• 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!

Religion Has Nothing to Do With Science

Religion has nothing to do with science.

  • True

    Votes: 19 43.2%
  • Untrue

    Votes: 25 56.8%

  • Total voters
    44

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I accept that genetic drift goes from earlier living things until later living things in unison with carbon dating.

That is not what I asked.

Do you accept that you and a carrot, or a rat, a tree, a pig, a butterfly, a fungus, etc. share a common ancestor?

Simple one bit answer. Yes/no

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
My impression is that religious people are more anxious to be scientifically fit.
I'd like to meet some of such people. I seem to see few or none like that, but instead an awful anti-science tiny minority that spends a lot of time trolling their ideology on the internet.

Of course there is a large silent majority that has zero conflict between their religion and science, and are frankly not that interested, and while they might enjoy a show like NOVA for a few minutes, they'd rather listen to music or rake their lawn or such. That huge group of many tens or hundreds of millions simply would be amused to hear they are anxious about science. They might be tolerant of you though, and invite you to their cookout if you seem friendly.

Having conversed some with some science types (some working in a field) that are religious, they didn't seem anxious to me at all, but more like wanting to share knowledge.

Where are the anxious people though? -- since I'd love to talk with them.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That is not what I asked.

Do you accept that you and a carrot, or a rat, a tree, a pig, a butterfly, a fungus, etc. share a common ancestor?

Simple one bit answer. Yes/no

Ciao

- viole
If I had to bet that something would behave that way in the future I would certainly bet on it.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Really? How many scientific theories on the origin of the Universe can you name?

Off the bat? Abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and the idea that the universe has always been here.

Religion has more to do with science than you might think.

And no, they are not actually opponents of each other. People who think this are idiots.

1. Science in its purest form is about the study of how things work in the the physical world.
2. Religion in its purest form is about a relationship with the supernatural world.

The problem is we don't have religion or science in their pure forms anymore. We have secular priests far more interested in seizing political power (actual church politics going on, where leaders are kinda trying to get a position) than studying what Jesus taught.
And we have basically "scientism" a cult where those in science basically have dogma and orthodoxy.

These two are opponents, because scientism proposes to claim it knows how the Earth began, and basically tries to horn in on religious teaching.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I disagree because you are wrong. Religion informs science and answers questions science cannot.

I think it is actually the other way around. Science informs religion. Religion answers questions with questionable accuracy. Without science the questions answered by religion, one accepts at their own risk.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I disagree, if you need to ask why then, you really have no clue what you are talking about and should quit now.

I don't know your reasons why. I know my reasons why I made the statement and am looking for someone capable of changing my mind.

I am pretty sure others won't be as "nice" to you.

I certainly hope not. I'm not looking for folks to be nice to me. I'm looking for someone to challenge my intellect.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I think it is actually the other way around. Science informs religion. Religion answers questions with questionable accuracy. Without science the questions answered by religion, one accepts at their own risk.

The only religion I think is valid is the one meant to reconcile us with the transcendent, which by definition is not the observable, not 'science'. Not the opposite of science exactly, but in a way, sorta the opposite. As different as a horse is from a baseball bat. A truly different type of thing.

There is though one instance I could think of where science informs (putatively!) the religion seemingly (seemingly I said. :) ) -- the one called "Christian Science" which is sorta a....odd religion, of limited appeal it seems: "The number of Christian Scientists in the United States was 270,000 in 1936 (the last reliable public count). Today, despite growth in the nation's population, actual church membership in the U.S. could well be down to 50,000..."

But generally, religion is about things you can't see -- not with any type of device ever, not a super collider, not any new kind of telescope or laser interference setup; you name it -- not things you can see, to try to simplify into a nutshell about the difference. (that is, for now....)
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Religion has nothing to do with science.

This is a very bold statement ... "NOTHING"
Religion is about many things

Do you maybe mean "believing in God" has nothing to do with Science?

Science is a method of validation. A process to eliminate claims that are not true. Some religions rely on faith, which is the opposite of science. So a religion which encourages its followers to systematically question its claims. Tells it followers to take nothing on faith.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The only religion I think is valid is the one meant to reconcile us with the transcendent, which by definition is not the observable, not 'science'. Not the opposite of science exactly, but in a way, sorta the opposite. As different as a horse is from a baseball bat. A truly different type of thing.

There is though one instance I could think of where science informs (putatively!) the religion seemingly (seemingly I said. :) ) -- the one called "Christian Science" which is sorta a....odd religion, of limited appeal it seems: "The number of Christian Scientists in the United States was 270,000 in 1936 (the last reliable public count). Today, despite growth in the nation's population, actual church membership in the U.S. could well be down to 50,000..."



