science vs religion - what does it take?

[Skwim]

Science has never really stuck it to the bible,

Quite right. Science really has no interest in what the Bible says. However, science has stuck it to those who challenge science with their interpretation of the Bible. Fundamentalists, and in particular creationists, are continually sticking their noses into science and getting them clobbered. Not that science really cares about their fantasies, but it does care when these Christians try to get them introduced into public school science classrooms.

Neither has the bible really ever stuck it to science.

Again, quite right.

But like I said, The two aren't at odds.

Just those who insist that the Bible trumps the findings of science.

No, but Creation is a theory.

"Theory" only in its broadest sense of the word. In no way does it resemble a scientific theory. Creation(ism) is a religious belief taken in faith; no more and no less.

 

[ChristineES]

It was just randomly on my mind, what would it take (in your own opinion) to flat out disprove science and prove that god did create everything we see? and vice versa?

I see that science is moving forward in to finding answers while religion is settling on mostly faith alone and as much sophisticated science is today we still can't prove who is right. Do you think we will ever have an answer? what if we do prove without any doubt that for example the big bang theory is correct, would the religious still be religious? and vice versa... how would YOU be proven wrong? also, has science ever proven anything religious to be incorrect with no doubt? and have the religious corrected the bible for it? I don't know so I'm asking.. oh, that also works both ways, has the bible ever proven anything in science to be wrong?


by proof, i don't mean 'because it said so in the book'

ps: doesn't the bible also count as being a theory?

I don't believe in "science vs. religion". They are two separate, rather unrelated things. They have different purposes. I am a person of faith, yet I really like science and find various types of science very interesting.

 

[Katzpur]

It was just randomly on my mind, what would it take (in your own opinion) to flat out disprove science and prove that god did create everything we see? and vice versa?

I don't see either science or religion as being out to disprove the other. I don't believe that God has revealed everything we could possibly know about Him and I don't believe science has discovered everything possible to discover. In my opinion, there will eventually be a reconciliation between the two and there will be no conflicts. I speak as a person who believes in evolution and in God. I have no problem in reconciling the two, simply because I don't believe we have all of the facts yet.

 

[John Martin]

It was just randomly on my mind, what would it take (in your own opinion) to flat out disprove science and prove that god did create everything we see? and vice versa?

I see that science is moving forward in to finding answers while religion is settling on mostly faith alone and as much sophisticated science is today we still can't prove who is right. Do you think we will ever have an answer? what if we do prove without any doubt that for example the big bang theory is correct, would the religious still be religious? and vice versa... how would YOU be proven wrong? also, has science ever proven anything religious to be incorrect with no doubt? and have the religious corrected the bible for it? I don't know so I'm asking.. oh, that also works both ways, has the bible ever proven anything in science to be wrong?


by proof, i don't mean 'because it said so in the book'

ps: doesn't the bible also count as being a theory?

Science and Religion are concerned with different levels of truth. They need not be contradictory and should be complementary. Each one should limit their area of inquiry and to encroach into others area. I just share with with you what I wrote in another thread on Evolution and Creationism. Evolution is science and Creationism is religion.

[FONT=&quot]Evolution is a science and it should be taught as a science. It belongs to one level of truth. It should not be used to defame religions or eliminate God and create a godless or meaningless society. Creationism is not a science. It is poetry. It is parable. It is a story. It tries to give meaning to our lives. It tries to create a meaningful society and meaningful human existence and relationships, even though this meaning might change as human beings evolve. Hence it should be taught as such and not as a science. Creationism should be not used to negate scientific discoveries and keep people in ignorance and in superstition. Evolution and creationism belong to different levels and communicate different truths. One belongs to the mind and another belongs to the heart. There should be no conflict as such between them. We need both. In order to create harmony between them both creationists and evolutionists need to have an open mind and open-heart. This is possible only when we transcend both material evolution and religious evolution and discover the eternal divine spark, the image and likeness of God, within us and subsequently realizing our oneness with God.
[/FONT]​

 

[groves200]

First, you do need faith to believe something like that. Its not like you can measure. I'd be willing to bet you couldn't even rattle off how it is scientists determine how far the sun is from us without hitting Google. Nor is it important that you should. You should recognize the parallel, however.

being picky again? there is overwhelming proof of these things and you know exactly what I'm trying to say but it's starting to look like your just trying to twist my words, If i was wrong I would agree with you. May be I'm using the wrong words but then I've not even finished my last year of English yet so that can be excused?

Second, there are very few people who simply accept what is written in the Bible 'just because'. That's a ridiculous myth.

