often prayed and through His prayers, the Lazarus has been resurrected and many miracles have been made and are documented for example in the Holy Bible? Are you questioning the Bible? Even the satan did not do so when he has tempted Jesus Christ in the wilderness: satan did not tell the Christ that the one who appeared to Him is an alien, and that "there is no God." Be the way, the alleged presence of alien life at stars or even galaxies contradicts the dogma of the conciliarity and uniqueness of the Church.

The true purpose of any research is to point God's folk to the spiritual realm:
"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" John 3:12 NIV.

The Dark Matter is invisible in the sense that it is not found in underground detectors, and it is not produced at CERN. Another fact is that the human soul is invisible as well. Simple logic tells then, that the soul is a living invisible matter, whereas the Dark Matter around the galaxies is inanimate invisible matter. Mathematical proof: Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

Look at your legs: the left leg has exactly the same length as the right one. It is a fact for the overwhelming majority of us. With a coordinating soul inside the body, is it any wonder that both legs of a person grow to the same length?

 

[metis]

Natural Theology studies nature as well, but welcomes and does not prohibit references to Religion and God;..

Which is where I'm coming from, along with Spinoza, Einstein, and numerous others. To me, Nature is often the best "church" one could have, even though I think more is needed than just that-- at least for me.

 

[Native]

I do not mix Science and Religion together.

I´m having no troubles with that when it comes to comparisons between the numerous cultural Creation Stories and scientific ideas of the creation/formation of everything.

I liked your link:

"Antarctica's Spooky Cosmic Rays Might Shatter Physics As We Know It,"
Bizarre Particles Keep Flying out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter Modern Physics

Here the scientists are baffled because they take all rays to consist of particles instead of electromagnetic waves.

Excerpt:
"Physicists don’t know what it is exactly. But they do know it’s some sort of cosmic ray—a high-energy particle that’s blasted its way through space, into the Earth, and back out again. But the particles physicists know about—the collection of particles that make up what scientists call the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics—shouldn’t be able to do that".

You se? These Standard Model physicists are confusing themselves when taking electromagnetic waves to consist of particles.

IMO these observations just deals with the magnetic circuit on the Earth and a EM connection with the Sun

 

[Revoltingest]

Reason is bad for religion.
Why?
It would destroy this claim in the OP....

"The Dark Matter is invisible in the sense that it is not found in underground detectors,
and it is not produced at CERN. Another fact is that the human soul is invisible as well.
Simple logic tells then, that the soul is a living invisible matter...."

The argument appears thus....
If one thing is invisible but real, then anything not seen is real.
Exempli gratia, invisible pink unicorns, fiscally conservative Democrats.

 

[questfortruth]

Reason is bad for religion.
Why?
It would destroy this claim in the OP....

"The Dark Matter is invisible in the sense that it is not found in underground detectors,
and it is not produced at CERN. Another fact is that the human soul is invisible as well.
Simple logic tells then, that the soul is a living invisible matter...."

The argument appears thus....
If one thing is invisible but real, then anything not seen is real.
Exempli gratia, invisible pink unicorns, fiscally conservative Democrats.

The definition of invisible matter: thing, that does not interact with visible matter: not weakly, not electromagnetically, not strongly. Because Gravity is not a force, then it is no interaction, but rather "influence".

 

[allright]

not according to the Bible

Proverbs 28:26 "He who trusts in his own mind is a fool"

 

[questfortruth]

not according to the Bible

Proverbs 28:26 "He who trusts in his own mind is a fool"

The Bible does not interpret itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

The definition of invisible matter: thing, that does not interact with visible matter: not weakly, not electromagnetically, not strongly.

That's not the definition, either scientific or common.
Dark matter interacts gravitationally with visible matter
(and light). This is how it was discovered.

Because Gravity is not a force, then it is no interaction, but rather "influence".

Physicists are fond of saying that it's not a "force",
but we engineers find that treating it as a force
is extremely useful. Even physicists would have
to admit that an object sitting in a gravitational field
would move according to F=ma. So it can be seen
as both a force & the "shape of spacetime".

Perhaps @Polymath257 could demolish my post enlighten us.

 

[questfortruth]

Dark matter interacts gravitationally with visible matter
(and light).

It does not interact locally, namely Dark Matter would pass through a detector with zero effort.

 

[Revoltingest]

It does not interact locally, namely Dark Matter would pass through a detector with zero effort.

Does it matter whether the interaction is "local" for us humans?
Is only one kind of detector the standard?

 

[questfortruth]

Does it matter whether the interaction is "local" for us humans?
Is only one kind of detector the standard?

Top scientists say, that General Relativity is a local theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

Top scientists say, that General Relativity is a local theory.

Who says that?
What does it mean?

 

[questfortruth]

Who says that?
What does it mean?

Google: strong equivalence principle: the laws of nature in any small laboratory are independent on laboratory position. Thus, there is no dependence on several spacetime points: there is only one position dependence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Google: strong equivalence principle: the laws of nature in any small laboratory are independent on laboratory position. Thus, there is no dependence on several spacetime points: there is only one position dependence.

I don't see how that applies to your argument.
Dark matter is detectable (a couple ways) despite not being seen
with light from it. It's detected far away, so of course it cannot be
directly experimented on in an Earth bound laboratory.

 

[questfortruth]

of course it cannot be
directly experimented on in an Earth bound laboratory.

Somebody is smarter than hundreds of top physicists? They have constructed underground DM detectors!

 

[icehorse]

Science appears to be an anti-religious organization (for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church).

This is a mis-representation of science. Science doesn't have an agenda, it is a set of principles with which to look at the world. It weeds out ideas that have insufficient evidence to support them, but it does so without any other agenda.

 

[questfortruth]

This is a mis-representation of science. Science doesn't have an agenda, it is a set of principles with which to look at the world. It weeds out ideas that have insufficient evidence to support them, but it does so without any other agenda.

Thus, atheism is the basic, the main method of science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Somebody is smarter than hundreds of top physicists? They have constructed underground DM detectors!

If they have, then good for them.
It can indeed be dark underground.

 

[icehorse]

Thus, atheism is the basic, the main method of science.

It's probably true that many scientists are atheists. But correlation does not prove causation. Atheism is NOT a method or a process.

 

[questfortruth]

It's probably true that many scientists are atheists. But correlation does not prove causation. Atheism is NOT a method or a process.

Will methodological naturalism be in Heaven?