Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[Dawnofhope]

The placebo effect is mostly bunk, actually. And while you may not have an ethical obligation to stop a fellow customer from buying a homeopathic product, it's unethical for the pharmacist to knowingly misrepresent sham treatments as effective.


I have no idea what you're getting at here.


If that's the case, then:

- God is indistinguishable in every measurable way from a god that doesn't exist.
- there can be no rational justification for belief in God.



If God truly is unknowable, then there's no way for him to "make Himself known" and there's no way to establish that someone is a "Messenger" of God.


What you just described IS irrational. In one sense, it's good that you're owning it. In another sense, it's perplexing to me why you would feel attachment to irrational beliefs.


The common themes I see: wishful thinking and a failure to think things through.

Beyond the fact that none of your criteria have anything at all to do with gods without begging a boatload of questions, it's inherently contradictory to say on the one hand that God can't be demonstrated and on the other hand say that it can be demonstrated that someone is a "messenger of God." If you could actually demonstrate this, then you would have demonstrated God, since the existence of a genuine "messenger of God" would imply that God necessarily exists. Your positoon contradicts itself.

Religion is designed to be paradoxical, God’s test if you like. If we want to project contradictions then we will. If we want resolve the paradoxes we will. An Unknowable God that can be known is a paradox that’s easily resolved for the faithful or rejected as irrational nonsense for the faithless. It’s a reflection of our own selves. We respond in personal ways to the illusory nature of reality.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is also important to consider that both Science and Religion evolve as our understandings progress.

Regards Tony

I understand it a bit differently. I don't really think religion evolves nearly so easily as philosophy (which some also consider a sort of science). Dogma, an essential part of pretty much all religions, is quite resistant to evolution. It took the Catholic Church 350 years to admit the simple fact that Galileo was right about the earth moving around the sun. Presented with actual observations, science can change in nanoseconds by comparison.

Philosophy concerns itself with our relationships with ourselves, with others and with our world...all of which, so far as we are able to determine, exist. Religion, on the other hand, concerns itself with our relationship with God, which (or Who) cannot be shown to exist, is understood only by our individual preferences, and leaves no trace to tell us we're right or wrong. That's not a lot to go on, is it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I understand it a bit differently. I don't really think religion evolves nearly so easily as philosophy (which some also consider a sort of science). Dogma, an essential part of pretty much all religions, is quite resistant to evolution. It took the Catholic Church 350 years to admit the simple fact that Galileo was right about the earth moving around the sun. Presented with actual observations, science can change in nanoseconds by comparison.

Philosophy concerns itself with our relationships with ourselves, with others and with our world...all of which, so far as we are able to determine, exist. Religion, on the other hand, concerns itself with our relationship with God, which (or Who) cannot be shown to exist, is understood only by our individual preferences, and leaves no trace to tell us we're right or wrong. That's not a lot to go on, is it?

I think we are given much evidence to go on, we as humanity, as a whole are just yet to bring religion and science into a harmony to enable us to see what we are yet to see.

Events like NDE's and dreams have much to show us in regards to where the mind of man actually comes from.

I would suggest mind is not in a body that comes from and returns to this earth.

It is our brain that processes what the material senses see as reality in this time we are here, but the brain is ignighted by mind, a mind I see we are all part of.

This is why to me unity is important, when we find unity, we will also find real science.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

It has always, for my entire life, been my view that if there is something that you must believe in spite of whatever evidence denies it, or lack of evidence supports it, then you are on the wrong track.

Science only works if it accounts for all the evidence, and if it tries to ignore some, it fails.

And therefore, I think that all religion that tries to ignore what is know through science, also fails, and cannot be trusted.

Science doesn't need to account for all the evidence to work at all. Consider atomic theory and the progressive development of our understanding of molecules.

Atomic theory - Wikipedia

We still don't know for sure the exact relationship between electrons, protons, neutrons and whatever other subatomic particles there may be. It hasn't stopped us from extracting energy from matter whether through the combustion engine or nuclear power.

In like manner religion enables people to live better lives despite no one fully understanding the nature of God.

