Scientists and Religion

[Valjean]

I embrace Science that does not reject Faith. That is a true person of science

So you accept scientific findings only when they confirm your bias?
Quite an interesting research modality.

That is where we are asked to undertake a search. The only way we can know God is through His Messengers. Thus we must judge the Messenger with their own Message in the age it was given.

So, have I got this right? We're to judge the veracity of a prophet's message by the claims of the message? I'm getting dizzy...
Another question: With so many prophets, and so many conflicting claims and doctrines, how are we to determine the One True Prophet?

Haven't people been using this approach for millenia? How'd that work out for mankind?

 

[Valjean]

I came upon this quote to which expressed the need for this day;

"The virtues of humanity are many but science is the most noble of them all. The distinction which man enjoys above and beyond the station of the animal is due to this paramount virtue. It is a bestowal of God; it is not material, it is divine. Science is an effulgence of the Sun of Reality, the power of investigating and discovering the verities of the universe, the means by which man finds a pathway to God. All the powers and attributes of man are human and hereditary in origin, outcomes of nature’s processes, except the intellect, which is supernatural. Through intellectual and intelligent inquiry science is the discoverer of all things. It unites present and past, reveals the history of bygone nations and events, and confers upon man today the essence of all human knowledge and attainment throughout the ages. By intellectual processes and logical deductions of reason, this super-power in man can penetrate the mysteries of the future and anticipate its happenings. Abdu’l-Baha (Foundations of World Unity, pp 60)

As a person of Faith, I relish faith that pursues science; "Science may be likened to a mirror wherein the infinite forms and images of existing things are revealed and reflected. It is the very foundation of all individual and national development. Without this basis of investigation, development is impossible. Therefore seek with diligent endeavour the knowledge and attainment of all that lies within the power of this wonderful bestowal." https://bahai-library.com/friberg_science_technology

I am excited that science will soon find that when it works without its spiritual connection, that it is not real science.

Peace be upon you, science and all.

Didn't Baha'u'llah say that when there is a conflict between science and religious doctrine, we should accept the science?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Haven't people been using this approach for millenia? How'd that work out for mankind?

It is working great, we are learning that there is One God. It appears that free will is hard to master.

The greatest Masters are the one the world persecute, as most see them as a threat to their comfortable way of things.

May peace always be with you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Didn't Baha'u'llah say that when there is a conflict between science and religious doctrine, we should accept the science?

This I recall, has been said. For us to be able to judge when we have to do this, one must be both well versed in both Science and Religion. If not one may reject an aspect of either out of pure ignorance.

Peace be upon all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

With so many prophets, and so many conflicting claims and doctrines, how are we to determine the One True Prophet?

This is my favorite question, thank you.

Christ made it easy for us and put down the Tests to use to determine a True Prophet. No need to post that here, if we follow these tests then the 9 existing world Faiths in Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster. Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah all pass these Tests.

Each of those Men were the first to live what they taught and gave their life to those teachings.

God is One, creation is from the same source and the many Names given by God are just a rainbow from the pure light.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Valjean]

It is working great, we are learning that there is One God. It appears that free will is hard to master.

The greatest Masters are the one the world persecute, as most see them as a threat to their comfortable way of things.

It seems to me religious disputes have led to an awful lot of war, hatred and killing over the centuries, and extermination of disbelievers has been used to excuse for a lot of land grabs and ethnic cleansing. That doesn't sound like it's working great.

This I recall, has been said. For us to be able to judge when we have to do this, one must be both well versed in both Science and Religion. If not one may reject an aspect of either out of pure ignorance.

I don't recall the original source, but I first read about the principle in Baha'u'llah and the New Era, if you have that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It seems to me religious disputes have led to an awful lot of war, hatred and killing over the centuries, and extermination of disbelievers has been used to excuse for a lot of land grabs and ethnic

Yes they indeed have and all but a few were not lawful according to the Messengers Laws.

This is one of the issues that becomes a veil. We have to sort out what is from the Messenger and what is from man.

In this age we will sort this out, I hope we find unity soon, I would love to live in the day when Science and Religion finally work together. The future will be absolutely amazing. We will face an event that will require us to work in unity.

Peace be with you always.

 

[Valjean]

I envy your optimism.

 

[Regiomontanus]

No one is. Or at least, no real scientists are.

Hello. That is not quite true. While the BBT is dominant, there are serious, reputable scientists working on alternative cosmological theories. Search arxiv.org to see.

Peace

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello. That is not quite true. While the BBT is dominant, there are serious, reputable scientists working on alternative cosmological theories. Search arxiv.org to see.

Peace

arXiv is not peer reviewed so it would hardly qualify as "serious". There may be some genuine science there, but there is quite a bit of nonsense too. In the sciences peer review is the minimum standard of accepting something as being scientific.

