Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.

[McBell]

Because faith is defined as absolute trust. You would have absolutely no clue to as to what the truth is. You would be quite dumb to reject faith, I am/am not sorry.

Still nothing.

Again, I was not expecting anything, so no disappointment.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Still nothing.

Again, I was not expecting anything, so no disappointment.

I tried.

 

[Milton Platt]

Science has never, I understand, taken up the issue of existence or non-existence of any god/s as it is a religious issue, not an issue of science. Right,please?

Regards

Science has tested the claims of what various gods have said to have done, such as prayer, etc. and those claims wh

Science has never, I understand, taken up the issue of existence or non-existence of any god/s as it is a religious issue, not an issue of science. Right,please?

Regards

It depends upon how you define 'taken up".
Science cannot test an untestable claim. Since the claim that a god exists is essentially untestable, the existence of a god cannot be confirmed....hence, there is no reason to believe.

 

[Native]

It depends upon how you define 'taken up".
Science cannot test an untestable claim. Since the claim that a god exists is essentially untestable, the existence of a god cannot be confirmed....hence, there is no reason to believe.

Don´t let religious dogmas get the better of you

It depends on how you understand the concept of "god". Which again depends on your cultural and religious heritage.

Even in the biblical story of creation "god" is a LIGHT creator and so is the case in many other cultural religions. LIGHT is scientific testable and there you have a scientific god.

EDIT: BTW several of the cultural deities in the link in fact represent the central LIGHT in the Milky Way and NOT the Sun.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science has tested the claims of what various gods have said to have done, such as prayer, etc. and those claims wh


It depends upon how you define 'taken up".
Science cannot test an untestable claim. Since the claim that a god exists is essentially untestable, the existence of a god cannot be confirmed....hence, there is no reason to believe.

I agree that belief in God is outside the realm of science, but that is not the only reasons to believe. Nonetheless, the ancient religions dominated by ancient worldviews have difficulty making peace with science, and acknowledging the priority of science in understanding the nature of our physical existence.

 

[Native]

I agree that belief in God is outside the realm of science, but that is not the only reasons to believe.

The term of "God" is really not out of the scientific realms. It´s just forgotten by modern laymen, scholars and scientists.

Comparative Religion and Mythology are in fact scientific branches and when studying these topics, lots of deities represents all kinds of astronomical and cosmological issues - for instants as "deities of the Sun" and the Milky Way as referred here - List of solar deities - Wikipedia and here - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

The term of "God" is really not out of the scientific realms. It´s just forgotten by modern laymen, scholars and scientists.

I do not believe they are 'forgotten,' though today many people have different beliefs, and still many have ancient beliefs, but science remains the study of the physical tangible existence.

Comparative Religion and Mythology are in fact scientific branches and when studying these topics, lots of deities represents all kinds of astronomical and cosmological issues - for instants as "deities of the Sun" and the Milky Way as referred here - List of solar deities - Wikipedia and here - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

Comparative Religion and Mythology is the academic knowledge that is descriptive of the beliefs using scientific and historical knowledge to study religions, belief systems and ancient beliefs, and should not be confused with science itself. Referring to belief should not be confused with belief itself. Science cannot confirm nor refute any particular belief.

 

[Native]

Comparative Religion and Mythology is the academic knowledge that is descriptive of the beliefs using scientific and historical knowledge to study religions, belief systems and ancient beliefs, and should not be confused with science itself. Referring to belief should not be confused with belief itself. Science cannot confirm nor refute any particular belief.

If ancient myths, for instants, describes the factual Sun as a deity, it possibly cannot be taken just as a matter of belief.

The significant problem is that "scientific minded individuals" judges ancient myths in general as "mumbo jumbo hearsayings" where in fact Myths of Creation contains a lot of astronomical and cosmological informations.

Excerpt from Cosmogony - Wikipedia
"Cosmogony does not only relate to scientific theories, but also has connections to the humanities, more specifically creation myths. Creation, or cosmogonic myths, explain the creation of the universe or the cosmos by either

• a supreme being, or beings,
• the process of metamorphosis,
• the copulation of female and male deities,
• through chaos, or
• via the cosmic egg (also known as world egg)

And:
"Before cosmogony had roots in scientific theories, creation myths were used to provide explanations for the origin story of the universe. For instance, Eridu Genesis, the oldest known creation myth founded on Sumerian tablets, reveal how the epic concerned itself with the creation of the world, formulating of cities, and a great flood. The universe was created out of the primeval sea (see also Abzu), and thus, the gods are created and men were created to tend to nature. Creation myths vary, but they may share a similar deity or symbol. For instance, the ruler of the gods in Greek mythology, Zeus, is similar to the ruler of the gods in Roman mythology, Jupiter (Jove).

