Showing the other is correct.

[Cockadoodledoo]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

Can one particular religion show other religions are correct rather than just some fairy story?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Can one particular religion show other religions are correct rather than just some fairy story?

Or is everything against everything, and why?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Or is everything against everything, and why?

Does one have to take sides?

 

[Iti oj]

I suppose it depends on the individual 'things' and not answerable as a whole.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

If whichever religion is correct, science will adapt to the facts and evidence, then move from there.
Religion can either accept science or deny it, but science doesn't need religion to prove itself.

Can one particular religion show other religions are correct rather than just some fairy story?

Only with pointlessly complex or depressingly simple dialogue, but it really depends on the religion.

Or is everything against everything, and why?

Everything being against everything is fine with me, though I can't say it truly is that way.
Opposition is a good thing anyways, so long as it isn't violent or innately harmful to progress.

Does one have to take sides?

Only within ones own head, and only with matters of belief.

 

[Augustus]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

Well modern science was strongly driven by religion, both as a motivation for studying and in terms of direct financial support. The idea that the universe had rational laws which could be discovered was based on a Divine Creator.

Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.

That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.


But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.

Science owes much to both Christianity and the Middle Ages : Soapbox Science

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

Depends on the religion. Science shows that neopaganism, to those who believe in the environment, spirits of the environment, and/or gods as our environment, science is part of that religion.

If you mean abrahamic religions, science (laws of nature?) doesn't prove those religions are correct even though they claim it does.

Religion in general depends on the person. So, you'd have to be more specific.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

Science cannot show a religion to be correct by definition, because if it could then the religion would no longer be a religion. It can disprove religions however.

I suppose the Luciferian teaching that we should question everything implies the scientific method is correct, but science does not need to be proven by religion because it stands on it's own.

 

[George-ananda]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

I see no conflict between science and intelligent religion. Religion however will speak of things outside of science's current reach to examine.

 

[Native]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

Once upon a time mythology (religion) was the only science which covered everything. "Religion" means to be "mutual connected", which is the world concept in many native tribes. Everything is connected or "entangled" in modern scientific terms. So far religion/mythology and modern science confirms each other.

The big difference between the mythological and scientifical ideas is the cyclical world view in mythology compared to the linear in modern cosmology, which is a huge disadvantage in modern cosmology.

When reading of some cultural stories of creation, several of these describe a state before creation i.e. the basical stages of elements and the principles of creation.

For instants, in the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, it is stated that all elements are eternal and undergoes an eternal formation of assembling, dissolution and re-assembling via two main qualities, symbolized as complementary male and female creative forces, which can be translated into magnetic polarities in modern terms.

When it comes to the ancient telling of creation, this doesn´t IMO deal with the creation of the entire Universe since this is stated to be eternal. Most of the cultural stories of creation speaks specifically of the creation of the ancient known world, namely of our Milky Way galaxy and everything in it, of course including our Solar System.

The mythical stories of creation takes place in "a whirling center" of creation, biblically called "The Garden of Eden" - from where "Adam and Eve is expulled". That is: The dualistic interpretation is wrong. The story of creation is a cosmological telling and not a pshycological one. Everything in the ancient stories is created in the center of our Milky Way galaxy and spread out in the galactic surroundings. Read more here of the Circular Galactic Formation.

It is my opinion that modern science and mythological stories of creation can (and shall) support and correct each other, and in this matter modern science can learn a lot from the mythical stories of creation, simply and mostly because of the mythical cyclical world view.

The hard part for modern people is to interpret the myths and the symbols in the correct celestial realms and to the correct celestial objects and motions. But when this is acchieved, real cosmological knowledge can be found in the ancient myths.

Visit my personal Mytho-Cosmological Website and give some response on this.

Regards
Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher

 

[HonestJoe]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

I think this is an age-old flawed question. Religion is something people do. They’re collections of beliefs, traditions and practices which define how followers live their lives to a greater or lesser extent. The idea of “religion” as a concept being correct makes no sense at all and I’m not even sure you could declare a specific religion as a whole correct or not either.

There are obviously specific religiously held beliefs which could be assessed via scientific methods but that fact they might be associated with religions doesn’t really make any difference from the scientific point of view. In that context, religion only serves as a distraction to openly and honestly assessing what is and isn’t true.

 

[Native]

I think this is an age-old flawed question. Religion is something people do

Yes "religion is something people do" - if we observe this issue with modern eyes.
But "once upon a time" religion i.e. the religious/mythological story of creation was real science in all ancient cultures.
This is not "an age-old flawed question". It is "just" the modern people who have forgotten the ancient empirical wisdom from physical and spiritual observations of the creation.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes "religion is something people do" - if we observe this issue with modern eyes.

But "once upon a time" religion i.e. the religious/mythological story of creation was real science in all ancient cultures.

This is not "an age-old flawed question". It is "just" the modern people who have forgotten the ancient empirical wisdom from physical and spiritual observations of the creation.

”Religious/mythological stories” aren’t and have never been “real science”. They were obviously very important in many cultures and even socially and culturally beneficial in many cases.

“Physical and spiritual observations of the creation” wouldn’t require religion nor is it required of religion. After all, many religions actively promote the idea of some knowledge or understanding being unavailable to us mere mortals. Observation is a key element of scientific process but without preconceptions and without predefined restrictions.

 

[Native]

”Religious/mythological stories” aren’t and have never been “real science”.

As I wrote earlier:
QUOTE="Native, post: 5068818, member: 32289"]It is "just" the modern people who have forgotten the ancient empirical wisdom from physical and spiritual observations of the creation.[/QUOTE]
You too seems to have forgotten

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

The answers will largely depend on what one means by "science," "religion," and "correct."

 

[Skwim]

Can science show that religion is correct, and can religion show that science is correct?

Correct about what? Your questions are like asking "Can philosophy show that sports are correct? and can sports show that philosophy is correct" Neither make any sense.


.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

The answers will largely depend on what one means by "science," "religion," and "correct."

Correct about what? Your questions are like asking "Can philosophy show that sports are correct? and can sports show that philosophy is correct" Neither make any sense.


I guess I mean 'Can the various religions and science show that they are all in agreement?'

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Science deals with the natural world. The supernatural, if it exists at all, would be outside the purview of science. What science can do is make statements about religious claims which are purportedly observed in the natural world. I.e. a global flood in the biblical sense is not scientifically sound, there's no scientific evidence of spirits, souls, ghosts, etc all interacting with the natural world, a literal creation event is contradicted by biological evolution and so on.

 

[Native]

What science can do is make statements about religious claims which are purportedly observed in the natural world. I.e. a global flood in the biblical sense is not scientifically sound,

I agree that the biblical sense of the Flood isn´t scientifically sound. But if you have the mythical knowledge of the Flood, this is perfectly sound.

The contours of the Milky Way "runs around the entire Earth" as a "river in the Sky" as mentioned in several cultural Stories of Creation.

This celestial river or flood is interpreted by scholars as a flood running all over and ON the Earth, instead of up in the Sky.

The correct interpretation of this myth is just as scientific as a modern image of the Milky Way contours.

So myths as well as science deals with natural observations in the natural world.