Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[Hawkins]

Science is experiment based. It thus has boundaries. The limit is provided that we humans can physically go to the location (of time and space) to establish experiments. Science won't work reliably beyond this limit or boundaries. We thus can't go back to the past to experiment history, we can't go to the future to confirm an eternity. We can't go out of our own space to confirm any existence such as heaven and hell.

In order to reach the unreachable, faith in human accounts of testimonies remains the only way to get to a truth. Religion is the advocate about a future outside of our space and time. It's a bit similar to history. We can't confirm most history while faith in historical documents is the way how we get to what could possibly happen in the long past.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is the source that takes the thing out of nowhere? Certainly there is a causative
who is that causative ? sure the creator, this is what we call GOD.

Why did man invent the idea of God? Was it because it was true?

That is what the the Book says. But science has many scenarios which do not require a God either for creation of the universe or creation and later development of living things. Are you aware of these theories? Or you have read only the Book and nothing else? I have also read the Books, my own and those of others, but that does not make me to ignore modern science.

It was not true but fear of future made frail humans think of that idea, they needed support. Three kinds of people supported it. Those who had their brain screws loose (schizophrenics, megalomaniacs); those who benefited by the idea, shamans and priests; or the ignorant simple folk who did not have any better idea.

Thank you for hurting my feelings

Kindly read 'Al-Kafirun'. Why should what Altfish said hurt you? To you, your views. To him, his views. It is clearly mentioned in your Book.

Religion is the advocate about a future outside of our space and time.

In what way religion will move you out of your time and space?

 

[j1i]

People invented gods to scam their fellows and escape the daily grind of survival.

Those imagined gods have since been used to extract wealth and power from the gullible. One other effect has been to perpetuate ancient errors, eg Adam and Eve,

You are right about creating gods in order to scare people and money
Such as the sale of Paradise
But this does not mean there is no totally (creator) at all
because does not prove only words
On the whole I am thankful to you dear for your kind participation
I appreciate that and hope you are healthy and well
take care of yourself

 

[j1i]

Kindly read 'Al-Kafirun'. Why should what Altfish said hurt you? To you, your views. To him, his views. It is clearly mentioned in your Book.In what way religion will move you out of your time and space?

I'm not interested in books
Because I love you and I thought I would guide you to a true path I want to help you
But now I am convinced that I will not be able to

On the whole you will not lose anything by believing that there is a Creator in the heavens
If he is real, you will survives, and if GOD is not real, nothing will happen to you
My advice is to put yourself in safe mode
I wish you happiness and success
Thank you for taking care of yourself, brother
God save you

 

[Aupmanyav]

On the whole you will not lose anything by believing that there is a Creator in the heavens
If he is real, you will survives, and if GOD is not real, nothing will happen to you

I tried nothing like that (to make you an atheist), because I know you are brain-washed and would not accept anything other than what your books or prophets say. Why should I believe in falsehood? What I am made of - atoms and molecules, is 13.75 billion years old, it would survive till the universe lasts. To believe in life after death is fear or wishful thinking.Nothing like that happens. Dig up any old grave and see what happens after death.

 

[j1i]

I tried nothing like that (to make you an atheist), because I know you are brain-washed and would not accept anything other than what your books or prophets say. Why should I believe in falsehood? What I am made of - atoms and molecules, is 13.75 billion years old, it would survive till the universe lasts. To believe in life after death is fear or wishful thinking.Nothing like that happens. Dig up any old grave and see what happens after death.

Haha
who is this friend look at left side

The topic does not make us care about prophets
I care about the idea of metaphor

The existence of the thing must be his maker even if he is a billion years old

There is who stand behind (Series existence) until we finally arrive

 

[nPeace]

Your post suggests a misunderstanding: results are replicated. Theories explain the results. Theories also create new predictions that can be tested; those tests verify the theory further.

That being said: both the Big Bang and evolution have bedn confirmed to a very high degree of certainty.

I can see why you may misunderstand.
Okay. Is a test, or experiment a theory? No.
An experiment is run to test a theory. Yes?
If you run a million experiments, have you replicated the theory, or verified the theory? ___________
Has the evolution theory and the Big Bang theory been replicated? No.

 

[nPeace]

People invented gods to scam their fellows and escape the daily grind of survival.

Those imagined gods have since been used to extract wealth and power from the gullible. One other effect has been to perpetuate ancient errors, eg Adam and Eve,

How do you know this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can see why you may misunderstand.
Okay. Is a test, or experiment a theory? No.
An experiment is run to test a theory. Yes?
If you run a million experiments, have you replicated the theory, or verified the theory? ___________
Has the evolution theory and the Big Bang theory been replicated? No.