 

[ChristineM]

Scientists and believers have to begin looking at the physical evidence from their own beginning points of understanding. It's easily possible to prove Genesis true if you start from the belief in God and that the Bible is true. Scientists have to take geological evidence and assume the Big Bang is a true theory. They have to assume that the universe and earth are billions of years old. When they do, they have to guess on much of the time line. And, they have to make other assumptions about human beings not being made in the likeness of our Father in Heaven.

The god believer has to take no evidence because no evidence exist and so assume a god exists because that is faith

A scientist does does not assume, they measure and observe and follow the evidence. If there is no evidence they will offer i hypothesis as a starting point until evidence becomes available

There are hypothetical ideas as to what caused the bb.

That the bb happened there is little doubt. Measurements show that it occured, not what caused it.

Likewise the age of the universe and of earth can be measured. Measurements are evidence.

You are making assumptions that human beings are made in the likeness of god. As far as i am aware no one has ever seen a god to compare.

Dont know about you but god looks more ramen than human

 

[ChristineM]

Hello. That is not quite true. While the BBT is dominant, there are serious, reputable scientists working on alternative cosmological theories. Search arxiv.org to see.

Peace

Although arxiv is a great source of new science, one needs to be careful because papers are put there before peer review and often not removed so some are quite old and superceded.

 

[Regiomontanus]

arXiv is not peer reviewed so it would hardly qualify as "serious". There may be some genuine science there, but there is quite a bit of nonsense too. In the sciences peer review is the minimum standard of accepting something as being scientific.

Indeed, maybe there is some genuine science there (saracasm)!!

Sorry, I should not have assumed you knew how the process of scientific publishing works these days. Let me explain.

Just about every paper in the physical sciences published in a peer reviewed journal is posted there first. Of course the converse, that appearing there it will then be published, is not the case. [Four out of the five papers I posted there ended up published, to toot my own horn a bit].

By the way, not just anyone can post a paper on arxiv.org. There is a bit of a filter to keep out the posers.

But that was not at all my point. I was replying to the very silly statement that "no serious scientist" is researching alternative cosmologies. Sir Roger Penrose? Steinhardt? Just two of many, many prominent scientists working in this area.

The point was that on arxiv.org you can see (from the author info in the paper) the people doing the work and the institutions at which they work.

So search, for example, the Astrophysical Journal if you want (limited access though) and enlighten yourself.

Peace.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Although arxiv is a great source of new science, one needs to be careful because papers are put there before peer review and often not removed so some are quite old and superceded.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed, maybe there is some genuine science there (saracasm)!!

Sorry, I should not have assumed you knew how the process of scientific publishing these days works. Let me explain.

Just about every paper published in a peer reviewed journal (in the physical sciences at least) will be on that pre-print server first. Of course the converse is not the case; appearing there does not mean it will eventually be published. But it is still a wonderful resource. Four out of the five papers of mine that were posted there ended up published (to toot my own horn a bit).

But that was not at all my point. I was replying to the very silly statement that "no serious scientist" is researching alternative cosmologies. Sir Roger Penrose? Steinhardt? Just two of many, many prominent scientists working in this area.

The point was that on arxiv.org you can see (from the author info in the paper) the people doing the work and the institutions at which they work.

So search, for example, the Astrophysical Journal if you want (limited access though) and enlighten yourself.

As already explained by another Penrose appears to only have a possible opposition expansion. But not to the Big Bang itself, I cannot find any seriousmopposition by him. And your posting methods make your claim of being published sound rather bogus. Anyone that understands the burden of proof knows that when a positive claim is made that the person making the claim has put that burden upon himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I agree.

As I said, not the best source.

 

[Regiomontanus]

As already explained by another Penrose appears to only have a possible opposition expansion. But not to the Big Bang itself, I cannot find any seriousmopposition by him. And your posting methods make your claim of being published sound rather bogus. Anyone that understands the burden of proof knows that when a positive claim is made that the person making the claim has put that burden upon himself.

Hello. Think what you want. I just needed to correct your silly (and uninformed, clearly) statements.

As for Penrose, do your homework. You can then apologize to me if you want but you won't - I know a forum bully when I see one (so to speak). Hence you are the first person to make my ignore list.

Peace.

 

[Regiomontanus]

As I said, not the best source.

Hello. No, actually, that is not what you said. You essentially dismissed the site out of hand - clearly showing you do not know what you are talking about.

Peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello. Think what you want. I just needed to correct your silly (and uninformed, clearly) statements.

As for Penrose, do your homework. You can then apologize to me if you want but you won't - I know a forum bully when I see one (so to speak).

Peace.

I made no silly remark. Your post supported me. Yes, there are papers that get published eventually at arChiv. It is also,a home to loons. Many papers there never see the light of day outside of that source. For example believers in the electric universe post papers to that source.

And how am I being a bully for pointing out that you did not do your homework and expect others to do your work for you?

Until you support your claims you are effectively wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello. No, actually, that is not what you said. You essentially dismissed the site out of hand - clearly showing you do not know what you are talking about.

Peace.

Not really. My claim still stands. If a paper can only be found there it is not of much value. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.