In both science as with religion we make best use of the available information realising our knowledge will never be complete, nor perfect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion is designed to be paradoxical, God’s test if you like. If we want to project contradictions then we will. If we want resolve the paradoxes we will. An Unknowable God that can be known is a paradox that’s easily resolved for the faithful or rejected as irrational nonsense for the faithless. It’s a reflection of our own selves. We respond in personal ways to the illusory nature of reality.

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like excuse-making for not having good reasons for belief.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like excuse-making for not having good reasons for belief.

I would see that faith and reason are complementary faculties of the human being, that together make possible the understanding of reality; they are both tools that enable society to apprehend truth.

" ‘Abdu’l-Bahá writes: “If religion is opposed to reason and science, faith is impossible; and when faith and confidence in the divine religion are not manifest in the heart, there can be no spiritual attainment.”

Regards Tony

 

[Altfish]

So peer reviewed means it is right? No.
1. What do you mean by mistakes are corrected?
2. I don't understand how that works.
3. Science is an ongoing study, used in seeking knowledge and understanding of things.
4. If the new discovery is learned later to be inaccurate, and the previous thrown out, how was the mistake corrected?
5. That's not how science works, does it?
6. It does not reach any conclusion and say, "Hey. This is it!"
7. Think of it as a one of many tools used to study.
8. We are free to draw conclusions.

9. The Bible says, prove all things.
10. As soon as I have the time, I will look for the posts where I showed how Christian test, experiment, observe things in relation to their faith.

I have taken the liberty of numbering your points to make responding easier...

1. & 2. If scientist A says X+Y therefore Z; other scientists don't just accept that result. Scientist B may try to replicate the experiment, if he can replicate ok; if not he questions Scientist A's findings.More scientists will join in and seek to clarify/correct the findings.
3. Yes
4. A well known example is Piltdown Man (although it wasn't found by a scientist); it was scientists who discovered the fraud.
5. Yes, science works by constant questioning, refining and if necessary correcting.
6. Correct
7. What others are there?
8. No, only conclusions that are based on the evidence.

9. Apart from much of its contents
10. I look forward to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would see that faith and reason are complementary faculties of the human being, that together make possible the understanding of reality; they are both tools that enable society to apprehend truth.

So that's what you believe, but why do you believe it? In what way is faith a tool to "apprehend truth?"

 

[j1i]

You made a claim that god created the universe... Can you provide proof of this claim or is it just your opinion?

Billions means 1,000,000,000s

Man began manufacturing stone tools thousands of years ago.

my dear sister
I'm glad to meet you again
I hope you will be happy and very happy

Yes, I can explain this
When we start counting we start from number one
If starting from zero, zero means nothing (nothing no naturals material) no Matters
The beginning of the universe starts from the one
And this one is eternal and old eternal is God

When we read cultural, scientific and statistical information such as Guinness Book

The first to manufacture
First inventor
Why humans care about knowing the first always
They do not care about the first number in cosmic numerology, the first existence
The first who created life is the number one God

The primary source of life for the Great Universe

I miei migliori auguri di successo e successo (italiano)
muchas gracias (spaino)

 

[Aupmanyav]

And this one is eternal and old eternal is God.

Every thing has a cause. What caused God to begin existing? God is caused by many things. Fear of the unknown future in human mind and suggestions from people who benefit by making people believe in the existence of God (the clerics/priests).

 

[ChristineM]

my dear sister
I'm glad to meet you again
I hope you will be happy and very happy

Yes, I can explain this
When we start counting we start from number one
If starting from zero, zero means nothing (nothing no naturals material) no Matters
The beginning of the universe starts from the one
And this one is eternal and old eternal is God

When we read cultural, scientific and statistical information such as Guinness Book

The first to manufacture
First inventor
Why humans care about knowing the first always
They do not care about the first number in cosmic numerology, the first existence
The first who created life is the number one God

The primary source of life for the Great Universe

I miei migliori auguri di successo e successo (italiano)
muchas gracias (spaino)

What? That doesnt actually make sense in reality
Why does zero exist?
The Guinness Book is not a science book
Your evidence for god is what?