The term, myth, is generally believed to be stories that are fictional and purely for entertainment. However, myths help give historians and researchers insight into the theological practices and traditions of these cultures and thus, as literary critic and theorist Northrop Frye understood, exemplifies the significant importance of myths".
-------------------
The ancient way of describing their cosmos can ONLY be taken as "beliefs" when an individual, one way another, have ignored to study the mythical content and context.

Besides this, I don´t think modern cosmological science shall talk too much of "beliefs" as long as most of the modern cosmology STILL is based on "beliefs in theories" and not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Edit: As ancient cultures for instants mentioned the Sun as "a deity", all what´s remain is to define the term of "deity" and interpret this to "a creative force of the Sun" in the scientific terms.

 

[shunyadragon]

If ancient myths, for instants, describes the factual Sun as a deity, it possibly cannot be taken just as a matter of belief.

As far as science and history is concerned it is simply descriptive of the what is the 'matter of belief' by different religions, cultures, and belief systems now and in the past. Science an history cannot confirm nor negate the 'truth' or validity os any religious belief.

The significant problem is that "scientific minded individuals" judges ancient myths in general as "mumbo jumbo hearsayings" where in fact Myths of Creation contains a lot of astronomical and cosmological informations.

Actually no, academic science and history cannot and does not make these judgments concerning 'objective' religious beliefs like the existence of God(s), unless the religious claims are in conflict with the actual objective verifiable evidence supporting .

Excerpt from Cosmogony - Wikipedia
"Cosmogony does not only relate to scientific theories, but also has connections to the humanities, more specifically creation myths. Creation, or cosmogonic myths, explain the creation of the universe or the cosmos by either

• a supreme being, or beings,
• the process of metamorphosis,
• the copulation of female and male deities,
• through chaos, or
• via the cosmic egg (also known as world egg)

And:
"Before cosmogony had roots in scientific theories, creation myths were used to provide explanations for the origin story of the universe. For instance, Eridu Genesis, the oldest known creation myth founded on Sumerian tablets, reveal how the epic concerned itself with the creation of the world, formulating of cities, and a great flood. The universe was created out of the primeval sea (see also Abzu), and thus, the gods are created and men were created to tend to nature. Creation myths vary, but they may share a similar deity or symbol. For instance, the ruler of the gods in Greek mythology, Zeus, is similar to the ruler of the gods in Roman mythology, Jupiter (Young ).

The term, myth, is generally believed to be stories that are fictional and purely for entertainment. However, myths help give historians and researchers insight into the theological practices and traditions of these cultures and thus, as literary critic and theorist Northrop Frye understood, exemplifies the significant importance of myths".
-------------------
The ancient way of describing their cosmos can ONLY be taken as "beliefs" when an individual, one way another, have ignored to study the mythical content and context.

Besides this, I don´t think modern cosmological science shall talk too much of "beliefs" as long as most of the modern cosmology STILL is based on "beliefs in theories" and not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Edit: As ancient cultures for instants mentioned the Sun as "a deity", all what´s remain is to define the term of "deity" and interpret this to "a creative force of the Sun" in the scientific terms.

When religious beliefs, myths, and ancient world views claim to factually describe our cosmos, as in the belief that Genesis is a factual record of physical Creation, then yes, science does give the factual accounts based on the objective verifiable evidence, and yes these beliefs claiming to be factual accounts of the cosmos are false. It is not 'beliefs' in theories. Beliefs are subjective claims, and science is based on objective verifiable evidence concrning the nature of the our physical existence.

 

[Native]

When religious beliefs, myths, and ancient world views claim to factually describe our cosmos, as in the belief that Genesis is a factual record of physical Creation, then yes, science does give the factual accounts based on the objective verifiable evidence,

and yes these beliefs claiming to be factual accounts of the cosmos are false.

So you both agree and disagree at the same time?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you both agree and disagree at the same time?

Well, ah . . . as a whole I disagree, but there is a possibility of points of agreement, but that is not clear at present.

There is an important contribution of archaeology, anthropology and paleontology is the discoveries and research into the religious beliefs, ceremonies and objects of worship of Bronze Age going back to the Neolithic and Paleolithic human cultures. This even includes Neanderthals, and other ancestors of homo sapiens.

My main interest is ancient Jade Age Culture of China, in particular before the advent of writing.

 

[paarsurrey]

The term of "God" is really not out of the scientific realms. It´s just forgotten by modern laymen, scholars and scientists.

Comparative Religion and Mythology are in fact scientific branches and when studying these topics, lots of deities represents all kinds of astronomical and cosmological issues - for instants as "deities of the Sun" and the Milky Way as referred here - List of solar deities - Wikipedia and here - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

"The term of "God" is really not out of the scientific realms."

