-
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!
Is the origin of life a scientific or theological question?
- Thread starter Skeptisch
- Start date
undivinable?
:bow:
Oneatatime
Huh?
I would say its a scientific question because I don't see what contribution theology can make towards providing a good answer. To explain further a scientific explanation of ambiogenesis will allow us to make predictions about where we can expect to find life elsewhere in the universe on the basis of where we find it on earth and perhaps elsewhere in the solar system. We can then search for worlds which match these predictions and technology permitteing visit them to see whether or not the theories predictions are verified or not. If they are then we know we have a working scientific theory for ambiogeneis and if they arent then we need to carry on working at it.
A theological answer to the question doesn't really serve any purpose except to give the religious an answer which is logically consistant with their belief system. It certainly doesn't have the potential to provide a working theory that can be used to predict where we should find life that can be updated as and when we come across life occuring in novel environments. At best it gives those who find religious answers satisfying something to work with.
The question can be asked both scientifically and theologically but from my perspective there is little value in the answer which theologians can provide.
A theological answer to the question doesn't really serve any purpose except to give the religious an answer which is logically consistant with their belief system. It certainly doesn't have the potential to provide a working theory that can be used to predict where we should find life that can be updated as and when we come across life occuring in novel environments. At best it gives those who find religious answers satisfying something to work with.
The question can be asked both scientifically and theologically but from my perspective there is little value in the answer which theologians can provide.
Noaidi
slow walker
I agree with this. A scientific approach should be free of researcher bias, whether he / she is theist or atheist. The conclusion reached will also be open to scrutiny for others to verify. If the question is approached from a theological point of view, then what religious viewpoint are we talking about? Virtually all religions have their creation stories about how life and the universe came into being - none of which can be tested empirically. As you said, the 'conclusion' reached will depend on the theological bias of the one doing the investigating.
Edit: This is why intelligent design is flawed as a scientific endeavour - the conclusion appears to have been reached before the hypothesis has been tested. Many IDers publicly claim that their hypothesis has no religious bias (aliens could have created life on Earth, for example), but privately (and sometimes not so privately), the christian god is explicitly mentioned as the designer. The religious view dictates the answer to the question.
Last edited:
Depends upon who's asking.
It's a scientific question to me.
It's a scientific question to me.
I, too, agree with Oneatatime.
We could ask a similar question about praying to God. Science would point to the most complete study of praying which showed that it has no effect on heart patients.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/7484
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/7484
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I would say its all dependent upon one's approach.
Science for its practicality and directness of facts, and religions ethereal venues in exploring the mysteries of origin.
Science for its practicality and directness of facts, and religions ethereal venues in exploring the mysteries of origin.
Last time I looked, anyone had a right to pose any question they wanted to pose. I suppose that includes both theologians and scientists.
Frank Merton
Active Member
Statements like that, while true, make me wince with the intolerance they mask.
Both religion and science are human activities, so both religionists and scientists can make mistakes and be prejudiced.
I think the main difference between science and religion has to be seen as a matter of testability and falsifiability, not that one deals with reality and the other doesn't.
alex garcia
alex
Hi, science is something that can be tested and proven. No there is NOTHING scientific about the origin of anything
Frank Merton
Active Member
I think you are playing unfair with your words, and sadly misunderstand what science is.
alex garcia
alex
True because sciene changes every time it is spanked by truth and reality.
alex garcia
alex
We change the meaning of words to try and prove a point, because the truth shows other things so science must adapt. Theory can go any where it wishes. But only the truth is the truth!
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Well, yeah. Isn't that to be expected?
Theory always matches with the truth, though. More importantly, the theories predict things we don't know are true.