"Has the theory been replicated?" is a nonsensical question. I don't even know where to begin unpacking your post. It's like an onion: many layers of wrong.

Do you understand what a theory is? Let's start there.

 

[nPeace]

"Has the theory been replicated?" is a nonsensical question. I don't even know where to begin unpacking your post. It's like an onion: many layers of wrong.

Do you understand what a theory is? Let's start there.

You are barking up the wrong tree imo.
You jumped in on a conversation, and then jumped on me.
So if you are interested in going forward, I think you need to take a few steps back and then we can proceed.
Here is a good place to start.

 

[Looncall]

Haha
who is this friend look at left side

The topic does not make us care about prophets
I care about the idea of metaphor

The existence of the thing must be his maker even if he is a billion years old

There is who stand behind (Series existence) until we finally arrive

Why must there be a "who"?

 

[Looncall]

How do you know this?

From observation. Even just following RF gives that impression: much clinging to ancient fables in the face of modern discoveries.

 

[nPeace]

From observation. Even just following RF gives that impression: much clinging to ancient fables in the face of modern discoveries.

Huh? You know that people invented gods to scam their fellows and escape the daily grind of survival, from observation? That doesn't make sense.
Gods are ancient. You are modern. You can't know that those people made up anything, and you can't know that they did not have real experience with gods.
You are merely giving your opinions. Why should one take those opinions seriously?

 

[j1i]

Why must there be a "who"?

Question about the reasons
Also important curiosity is a wonderful need
I am very curious and more than space creatures
I want to know the psychological reasons, needs and desires in order to get conclusions
Understanding others' feelings is important so that I can communicate positively even with the matters
I heared that there a tribe that lives in the mountains
When they want to cut the tree
they apologizes to the tree for three days by speaks and says it is binding and explains the reasons for cutting the tree (the need)
We must have qualities that have mercy and do not diminish others feelings

with respect dude
GOD bless you
Know that you do not believe in God
but the sentence indicates that I want good for you

 

[j1i]

I can see why you may misunderstand.
Okay. Is a test, or experiment a theory? No.
An experiment is run to test a theory. Yes?
If you run a million experiments, have you replicated the theory, or verified the theory? ___________
Has the evolution theory and the Big Bang theory been replicated? No.

the sound seem to be saying something wise

 

[gnostic]

It's a difficult question. To science minded atheists science is fact, true, infallible, right, and religion is myth, false, fallacy, wrong. It's a dogmatic and political xenophobia. It's as ridiculous as saying if you like the color red you can't be a parent.

Sorry, but science isn’t “infallible”.

Where in the hell that you get this silly notion from?

 

[gnostic]

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

You are right that throughout most of history, geocentric model was the most popular concept, a concept built upon by the Greeks, but it was wrong, scientifically and astronomically.

But it was also the Greeks who were the first to challenge the geocentric model, too.

The 3rd century BCE astronomer and mathematician, Aristarchus of Samos, was the first to bring up the more correct heliocentric model, where is that all the known planets orbit around the Sun, not the Earth.

It wasn’t popular and only very few agreed with this concept, and perhaps the best known historical figure to agree with Aristarchus’ model was the late 3rd century BCE Greek mathematician, astronomer, engineer and inventor from Syracuse, Sicily - Archimedes.

Aristarchus’ work would have been lost forever, if Archimedes didn’t comment on Aristarchus’ heliocentric model.

As to Thomas Aquinas, he was more of philosopher than a scientist, and he was a Dominican friar too.

And it wasn’t just Galileo who challenged heliocentric model. I am not denying Galileo’s great contribution to astronomy, and to heliocentric model; no, his telescope verified what 16th century Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus did with mathematics and astronomy, without the aid of telescope.

Now, you have a beef with the Roman Catholic Church turning Aquinas’ version of geocentric model into dogma, and for the wrongly house arrest of Galileo. But you need to remember the Catholic Church was quite large, so there were other people who don’t necessarily follow strict Catholic dogma to the letters.

Aquinas May have been a friar within the Catholic Church, but Copernicus, whom we know him best today as a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer, we tends to forget that Copernicus himself was also a Catholic, well-versed in canon law and in the philosophy of Aristotle. If my memory is correct, Copernicus was himself a Catholic cleric.

That Copernicus being a Catholic, and would dare challenge Aquinas’ geocentric model, showed that not all Catholics were mindless drones to Catholic dogma.