It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone...

...Eddy described Christian Science as a return to "primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing". There are key differences between Christian Science theology and that of traditional Christianity. In particular, adherents subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion. This includes the view that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.
Christian Science - Wikipedia


While I understand "Science" is part of the name, doesn't seem very scientific to me. Am I missing something?

But generally, religion is about things you can't see -- not with any type of device ever, not a super collider, not any new kind of telescope or laser interference setup; you name it -- not things you can see, to try to simplify into a nutshell about the difference. (that is, for now....)

Science required physics, physicality to measure validate. Perhaps it could be said that religion has no use for science. Science is just not a necessary part of religion.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The natural world is not imagination.i
What we imagine is true about the natural world is. We imagine, with the imagination.

A scientist will build a hypothesis based on observation, they may use imagination (based on education and specific experience) to devise experiment to test the hypothesis.
Sure, it all begins with an hypothesis, which is created using the imagination. An hypothesis, is what we imagine is true, using the imagination. This does not challenge what I said. It validates and confirms it. It all begins with the imagination, dreams, faith, a vision, and such. Most everything the sciences has formulated, began within the imagination first.

To quote Albert Einstein to make my point, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." The experience of the mysterious, opens the imagination, which is the source of all true art and science. It inspires and leads us to investigate what the imagination points us toward in its vision of what may be its truth.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Off the bat? Abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and the idea that the universe has always been here.

Religion has more to do with science than you might think.

And no, they are not actually opponents of each other. People who think this are idiots.

1. Science in its purest form is about the study of how things work in the the physical world.
2. Religion in its purest form is about a relationship with the supernatural world.

The problem is we don't have religion or science in their pure forms anymore. We have secular priests far more interested in seizing political power (actual church politics going on, where leaders are kinda trying to get a position) than studying what Jesus taught.
And we have basically "scientism" a cult where those in science basically have dogma and orthodoxy.

These two are opponents, because scientism proposes to claim it knows how the Earth began, and basically tries to horn in on religious teaching.

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

There are as many, if not more scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, etc.

Here is but one of many theories as to the creation of our three-dimensional universe. This one is by Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, who proposes that our three-dimensional universe floats as a membrane in a “bulk universe” that has four dimensions and that the “Bulk Universe” has four dimensional stars, which go through the same life cycles as our three-dimensional stars.

The most massive ones explode as supernovae, and their central core collapses into a black hole, like in our universe---only in four-dimension. The four-dimensional black hole has its own four dimensional “Event Horizon,” the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole.

In a three-dimensional universe, the event horizon appears to be two dimensional. In a four-dimensional universe, it appears to be three dimensional. The four-dimensional black hole, then blows apart, with the leftover material forming a three-dimensional membrane surrounding a three dimensional event horizon, which expands---and is essentially our universe.

So, according to the theory proposed by Niayesh Afshordi, our universe is the vomited-up guts of a fourth dimensional black hole. The expansion of the event horizon explains our universe's expansion; the fact that its creation stems from another 4D universe explains the weird temperature uniformity.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of seemingly visible matter and invisible energy=anti-matter.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Science is now beginning to come to terms with the fact that this is neither the first or only universe.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the endless cycles of physical manifestation, or rebirths.

According to the best theory we have today as to the origin of this generation of the universe, it was some 14 billion years ago, that an immense explosion, known as the Big Bang, spewed out massive amounts of liquid like electromagnetic energy in the trillions and trillions of degrees, creating a rapidly expanding universe.

Within moments of the expansion, the universal temperature had dropped to some billions of degrees, and the vibrating wave particles, which were the quantum of that energy, collided in nuclear fusion reactions to form hydrogen and helium and when the universal temperature had cooled to a point where fusion stopped generating these basic elements, it left hydrogen as the dominant component from which the first gigantic stars were created, in which massive atomic reactors, the heavier elements, such as carbon and oxygen, would be created.

Bursting into life and light throughout the primitive universe over an unknown period of time, those first generation stars would have been thousands upon thousands of times as massive as our Sun and millions of times as bright, but each one burned for only a few million years before meeting a violent end, when they exploded out in a brilliant flash before collapsing in upon themselves creating the massive centrally condensed systems called ‘Black Holes,’ in which the greater percentage of their mass was trapped. The first creative day ended as all those gigantic stars collapsed. Those first gigantic stars, in which the heavier elements were created, from which the galaxies would later be created and which massive stars would have been collapsing in upon themselves, and evening descended as the lights of the universe went out, and the black holes devoured each other, and darkness covered the contracting space.