Should I rephrase that for you? I don't care how many people simply accept what is written in the bible, the point is some do, and I wrote that line for the one's who do.[/QUOTE]

That's not how it works. Lots of things in the Bible hold true even in today's society. Don't you think that might have just a weeeeeee bit to do with why people put so much stock in it? Perhaps the reason the text has survived for thousands of years? Think about it. Is it really because so many people are just easy dupes? Or is it because its not all fairytale snakes and sky-magic, there's actual wisdom in there?

Or had that never occurred to you?

what holds true in the bible? the absolute obvious or something only a greater being would have known back in the days it was written before being modified so many times?

 

[Sir Doom]

being picky again?

No, you are being a hypocrite. I'm pointing that out.

there is overwhelming proof of these things and you know exactly what I'm trying to say but it's starting to look like your just trying to twist my words, If i was wrong I would agree with you.

You are wrong and you should agree with me because I'm right. Its the same. The difference you see is nothing but confirmation bias. You believing what you read because it says 'science' on the cover is the same as a Christian believing what they read because it says 'bible' on the cover.

If there is any difference, it is in the fact that a Christian might regularly attempt to apply what they consider true in the Bible and be rewarded with success or failure depending. Where as when you read somewhere what the distance from the Sun to the Earth is and considered it true, you not only have no intention of ever scientifically verifying if its correct, but you aren't even going to use that information for anything outside as an example in this thread, meaning it doesn't even matter to you whether its true or not. And you think that makes it 'more true' than something in the Bible?

May be I'm using the wrong words but then I've not even finished my last year of English yet so that can be excused?

I highly doubt this is the cause of our disagreement.

Should I rephrase that for you?

No, you should rephrase it because its wrong. Don't do it for me. Do it for yourself.

I don't care how many people simply accept what is written in the bible, the point is some do, and I wrote that line for the one's who do.

The mentally handicapped people who are incapable of cognitive reasoning due to brain injuries/conditions/illness? Brave crusader, those are the only people who read things without understanding them. Are they your target? Obviously not. But they are the only ones who qualify for your statement. That means you should probably rethink what you are saying. Your statement is based on a ridiculous notion that doesn't actually hold true in reality. You are shadow boxing.

what holds true in the bible? the absolute obvious or something only a greater being would have known back in the days it was written before being modified so many times?

My statement would hold true in either case. I don't personally hold much stock in the Bible being that I'm not a Christian (this is the part where you wonder why I'm responding). So, I would never really hold the position that its 'from God' or whatever. That's totally beside the point, however as I am not in control of what people believe other than myself. I have no idea how 'absolutely obvious' differs from 'obvious', especially when we are talking about something you'd have to read, but I would say that it varies pretty widely from common sense to deep artisitic meaning that can't even really be described effectively. Of course... none of that really matters to the fact that the Bible is not simply accepted 'because its the Bible' but rather because it has, does and will continue to resonate with human readers. Everything extends from that. Again, you are working from an assumption about people who believe in the Bible that simply is not true. Its an imaginary foe that you are fighting. As long as you keep doing that, you will get nowhere.

 

[groves200]

You are wrong and you should agree with me because I'm right.

alrighty then :bow: :sleep:

 

[Sir Doom]

alrighty then :bow: :sleep:

As if that's all I said. Concede sarcastically or sincerely, makes no difference to me. If you want to prove it otherwise then make an argument. Until you do, I'll assume you can't.

 

[paarsurrey]

It was just randomly on my mind, what would it take (in your own opinion) to flat out disprove science and prove that god did create everything we see? and vice versa?

I see that science is moving forward in to finding answers while religion is settling on mostly faith alone and as much sophisticated science is today we still can't prove who is right. Do you think we will ever have an answer? what if we do prove without any doubt that for example the big bang theory is correct, would the religious still be religious? and vice versa... how would YOU be proven wrong? also, has science ever proven anything religious to be incorrect with no doubt? and have the religious corrected the bible for it? I don't know so I'm asking.. oh, that also works both ways, has the bible ever proven anything in science to be wrong?


by proof, i don't mean 'because it said so in the book'

ps: doesn't the bible also count as being a theory?

Science is useful in one domain;the truthful religion is useful in other domains; yet both are inter-connected and useful for humanity.

Torah is corrupted; so it will fail to pass any tests or to reform.

Regards

 

[atanu]

I too do not believe in "science vs. religion". However, I will not go to the extent of saying that these are totally unrelated.

Apparently, focus of scientific studies is measurable objects of mind-senses and apparently focus of religion is on the source/creator of the objects. But, IMO, both kinds of endeavours have one aspect in common, human motivation.

Again, apparently, all humans have needs for achievement/power/affiliation. But beneath these three needs, there is the fundamental common need to be free of pain, to be free of discomfort. No one does anything to be unhappy.

