science and religion

[outhouse]

Science does not and cannot 'test' (falsify) matters of the immaterial, spiritual 'world'. Wrong tool.

Correct, it does not address mythology.

There is no way to use 'science' or the scientific method, to 'test' (falsify) evidence of a supernatural anything.

Not really true.

using cultural and physical anthropology we can use science and show patterns of plagiarized mythology. This shows a level of plausibility that cannot be refuted by apologetic rhetoric.

We cannot have empirical proof imagination and mythological concepts do not exist, but knowledge does show only man has defined every deity that man has created.

 

[outhouse]

Now, if a religious faith MAKES CERTAIN CLAIMS which involve the history, behavior, or makeup of the natural world - now THAT you can test.

This is exactly my point. We can test and "know" claims have a mythological origin with a very high degree of certainty. Science definitely helps us to determine literary creations.

 

[Thief]

Science attacks religions. Religions attack each other.

How do you feel about this?

Grew up with both.
gave up religion.
kept on believing in God.....because of science.

 

[Thief]

Religion and Science shouldn't even be talking to each other. Spirit and matter are completely incomparable.

God is Creator.
separate the creation from it's Creator?
I think not.

 

[EyeofOdin]

God is Creator.
separate the creation from it's Creator?
I think not.

Well here you find difference in subjective opinion.

 

[Agricola aka Pam34]

God is Creator. But God is not 'the Creation'. We can and must separate what is 'creator' from what is 'created' - unless we are pantheists.
I'm not a pantheist, but I can entertain the idea of panENtheism, which is rather different.

 

[Thief]

I would continue to contend.....
a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

 

[Angel1]

Science proves what are true and debunks the false based on observable physical or worldly considerations.Since much of the higher and more spiritual worlds are as yet not discernible by even our most advanced scientific instruments and therefore not measurable, this entire reality is on the main, dismissed or disregarded in any scientific study. Hence, the knowledge of science is at best incomplete.

Religion addresses the things of the Afterlife, beyond the physical and material world. Religious teachings are progressive. We journey from initial ignorance and slowly learn more and more, science being a necessary and complementary part of it all. While in the early stages, we naturally often misunderstand and commit many errors and harmful acts. But we will learn and perform better each time around, going forward.

Learning and instruction is administered one step at a time. Simple basics before the more advanced and involved. Remember when we were kids, how our parents taught and guided us so we would not come to harm? In crossing the street, they hold on to us by the hand, tell us to look left and right before crossing to avoid being run over. Well God is the best teacher. He provides us the experiences, good and bad though they may seem in our eyes, that will enable us to learn, gain wisdom and skills, and develop our character.

When we were like unthinking sheep, He taught us via the old Hindu Scriptures, the Old Testament and the ancient pagan religions. Then He upgraded our instruction. Buddhism provided the Way to attain the Hindu objective of self-realization. Jesus Christ upgraded and refuted the old objectionable teachings of the Old Testament.

And now, 2000 years after, more and better of everything are forthcoming.

 

[gnostic]

By definition (God as spiritual entity, bodiless, outside space/time) it is not possible to test ('prove') whether or not such a deity exists using 'science' as a method. Science confines itself only and solely to the natural world of our space/time. 'Things' (or beings) outside that (wholly or only partially) are not subjects of scientific enquiry.

Another word for believing in something that's outside of reality or of time-and-space is called "superstition".

The followers of 3 main Abrahamic religion based their belief and faith on the hearsay of the so-called "prophets", "christ/messiah", "apostles" and "messengers".

How are these religions any different from religions of the Babylonians, the Egyptians or the Greeks?

Their knowledge and teachings are based on superstitions, on not understanding nature, thereby associate nature with spirits (good or evil) or gods.

Seriously, how do you know there are gods or spirits, or the supernaturals?

Religion make good myths, but these religions are not good with realities.

That many people who still believe in any deity or spirit in this day and age, is both surprising, and at the same time, predictable.