 

[Audie]

my dear sister
I'm glad to meet you again
I hope you will be happy and very happy

Yes, I can explain this
When we start counting we start from number one
If starting from zero, zero means nothing (nothing no naturals material) no Matters
The beginning of the universe starts from the one
And this one is eternal and old eternal is God

When we read cultural, scientific and statistical information such as Guinness Book

The first to manufacture
First inventor
Why humans care about knowing the first always
They do not care about the first number in cosmic numerology, the first existence
The first who created life is the number one God

The primary source of life for the Great Universe

I miei migliori auguri di successo e successo (italiano)
muchas gracias (spaino)

The things you say about "first" are kind of natural
human things to think about.
They do not necessarily make sense, though,
and certainly do not add up to some sort of
evidence for a "god".

You might for example ask, "Who was first
to speak French? Surely there was one person
who...". Or, who had the first Labrador dog?

There was no "first" for those! "First inventor"?
Impossible for there to a first.

ALSO-
A great deal of what science learns about
the nature of things is counterintuitive.

Easy example-people thought heavy things
fall faster than light things. It is obvious!
But it is not true.

Check the word "facile" in your dictionary, they
check your ideas against that.

 

[nPeace]

I have taken the liberty of numbering your points to make responding easier...

1. & 2. If scientist A says X+Y therefore Z; other scientists don't just accept that result. Scientist B may try to replicate the experiment, if he can replicate ok; if not he questions Scientist A's findings.More scientists will join in and seek to clarify/correct the findings.
3. Yes
4. A well known example is Piltdown Man (although it wasn't found by a scientist); it was scientists who discovered the fraud.
5. Yes, science works by constant questioning, refining and if necessary correcting.
6. Correct
7. What others are there?
8. No, only conclusions that are based on the evidence.

9. Apart from much of its contents
10. I look forward to it.

Thanks.
1 & 2 Not all theories can be replicated, nor clarified - just agreed on to be accepted. True?
4 Not referring to fraud though, but actual discoveries.
5 Science works by testing, experimenting, and observing.
7 Other tools for study - logic and reason, experimentation and observation.
8 Why no? Conclusions that are based on the evidence, are conclusions, are they not?
9 Really? Give me an example, please.

Just give me some time to provide that information for you, I've debated that since this question comes up by different user, and it can be a pain searching for an answer previously given, I will create a thread that will make it easy to refer to.
I won't do it today since I want to relax a bit, so as soon as I get it done, I'll buzz you.

 

[Altfish]

It is also important to consider that both Science and Religion evolve as our understandings progress.

Regards Tony

Thanks.
1 & 2 Not all theories can be replicated, nor clarified - just agreed on to be accepted. True?

Just give me some time to provide that information for you, I've debated that since this question comes up by different user, and it can be a pain searching for an answer previously given, I will create a thread that will make it easy to refer to.
I won't do it today since I want to relax a bit, so as soon as I get it done, I'll buzz you.

A Theory is the highest level of proof in science; as far as I am aware all theories CAN be replicated. Theories are refined as more evidence is found.
A hypothesis only becomes a theory when the evidence mounts up and it has been rigorously tested.

 

[nPeace]

A Theory is the highest level of proof in science; as far as I am aware all theories CAN be replicated. Theories are refined as more evidence is found.
A hypothesis only becomes a theory when the evidence mounts up and it has been rigorously tested.

I actually meant to say hypothesis, since I meant ideas.
I'm sorry, I edited the post, perhaps after you posted, so I hope you didn't miss anything.
And why do you keep saying proof in science. There is no proof in science.

 

[Altfish]

I actually meant to say hypothesis, since I meant ideas.
I'm sorry, I edited the post, perhaps after you posted, so I hope you didn't miss anything.
And why do you keep saying proof in science. There is no proof in science.

OK, bad choice of words, accumulation of evidence

 

[Prestor John]

FYI, when people say things like this, I generally take it as "I refuse to even consider science that conflicts with my religion."

Why do you assume this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you assume this?

Because it suggests that your yardstick of what is "true" is whether it agrees with your religion.

 

[Prestor John]

Because it suggests that your yardstick of what is "true" is whether it agrees with your religion.

I just don't accept the idea that anything we know scientifically or religiously is absolute.

Why do we act like we have all the answers when we don't?

 

[nPeace]

OK, bad choice of words, accumulation of evidence

Okay.
I'm not aware that all theories can be replicated. Most can't.
If that were true, many things would not baffle scientists.
For example, the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem.
Then there are others.
Can scientists recreate the big bang?
The theory of evolution. Let's see that replicated.