In this regard, I do not hesitate to state, that eventually it is religion that provides better means towards those attainments that every human seeks, albeit unknowingly. Religion provides wisdom that helps to mitigate damaging effects of raging ego. Religion, if properly and patiently pursued, can provide succour that science may not provide.

There is inevitableness of fall of ego and final death. Religion prepares a person much better by teaching about emptiness of all achievements that ego self clings to.

Scientific solutions, although developed through man's inherent gifts, usually ignores those very inherent gifts, and relies on external assistance. All extrnal objects and situations are however ephemeral. Most religious processes, on the other hand, rely on man's inherent gifts to obtain peace and succour. Prayer, mediation, yoga all work on self with self. And these methods do help in affairs of human mind that really matter.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It was just randomly on my mind, what would it take (in your own opinion) to flat out disprove science and prove that god did create everything we see? and vice versa?

The God to appear in the sky for all humans at one time. So simple for God, I think, why does he not do so?

 

[Britedream]

if there is a contradiction between Science and religion, then one of the two has to be false

 

[Omtita]

Skeptics often talk about science as if it were one entity in the guise of superior knowledge. The fact is that science has always and hopefully will continue to correct itself. That means that it is constantly wrong, in a sense. The science I was taught in school in the 80's is considered wrong today and the science that is taught today will most likely be wrong tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with that healthy growth of 'knowledge' until you try and collect it in a metaphoric stagnant pool in order to try and create a conflict with theology.

In the past science has been extremely helpful in Bible knowledge. Often the skeptical approach attempts to negate some historical fact in the Bible because science hasn't found any evidence to support it, and then a new discovery discounts that approach, but it should be kept in mind that some science, like theology, is a matter of interpretation, often having disagreement within it's own specific field of science as well.

I think that the most important thing to remember is that both science and theology are fallible products of the imperfect human search for knowledge rather than confirmation of our own paradigms. The creationist can look at creation and marvel at it, with the belief that their God created it, and the evolutionist can marvel in their own perspective. Both requires faith in an assumption that amounts to circular reasoning and it doesn't make for much of an argument.

 

[McBell]

 

[Omtita]

:yes:

 

[s2a]

It was just randomly on my mind, what would it take (in your own opinion) to flat out disprove science and prove that god did create everything we see? and vice versa?

I see that science is moving forward in to finding answers while religion is settling on mostly faith alone and as much sophisticated science is today we still can't prove who is right. Do you think we will ever have an answer? what if we do prove without any doubt that for example the big bang theory is correct, would the religious still be religious? and vice versa... how would YOU be proven wrong? also, has science ever proven anything religious to be incorrect with no doubt? and have the religious corrected the bible for it? I don't know so I'm asking.. oh, that also works both ways, has the bible ever proven anything in science to be wrong?


by proof, i don't mean 'because it said so in the book'

ps: doesn't the bible also count as being a theory?

Here is my answer, here. Reply, ignore, or rant on as you please.

 

[Looncall]

Skeptics often talk about science as if it were one entity in the guise of superior knowledge. The fact is that science has always and hopefully will continue to correct itself. That means that it is constantly wrong, in a sense. The science I was taught in school in the 80's is considered wrong today and the science that is taught today will most likely be wrong tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with that healthy growth of 'knowledge' until you try and collect it in a metaphoric stagnant pool in order to try and create a conflict with theology.

In the past science has been extremely helpful in Bible knowledge. Often the skeptical approach attempts to negate some historical fact in the Bible because science hasn't found any evidence to support it, and then a new discovery discounts that approach, but it should be kept in mind that some science, like theology, is a matter of interpretation, often having disagreement within it's own specific field of science as well.

I think that the most important thing to remember is that both science and theology are fallible products of the imperfect human search for knowledge rather than confirmation of our own paradigms. The creationist can look at creation and marvel at it, with the belief that their God created it, and the evolutionist can marvel in their own perspective. Both requires faith in an assumption that amounts to circular reasoning and it doesn't make for much of an argument.

You seem to have no understanding of the idea of evidence. That makes your post nonsensical.

 

[Sapiens]

I... also, has science ever proven anything religious to be incorrect with no doubt?

Sure, the bible says Pi is equal to three.

and have the religious corrected the bible for it?

No.

 

[Thief]

I don't have a religion.
I love science.
I believe in God.

 

[Britedream]

It was just randomly on my mind, what would it take (in your own opinion) to flat out disprove science and prove that god did create everything we see? and vice versa?

There is no need for that, if God words are true; and it is, and Science is true, then there should be no discrepancy.