 

[Thief]

7billion+ people on this planet....and no one with 'spirit'????
All of this life forms a unique person on each occasion.

and each one fails ?....altogether?.....not continuing into another life?

the body is designed for learning.
I believe we are here to learn all that we can.

When the chemistry fails...we stand from the dust.
God and heaven will be there to see how things turned out.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Another word for believing in something that's outside of reality or of time-and-space is called "superstition".

The followers of 3 main Abrahamic religion based their belief and faith on the hearsay of the so-called "prophets", "christ/messiah", "apostles" and "messengers".

How are these religions any different from religions of the Babylonians, the Egyptians or the Greeks?

Their knowledge and teachings are based on superstitions, on not understanding nature, thereby associate nature with spirits (good or evil) or gods.

Seriously, how do you know there are gods or spirits, or the supernaturals?

Religion make good myths, but these religions are not good with realities.

That many people who still believe in any deity or spirit in this day and age, is both surprising, and at the same time, predictable.

You can't just make assumptions like people believe in God because they don't understand science. I dare say that I understand science and I believe in God. The difference between the Abrahamic faiths and those mythologies is that the Abrahamic faiths believe in an omnipotent God whereas those mythologies believe in gods and goddesses with limited power.

 

[gnostic]

You can't just make assumptions like people believe in God because they don't understand science. I dare say that I understand science and I believe in God.

Perhaps I have generalised.

A lot of people, today (and the last 600 years), understand science, whether they followed their religions or not. But only those who have receive the education in relevant fields of science, and can distinguish what is science and what isn't.

But the people who wrote the individual books of the OT & NT didn't. The Church Fathers who wrote about Jesus and earlier church also didn't have knowledge of science.

The problem lies with people who believe in interpreting scriptures literally, as if they have happened, like the creation (1 - 3) and flood myths (6 - 8), and the genealogy (10 - 11) in Genesis, God's reply in JOB (38 - 41), the various prophecies from prophets, Jesus' birth (Matthew 1 - 2 and Luke 1 - 2), and worse of all the Revelation. Anyone who think any of these have literally occurred, showed that believe in superstitions and make-believe; they certainly don't believe in science.

There are many more who don't have the education, particularly in science, who believe in the bible (or the Qur'an), but that's mainly because the infrastructure to education are substandard.

But there are places in the US, in which they have the education to science, but the creationists and theists there, who rather believe in the superstitious creation myth or intelligent design than in science.

This is largely the result of the Protestant churches in the US, and the JW, in which they indoctrinated people with illogical nonsenses from the bible.

The difference between the Abrahamic faiths and those mythologies is that the Abrahamic faiths believe in an omnipotent God whereas those mythologies believe in gods and goddesses with limited power.

That's based on personal belief or taken on as blind faith...which amount to the same things as non-Abrahamic religions - SUPERSTITION.

Seriously, how do know that the Abrahamic deity is omnipotent?

Because of the scriptures or the teaching of respective religions?

 

[Thief]

I believe in God because of science.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Perhaps I have generalised.

A lot of people, today (and the last 600 years), understand science, whether they followed their religions or not. But only those who have receive the education in relevant fields of science, and can distinguish what is science and what isn't.

But the people who wrote the individual books of the OT & NT didn't. The Church Fathers who wrote about Jesus and earlier church also didn't have knowledge of science.

The problem lies with people who believe in interpreting scriptures literally, as if they have happened, like the creation (1 - 3) and flood myths (6 - 8), and the genealogy (10 - 11) in Genesis, God's reply in JOB (38 - 41), the various prophecies from prophets, Jesus' birth (Matthew 1 - 2 and Luke 1 - 2), and worse of all the Revelation. Anyone who think any of these have literally occurred, showed that believe in superstitions and make-believe; they certainly don't believe in science.

There are many more who don't have the education, particularly in science, who believe in the bible (or the Qur'an), but that's mainly because the infrastructure to education are substandard.

But there are places in the US, in which they have the education to science, but the creationists and theists there, who rather believe in the superstitious creation myth or intelligent design than in science.