The second DAY [Period of universal activity] begins by bringing to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.
 

Earthtank

Active Member
I don't know your reasons why. I know my reasons why I made the statement and am looking for someone capable of changing my mind.



I certainly hope not. I'm not looking for folks to be nice to me. I'm looking for someone to challenge my intellect.

I am not a Muslim but, have you looked at or read the Quran? Have you seen all the science or scientific "signs" in it?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
Science is a method of validation. A process to eliminate claims that are not true. Some religions rely on faith, which is the opposite of science. So a religion which encourages its followers to systematically question its claims. Tells it followers to take nothing on faith.
If you study advaita you will see that Advaita takes "untrue claims" even a few steps further than science:D
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Continued from post #95.

This is one scientific theory as to the creation of our solar system some 9 billion years after the creation of those first massive stars that lit up the darkness of the expanding space.

Whether or not a better theory than that which we have today will develop, time will tell.

This theory would appear to support the biblical statement, that the process of the division of the waters above from the waters below, [See Genesis 1: 6; KJV] or the division of the solar nebula cloud from the greater Galactic nebula cloud, began some five billion years ago, and that the whole process began with the division of the waters (cloud) above, from the waters (Cloud) below from which the entire Solar system was created. This took just a few hundred million years, about 400 million years in fact, and the creation of our entire solar system was completed by about 4.6 billion years ago.

It was from the galactic nebular cloud, which was the residue of the heaver elements that were exploded off with the great super nova, which was the death of one of those gigantic earlier generation Stars that our Milky-Way galaxy would be formed in the second creative period=day, as the active universal forces brought about a division of the Solar nebular cloud [The Waters Below] from the Galactic nebular cloud [The Waters Above].

The accretion of the galactic nebula disk, which was being attracted to the central Black Hole around which it had begun to orbit, transferred angular momentum outward as it transferred mass inward, it was this that caused our solar nebula to begin to rotate and condense inward, bringing a division of the solar cloud, from the galactic cloud, or the waters above from the waters below.

Within the greater galactic nebular cloud, which was slowly beginning to revolve around the Black Hole that anchored it in space, a piece of the larger cloud complex started to collapse about five billion years ago. The cloud complex had already been "polluted" with dust grains from previous generations of stars, so it was possible to form the rocky terrestrial planets as gravity pulled the gas and dust together, forming a solar nebula. As the cloud=waters of the solar nebula collapsed, its slight rotation increased. This is because of the conservation of angular momentum.

Just like a dancer who spins faster as she pulls in her arms, the cloud began to spin as it collapsed. Eventually, the cloud grew hotter and denser in the centre, with a disk of gas and dust surrounding it that was hot in the centre but cool at the edges. As the disk got thinner and thinner, particles began to stick together and form clumps. Some clumps got bigger, as particles and small clumps stuck to them, eventually forming planets or moons. Genesis 1: 6—9. As the heavenly cloud was gathered together in one place, dry land, or rather planets began to form. Near the centre of the condensing cloud, where planets like earth formed, only rocky material could stand the great heat. Icy matter settled in the outer regions of the disk along with rocky material, where the giant planets like Jupiter formed.

As the cloud continued to fall in, the centre would get so hot that it would eventually become a star and with a strong stellar wind, would blow away most of the gas and dust from which the planets of the solar system had been formed.

By studying meteorites, which are thought to be left over from this early phase of the solar system, scientists have found that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old! As the solar nebula collapsed, the gas and dust heated up through collisions among the particles. The solar nebula heated up to around 3000 K so everything was in a gaseous form. The solar nebula's composition was similar to the present-day Sun's composition: about 93% hydrogen, 6% helium, and about 1% silicates and iron, and the density of the gas and dust increased toward the core where the proto-sun was: [PROTO SUN.]. The inner, denser regions collapsed more quickly than the outer regions.

PROTO-HUMANS WERE NOT HUMANS AND THE PROTO-SUN, WAS NOT YET OUR SUN.

Around Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun the temperature was cool enough to freeze water (the so-called "snow line" or "frost line"). Further out from the proto-Sun, ammonia and methane were able to condense. There was a significant amount of water closer to the Proto-sun, but could not condense. When the solar nebula stopped collapsing it began cooling, though the core that would later form the Sun remained hot.