How could one say that, please?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Don´t let religious dogmas get the better of you

It depends on how you understand the concept of "god". Which again depends on your cultural and religious heritage.

Even in the biblical story of creation "god" is a LIGHT creator and so is the case in many other cultural religions. LIGHT is scientific testable and there you have a scientific god.

EDIT: BTW several of the cultural deities in the link in fact represent the central LIGHT in the Milky Way and NOT the Sun.

Light being "testable" and "tested", only verify the existence of light.

But verifying light DOESN'T VERIFY GOD or GODS in any way, shape or form.

To say God creating anything, let alone light, then you must first verify the existence of god, before you can verify that this or that god was involved in creating the "light".

And there are no such evidence whatsoever in regarding to god or gods existing...so the "creating" part is just fantasy and pure superstition, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Native]

Well, ah . . . as a whole I disagree, but there is a possibility of points of agreement, but that is not clear at present.

Well, in my opinion there is lots of agreement and fewer disagreements between ancient Myths of Creation and modern cosmological science and this is clear, at least to me, when one take the ancient stories serious as a telling of the creation of our Milky Way.

There is an important contribution of archaeology, anthropology and paleontology is the discoveries and research into the religious beliefs, ceremonies and objects of worship of Bronze Age going back to the Neolithic and Paleolithic human cultures. This even includes Neanderthals, and other ancestors of homo sapiens.

I agree in this and all this should also include the cultural mythical/religious Stories of Creation.

My main interest is ancient Jade Age Culture of China, in particular before the advent of writing.

This period is interesting and somewhat similar to the Bronze Age where all kinds of astronomical and natural symbols were carved in rock surfaces. In Scandinavia written text came in the Viking Age.

 

[Native]

"The term of "God" is really not out of the scientific realms."
How could one say that, please?

As I said above:

Edit: As ancient cultures for instants mentioned the Sun as "a deity", all what´s remain is to define the term of "deity" and interpret this to "a creative force of the Sun" in the scientific terms.

It all depend on taking the ancient informations and transfer these into modern scientific terms. Whether you name the Sun as a god or a scientific light in the Sky, it really don´t matter. Both approaches are equal and valid.

 

[Milton Platt]

Don´t let religious dogmas get the better of you

It depends on how you understand the concept of "god". Which again depends on your cultural and religious heritage.

Even in the biblical story of creation "god" is a LIGHT creator and so is the case in many other cultural religions. LIGHT is scientific testable and there you have a scientific god.

EDIT: BTW several of the cultural deities in the link in fact represent the central LIGHT in the Milky Way and NOT the Sun.

Well, yes, if you wish to worship photons, I guess so.

 

[gnostic]

It all depend on taking the ancient informations and transfer these into modern scientific terms. Whether you name the Sun as a god or a scientific light in the Sky, it really don´t matter. Both approaches are equal and valid.

Except with science they attempt to explain the natural phenomena, such as light or the Sun, what they are, and how they work. And what they "explain", they will attempt to test through observation, eg evidence, test results from experiments, etc.

The evidence will either (A) REFUTE the explanation as faulty or incorrect, or (B) VERIFY the explanation as probably true.

There is a 3rd possible outcome (outcome C), where there are no positive evidence and no negative evidence, meaning there is a complete absence of evidence. In this case, the explanation ISN'T TESTABLE.

Outcome C is where deity/deities, spirits, fairies, miracles, magic, and anything supernatural or outworldly or paranormal come in.

In science, if you are going to include an "agent" or more in the natural phenomena, then you not only must evidence for the existence of nature, but also empirical evidence that this agent exist, and some more evidence that this agent is responsible for natural phenomena.

If you cannot observe, measure and test this agent, then the agent don't exist.

Well, guess what, Native. If you cannot observe, measure and test god or spirit or whatever religious supernatural entity, then what you believe, don't exist, if you follow the requirements of science (eg Falsifiability, Scientific Method, Peer Review).

 

[Native]

Well, yes, if you wish to worship photons, I guess so.

Or Sun bathing Or worshiping the Sun as a divine life giving source on Earth - as our ancestors did.

 

[Polymath257]

Because faith is defined as absolute trust. You would have absolutely no clue to as to what the truth is. You would be quite dumb to reject faith, I am/am not sorry.

Hmm...if faith is 'absolute trust', then I see a *very* good reason to reject faith: such absolute trust is dangerous if the ideas trusted are false. And there is no way to know they are true.

 

[Milton Platt]

Or Sun bathing Or worshiping the Sun as a divine life giving source on Earth - as our ancestors did.

I don't do worship.....