-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Intellectual honesty and faith, tradition and revelation will never be able to agree on much.
When I read your posts intellectual honesty is always there. :clap
Sapiens
Polymathematician
The "mischief" lies not in the fields but in the "news reports"" the "who, what, where, why and how." Religion has real problems with those five questions and invariably (depending as the religionists do on an omnipotent fairy-in-chief or similar character to guide the mouth and or hand of a long line of tale spinners, authors, scribes, and translators, etc., each with their own axe to grind) the religious answers to the question rub up against the reality that history has recorded, or the reality that science has documented, and then the religionists start to scream whatever the contemporary equivalent of "off with his head" is. The areas of "stuff" are not different ... there are some areas of non-overlap, but the areas of actual overlap are only reduced by the religionists giving up ground and they do not seem to like that.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
No religious founder like Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Muhammad ever opposed science.
Why you want to create distance between religion and science?
Regards
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Because science tends to debunk the special and supernatural claims that religions often have at the core of their belief system.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Because they have no operative similarities that unite them.
The preeminent core of religion is faith, whereas evidence is the core of science.
Last edited:
So, do you agre that one of our remote ancestors was a fish? No theological problem there?
Because this is what real science says. Unless, as usual, religious people picks the part of science they like and label them as "real science" while the rest is not real.
In this case science will always agree with religion. Basically, everything else would, as well.
Ciao
- viole
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
as discussed elsewhere, unveiling the greatest secrets of the universe has been largely a battle of science versus atheism.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sapiens
Polymathematician
... and where has this comedy routine been running?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
several threads, atheists v scientific progress - e.g. Hoyle v Lemaitre-
the comedy of errors inspired by 'no creation = no creator' otherwise known as static, eternal, steady state, Big Crunch etc -
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
Peace be on you.
Your courage is great. Congratulation.
What is meant by religion in above studies? Religion in nascent form or religion in twisted form with anti-practice or no practice.
Why once US and others were on top in science, yet they were good in ethic and morals?
Why once China was low in science and why it is high? Same check for Russia?
Why once Muslims were high in science?..Why they are low now?
There are several factors to look at.
World Intellectual Property Indicators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do not just change the name of RForums to AForums?
True religion is word of God, proven science is work of same God.
Last edited:
Aw, shucks....it don't take no courage. I'm just clueless about people's reactions.
Because religion is interesting. Atheism is boring.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I'd say freedom, religious and economic has a lot to do with this?
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
In fact Holy Quran has hundred of place where it asks believers to ponder over natural phenomenon to the good of humanity.
Few examples:
[2:165] Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of night and day, and in the ships which sail in the sea with that which profits men, and in the water which Allah sends down from the sky and quickens therewith the earth after its death and scatters therein all kinds of beasts, and in the change of the winds, and the clouds pressed into service between the heaven and the earth — are indeed Signs for the people who understand.
[14:33] Allah is He Who created the heavens and the earth and caused water to come down from the clouds, and brought forth therewith fruits for your sustenance; and He has subjected to you the ships that they may sail through the sea by His command, and the rivers too has He subjected to you.
[14:34] And He has also subjected to you the sun and the moon, both performing their work constantly. And He has subjected to you the night as well as the day.
[14:35] And He gave you all that you wanted of Him; and if you try to count the favours of Allah, you will not be able to number them. Verily, man is very unjust, very ungrateful.
(alislam.org/quran)
Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) asked followers to learn from cradle to grave.
If today Muslims are low, it because of their fanatic clergies and political leader and lack of Will. Once they were doing good for humanity.
In Promised Messiah Mahdi's Ahmadiyya reforms under Khilafat reforms are in progress in all human related areas.
One is sure, other religions too has stressed on learning in their true form of education.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Rather more likely that no creator equals no creation. Does not theisim invoke static, eternal, steady state (at least with respect to the fairy king of everything?)
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I'd agree that no creator would mean no creation, & yes the creator would transcend time as we know it since he would not be bound by the laws of his own creation
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
But you are mistaking 'creator' for some kind of being. The creator need he nothing more than some physical force - like gravity for example. So the creator (if there is one) does not in fact require any of the characteristics of a god at all. There is no reason to imagine the creator to be a person or an intelligence.
Saying that creation needs a creator does not in any way suggest that an intelligent being was involved.