This meant that the outer parts of the solar nebula cooled off more than the inner parts closer to the hot proto-Sun. Only metal and rock materials could condense (solidify) at the high temperatures close to the proto-Sun. Therefore, the metal and rock materials could condense in all the places where the planets were forming. Volatile materials (like water, methane and ammonia) could only condense in the outer parts of the solar nebula.

Because the density of the solar nebula material increased inward, there was more water at Jupiter's distance than at the distances of Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune. The greater amount of water ice at Jupiter's distance from the proto-Sun helped it grow larger than the other planets. Although, there was more water closer to the proto-Sun than Jupiter, that water was too warm to condense. Material with the highest freezing temperatures condensed to form the chondrules that were then incorporated in lower freezing temperature material. Chondrules (from Ancient Greek chondros, meaning grain) are round grains found in chondrites. Chondrules form as molten or partially molten droplets in space before being accreted to their parent asteroids.

Any material that later became part of a planet underwent further heating and processing when the planet differentiated so the heavy metals sunk to the planet's core and lighter metals floated up to nearer the surface.

Because of its great compression, the core of the proto-Sun finally reached about 10 million Kelvin and after the planets of the solar system had been created, the hydrogen nuclei started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy. It was then that the proto-Sun "TURNED ON" and became our Sun, which produced the strong winds called T-Tauri winds named after the prototype star in the constellation Taurus.

These winds swept out the rest of the nebula that was not already incorporated into the planets. With most of the cocoon gas blown away, the new star itself becomes visible to the outside for the first time. This whole process took just a few hundred million years and was finished by about 4.6 billion years ago. At the distance of about one light year from the earth, is the great icy Dome, that is the boundary of the firmament of our heavens, in which the sun, moon, and planets of our solar system were created.

According to the Genesis narrative, it is on the second day that the Lord calls for a "firmament" to be in the "midst of the waters" to divide the waters:

"And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under (or within) the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

The term "firmament" according to the Creation account, is taken from the Hebrew: רָקִיעַ raqiya` raw-kee'-ah, which is defined by many scholars as an expanse, or the visible arch of the sky:—firmament, but a primitive root; “רָקַע raqa` raw-kah” means, to pound, hammer, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal):—beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

The creation of the firmament is associated with the placement of some sort of structure, and in some modern Bibles many modern scholars translate the Hebrew word raqia as a "dome" or "vault". The Hebrew language appears to imply that the firmament is a firm, fixed structure (FIRMament, which can now be seen as the spherical cloud of comets (Icy vault) in which our solar system was created from the solar nebula cloud that was divided from the greater galactic nebula cloud.

"And God said, “Let there be lights within the firmament or vault to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV) This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars=planets of our solar system, are "within" the firmament. Therefore, the waters that are "above the firmament=dome/vault" must be above the Sun, Moon and Stars=planets of our solar system, revealing that the waters which are referred to in Psalms 148:4; "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that [be] above the heavens," belong to the greater galactic nebula cloud which has become our Milky Way Galaxy.

The Oort cloud, or the Opik-Oort cloud, which is named after Jan Oort, is a spherical cloud that surrounds our solar system, a cloud of predominantly icy objects such as comets that are comprised of mainly hydrogen, oxygen=water, ammonia and methane, and extends up to about a light year from the sun and defines the cosmographical boundary of our Solar System and the region of the suns gravitational dominance. Here is the Firmament, the great spherical vault within which is found the sun, moons and planets of our solar system, the dome of ice above us.

Knowing that the planets of our solar system were already created before the sun came into existence when the hydrogen nuclei within the condensing solar cloud started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy thereby creating our sun, we must now ask the question, “Did life on earth begin to evolve before the creation of the sun?” As is recorded in the Bible. And can life exist without sunlight? Proof of this is to be found in the darkest depths of our oceans, where life has evolved over six miles beneath the surface where sunlight does not and cannot penetrate. This subject will be discussed at a later stage.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What we imagine is true about the natural world is. We imagine, with the imagination.


Sure, it all begins with an hypothesis, which is created using the imagination. An hypothesis, is what we imagine is true, using the imagination. This does not challenge what I said. It validates and confirms it. It all begins with the imagination, dreams, faith, a vision, and such. Most everything the sciences has formulated, began within the imagination first.

To quote Albert Einstein to make my point, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." The experience of the mysterious, opens the imagination, which is the source of all true art and science. It inspires and leads us to investigate what the imagination points us toward in its vision of what may be its truth.

The natural world is not imagination but reality


And to quote brian cox "woo"

Yes Einstein had a thing about imagination didnt he?

Imagination can get you started, hard, dedicated work and knowledge finishes the job
 
Last edited:
Top