This is largely the result of the Protestant churches in the US, and the JW, in which they indoctrinated people with illogical nonsenses from the bible.



That's based on personal belief or taken on as blind faith...which amount to the same things as non-Abrahamic religions - SUPERSTITION.

Seriously, how do know that the Abrahamic deity is omnipotent?

Because of the scriptures or the teaching of respective religions?

I don't think that there should be any conflict between science and religion. I think that they should both be reconciled. Again, you're making assumptions. How do know that those creationist scientists are largely under the infuence of indoctrination? Can you prove this? How can you tell that they don't just have a different worldview? And for the record I'm not a creationist nor do I believe in intelligent design. I don't think there is anything in science which says that God cannot exist, not a single postulate or principle. Yes, I know that the Abrahamic deity is omnipotent because of what I have read in Scripture. If that's not true than the Scriptures are false.

 

[gnostic]

I don't think that there should be any conflict between science and religion.

I agreed. But I see that science and religion as two different things. One relates to reality found through "evidences", the other relates to believing in the supernatural (creation, miracles) without evidences to support it.

How do know that those creationist scientists are largely under the infuence of indoctrination?

For one, there is no such thing as "creationist scientists", because there is no such thing as "creation science".

Creationism only deal with religious faith, not with acquiring knowledge by verifiable and empirical evidence or testings. Creationists (or what you called "creationist scientists") don't search for evidences, nor can they test what they believe in their scriptures.

If creationism required no evidences, then there can be no creationist science or creationist scientist. The words "creationist scientist" that you use is an oxymoron terminology.

 

[Agricola aka Pam34]

Actually - you can make a case - FROM 'SCRIPTURE' that the Abrahamic deity is neither omipotent nor omniscient, nor even 'the only god'.
Really - it is all in the preconceptions derived from later interpretations. Genesis 1 does indicate that this God is extremely powerful - but not necessarily 'omni'.

 

[Agricola aka Pam34]

'Creation science' is non-science (and nonSENSE). It is possible for a scientist to believe in God, and to believe in a god who created everything - but such a scientist should recognize that his/her belief is just that - a BELIEF, and is not 'science' nor 'scientific', nor can that belief be reduced to a science question.

So there is not such animal as a 'creation scientist' and no such field as 'creation science'.

Plus scientists are humans, and humans vary - and science is a mode of study which covers a huge variety of (natural) fields, so not every 'scientist' is educated in the particular fields which would need to be covered by any study of the origin of life, the origin of worlds, or the origins of the universe itself.

So any statement saying that 'creation science is real because Scientist X believes thus and so' had better be followed up by an explanation of how Scientist X's opinion has any validity, given that Scientist X probably doesn't work in any usefully related science fields....like biology, geology, or physics, for instance.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Actually - you can make a case - FROM 'SCRIPTURE' that the Abrahamic deity is neither omipotent nor omniscient, nor even 'the only god'.
Really - it is all in the preconceptions derived from later interpretations. Genesis 1 does indicate that this God is extremely powerful - but not necessarily 'omni'.

Oh really? The God in the Bible (and in the Quran too I think although I'm not sure) can violate the known laws of physics in the form of miracles. That God has no limit to His power, like something with an infinite energy supply. I'd say that qualifies as omnipotent because that means that He can do absolutely anything at all.

 

[leibowde84]

God is Creator.
separate the creation from it's Creator?
I think not.

How do you know there was a creator? Assuming that there was one, why does it have to be God?

 

[viole]

Oh really? The God in the Bible (and in the Quran too I think although I'm not sure) can violate the known laws of physics in the form of miracles. That God has no limit to His power, like something with an infinite energy supply. I'd say that qualifies as omnipotent because that means that He can do absolutely anything at all.

I think there are limits dictated by the laws of logic, thought. I cannot imagine God being able to create a married bachelor, for instance.

An interesting question is whether creation of Universes out of nothing are logically possible or not. If they are not, then God cannot do them, if they are then they can happen even without a God.

Ciao

- viole