Much of Renaissance, although the church often sponsored Renaissance artists, scientists, philosophers and authors, these groups of thinkers have also challenged the medieval thinking of previous centuries, including that of Aquinas.

My points are, they weren’t just one way with Greek philosophy and Greek astronomy, or it wasn’t one way with Catholic thinking.

 

[Earthling]

Sorry, but science isn’t “infallible”.

Where in the hell that you get this silly notion from?

From people who should know better but cling desperately to some form of justification that there isn't a God. Don't ask me why, it doesn't make sense to me and all of the atheists I personally know. To them, these foaming at the mouth science minded atheists are worse than the nuts that believe the stuff.

They are a minority within a minority.

 

[gnostic]

From people who should know better but cling desperately to some form of justification that there isn't a God. Don't ask me why, it doesn't make sense to me and all of the atheists I personally know. To them, these foaming at the mouth science minded atheists are worse than the nuts that believe the stuff.

They are a minority within a minority.

You didn’t answer my question.

Again, I’ll ask you, where did you get the absurd notion that atheists think science is infallible?

Right now the only person forming justification about what science isn’t, is you, and you are the one foaming at the mouth, making up absurdity about what atheists allegedly doing.

Science is just a tool to acquire knowledge, and test the knowledge with both logic and evidences.

Sometimes, they got it wrong, sometimes they got it right. Sometimes they are changed or updated, when they are outdated.

Science all depends on the available evidences (that’s not you), not on logic alone (again, not you) or on just mere opinions (this is you).

 

[gnostic]

I can see why you may misunderstand.
Okay. Is a test, or experiment a theory? No.
An experiment is run to test a theory. Yes?
If you run a million experiments, have you replicated the theory, or verified the theory? ___________
Has the evolution theory and the Big Bang theory been replicated? No.

1st question, no.​

2nd question, yes.​

3rd question, it depends first off on what type of experiments you are performing and it depends on if you are talking 1 million “successful” experiments or 1 million unsuccessful experiments. You didn’t indicate which.

• If the former, then your experiments have successfully verified the theory.
• And, if the later, then it wouldn’t even be scientific theory. Failure of 1 million experiments should have happened during the “hypothesis” stage, not when it is a “scientific theory”.

The last question, is both a “yes” and a “no”.​

Both evolution biology and the Big Bang cosmology are valid and verified “SCIENTIFIC THEORY”, because all the available evidences confirmed each one, that we have better understanding than we ever did before when each one started out, respectively with Darwin (1859), and with Friedmann (1922), Robertson (1924-25) & Lemaître (1927).

Discoveries (as in evidences, not mere experiments) have been made since that time, but both still have some unanswered questions.

For examples, in the Big Bang theory, we have confirmed the predictions back in 1948, made by Gamow, Alpher and Herman, regarding to the Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN) and to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR in the Recombination Epoch), first in 1964, then more powerful radio telescopes and from space telescopes like WMAP and Planck space probe during 2000s.

However earlier epochs (earlier than BBN epoch), are still hypothetical and theoretical.

So far, the only physical cosmology getting evidences and verifiable data, come from the Big Bang camp.

All other alternatives, from astrophysicists such as the late Hawking (eg Multiverse model), and Penrose (eg Conformal Cyclical Cosmology or CCC), etc, are mathematically brilliant in their alternative models, but untestable at stage...or in likelihood probably never be verifiable.

Tell me, nPeace, do you have a better alternative to the physical cosmology?

As to evolution, the large number of evidences available for evolution, have already outstripped all old and recent alternative hypotheses, and not just in the fossils department (palaeontology), but aid in understanding medicines (eg bacterial and viral diseases), in molecular biology, and other various biological and biochemical fields.

The only way to dislodge evolution is too offer better explanation as to why species changed over time (hence biodiversity), with better supporting and testable evidences, not your personal dislike for evolution because of religious reasons.

And creationists, like yourself, often confused evolution with abiogenesis, which are two different fields.

If you have better hypothesis with conclusive evidences to back it up, please tell us your alternative?

If you going to say “God did it”, and start quoting from Genesis 1, 2 & 3, then I have already gone through these chapters, backwards and forwards, sideways and ups and downs, read between the lines and so on. It offer nothing of scientific value, because it never explain, and impossible to test.

Can you turn dust into living human being? Can eating fruit give you knowledge? Can serpent really talk?

These are the things Genesis claimed to have happened. If you can replicate any one of these, as your experiments, I will convert to whatever church you belong to.