Brutal honesty is great, and in too short supply these days.
I also have great respect for Sagan, because Contact clearly demonstrated that he understands perfectly where religious people are coming from in terms of personal experience.
-
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!
Science and Religion not compatible.
- Thread starter YouOnlyScienceOnce
- Start date
Brutal honesty is great, and in too short supply these days.
I also have great respect for Sagan, because Contact clearly demonstrated that he understands perfectly where religious people are coming from in terms of personal experience.
McBell
Unbound
Until it was shown that a "Who" was not required...
And most interestingly enough, outside its own choir, religion has not shown a "who", let alone that it was their particular "Who".
Orias
Left Hand Path
I believe they are compatible, because if they weren't compatible they wouldn't be compatible.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You're obviously on the science side here.
I don't believe in any incompatibility between science and religion. They are two different things.
Where do you see the incompatibility being. Please describe and I will respond (probably not for either of our sake but for the sport of debate and the hope of enlightening some audience members).
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Science isn't compatible at all with the mainstream religions since they are all bound to divine revelation which requires that faith be blind and there is nothing to support any claims to miracles or the supernatural but hearsay.
Philosophy as opposed to theology, however, is a quasi-science which attempts to extrapolate possibilities from the hard sciences that deal strictly with objective knowledge. Those possibilities can be the object of reasoned faith since they at least use facts as a starting point, and faith is simple emotional adherence to one or a set of possibilities.
For example, since there is no rational evidence for God (nor none against it), we can reasonably start with the possibility that God exists and go from there. The very first question we stumble on is, why would God create the universe? We can conclude, as many do, that there is nothing we can know about God's intentions and stop there--proceeding on with our material lives while relegating God and any spiritual considerations to the slagheap of irrelevancy.
But if we are to be able to recognize a purpose for our existence, in this life or any after, there must be some common ground between us and God for such inquiry .
Last edited:
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
What would evidence for God look like? What would evidence against God look like?
If the best we can say about the proposition is that nothing can be said for certain one way or the other, why is it reasonable to assume God exists?
-Nato
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
"Reasonable to assume" in the sense of a working assumption or proposition. IOW, we can say some things for certain about God, IF God in fact does exist. For example, there would be no purpose for God to create this rational, natural universe except to spawn (as an abode for
) creatures with free will. Anything else He could have done straight up, such as create good ones of us straight into heaven with memories of our mortal lives here on Earth--and bad ones str8 to hell:fork:.Desert Snake
Veteran Member
"Compatible" ? Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Can we keep religion out if science, thanx
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, it doesn't. And no, why would it? They're separate things
Thats correct and that is why science and religion are not compatible and thats why the existence of a supernatural god in the natural world is extremely unlikely.I thought science only dealt with the natural world.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.
Impossible. Even if all scientific research were conducted ideally (e.g., no bias, no recording errors or equipment failure, etc.), it rests upon certain assumptions regarding (among other things) how our perceptual faculties enable us to "know" what is. I happen to agree with this assumption, and anybody who truly doesn't won't live. However, it is impossible to "debunk" anything in a discourse universe which is built upon particular assumptions, to which another may be added, from which one may be taken away, or among which one or more may be altered.
Yes. Studies have shown. See the recent Bayesian conspiracy's report on how science trumps religion published in Science is a real, live, honest-to-god entity you can trust!.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If god does exist though, then god would be natural.
Scientist say the earth is 3 1/2 billion years old and some stars are 13billion years old. God says in the book of Genesis he created the earth the first day and the stars were created later. That makes the earth the oldest heavenly body. For me, I deal in salvation,for that's what is important. Christ didn't even tell everyone the earth was round so science can stand on it's own.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Why? I think God is supernatural, and created this natural universe at the Big Bang. What came before that, "when" there was no "before" since there was no time--or space?
Not if s/he performs supernatural deeds like performing miracles and listen to prayers. :magic:
4.6 billion years for the earth, and closer to 15-16 billion years for the stars, actually.
The Greeks knew and proved the earth was round in the 6th century B.C. I guess the only one clueless about that was the Hebrew god...:sarcastic