Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science. Does it ?

[exchemist]

Sure it is. What I wrote and: 'Does turning to G-d stall the progress of science?' is essentially the exact same thing. So my answer is YES, Newton turning to G-d DID result in stalling the progress of science. Whether or not Newton thought he was perfect had NOTHING to do with the question. And you stating that he wasn't and now cl;aiming that the question asked is different is just a way for you to avoid admitting that I DID provide you with an example. Right, please?

The OP question was:

"Turning to God does not stall the progress of science.Does it?"

Whereas you claimed that the question was "if a belief in god has ever impeded the advance of science". [my bold]

Can you not see the difference between these two questions?

 

[exchemist]

Sure it does. Case in point: Stem cell research. 'Nuff said.

Kenneth Miller. Nuff said.

Or Charles Coulson.

Or Copernicus

Or Robert Buckland

Or Gregor Mendel

Or any one of countless religious people who have contributed to science over the centuries.

 

[ecco]

If there is no spirit then there cannot be any spirituality as some atheist have claimed in this thread.

There are no ghosts. Yet some people believe in ghosts.

In any case, what atheists have claimed: "If there is no spirit then there cannot be any spirituality"?

However, the religious knowledge confirms existence of spirit/soul. Right, please?

What "religious knowledge" are you referring to? Religious beliefs are beliefs, not knowledge.

 

[ecco]

Kenneth Miller. Nuff said.

Or Charles Coulson.

Or Copernicus

Or Robert Buckland

Or Gregor Mendel

Or any one of countless religious people who have contributed to science over the centuries.

The question was not "have any religious people contributed to science"? The question was does turning to god impede science. Many people who "turned to god" stopped stem cell research, at least in this Country.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The OP question was:

"Turning to God does not stall the progress of science.Does it?"

Whereas you claimed that the question was "if a belief in god has ever impeded the advance of science". [my bold]

Can you not see the difference between these two questions?

No, not other than the fact that the OP's 'question' was oddly stated more as an assertion. Turning to god is the same as having a belief in god. Stalling the progress of science is the same as impeding the advance of science. The OP asserted that turning to God does NOT stall scientific progress. My response is yes it CAN... and Newton is a perfect example. Nitpicking whether or not I used the OPs exact words is just a way of avoiding that reality.

 

[exchemist]

The question was not "have any religious people contributed to science"? The question was does turning to god impede science. Many people who "turned to god" stopped stem cell research, at least in this Country.

Yes, that's a fair point, I suppose.

The whole idea of "turning to God", presupposes one was facing in a different direction to start with and then changed, which would not be true of the people I cited.

 

[exchemist]

No, not other than the fact that the OP's 'question' was oddly stated more as an assertion. Turning to god is the same as having a belief in god. Stalling the progress of science is the same as impeding the advance of science. The OP asserted that turning to God does NOT stall scientific progress. My response is yes it CAN... and Newton is a perfect example. Nitpicking whether or not I used the OPs exact words is just a way of avoiding that reality.

"It can" does not mean the same as "it does".

And the fact is that a great many scientists were and are religious believers without it in any way impeding their contributions.

 

[dad]

Superstition and mythology is not a meaningful response.

Evolution is mythology and superstitious belief.

"in the popular piety of the Greeks, the myths were viewed as true accounts."
.."people of all countries, eras, and stages of civilization have developed myths that explain the existence and workings of natural phenomena"
Greek mythology | Gods, Stories, & History

Sound familiar? Science develops stories to explain the workings of the natural world!

Webster has this to say about superstition...
" a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation"

!! So evolution is myth and superstition.

 

[dad]

Yes, that's a fair point, I suppose.

The whole idea of "turning to God", presupposes one was facing in a different direction to start with and then changed, which would not be true of the people I cited.

If all people came from Adam and Eve, then we all knew God before. If Noah and his kids were where we all came from more recently, then we did know God. The departure from God started around the time of Babel, after the flood. People resorted to all and any false gods in an act of rebellion against God.

 

[Nimos]

Is one a believer of Grillion. If yes, then quote from the scripture where one got the claim. Right,please?

Why bring scriptures into this? Just because somebody wrote it down doesn't mean that it is true. Lots of stuff have been written down which isn't true.

My point with the Grillion example is simply, that just as you can make a claim, so can I. The mere fact that I wrote about Grillion in the last post is equally as valid as what is written in scriptures from the point of view that it simply have been written down. And therefore that is not a reason to assume that it is also true.

Where I got the information of Grillion is what is important and whether I would be able to justify or proof that it is true. And it just happens that I got it through revelation, a few seconds before I wrote it in the post. Obviously you would not believe that. Which I wouldn't blame you for.

But asserting that people writing down stuff thousands of years ago, definitely got their information from a God is equally unbelievable, which is why it is just as important to question this as my revelation is.

I can't proof to you that I had this revelation, just as you can't proof that these people got it from a God. Therefore its a matter of faith. You can either trust me and that im telling the truth or you can be sceptical about it and choose not to believe me, before I can actually proof it. And my guess is that you are going to be sceptical for very good reasons.

Just as Im sceptical about scriptures and God.
I do not think im being presented better evidence for it being true, than what im giving you here. Which is merely a choice, either you believe me or you don't? Obviously if you deny that Grillion is true, you will be punished for eternity and will be much worse than that of hell, but the choice is yours to make freely, I won't try to force you.

 

[Jane Boswell]

Just think of science as the perpetual unfolding of the universe, or what you call god. If we knew it all at once, we'd have incarnated as something superior to flawed humans. Science confounds religion so that sanctimonious fools eventually realize that they are servile and redundant.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for admitting it. Remember, don't blame pollution, biowarfare, and nuclear war on God.



Man does tend to try and explain things he is ignorant about in a way that seems believable, just look at science!


Better adapt your little speech. We could tailor it to the hundreds of millions of babies science has facilitated being destroyed. 'Your horrible death, and being robbed of life is due to the dawn of the enlightenment, cheer up, you died for a good cause' And to the folks dead in Hiroshima, 'Your horrible death, in some cases the living hell for years until the final end of your life was due to the dawn of the enlightenment, so give a little bow to science' etc etc.




Psychopaths may think that they achieved a powerful way to understand knives and guns, and what life is all about. I suggest that what some people 'realize' may not be love and sanity and truth.

Embracing evil with the whole heart and soul and mind is a wonderful thing then, to some folks. Your speech can add a little part that tells people 'Don't hold back, let go and yield to the force that guides science in every facet of death and life, no more questions'

If they were sincere, they would have drawn a line and kept science in its little place.

Dad, you rely on the benefits of science every moment of your day. You would have had none of those benefits without the insistence of science on explaining nature in terms only of nature. Your post is blinkered and hypocritical.

The moment you drag God into science as an explanation, science is killed, stone dead.

 

[QuestioningMind]

"It can" does not mean the same as "it does".

And the fact is that a great many scientists were and are religious believers without it in any way impeding their contributions.

And who ever claimed that just because something CAN happen means that it means it always DOES happen? It was the OP who asserted that it never DOES happen and my ability to provide an example of when it DID happen indicates that the OPs assertion is wrong.

 

[dad]

Dad, you rely on the benefits of science every moment of your day. You would have had none of those benefits without the insistence of science on explaining nature in terms only of nature. Your post is blinkered and hypocritical.

The moment you drag God into science as an explanation, science is killed, stone dead.

R.I.P.!

 

[paarsurrey]

"It can" does not mean the same as "it does".

And the fact is that a great many scientists were and are religious believers without it in any way impeding their contributions.

I agree with one.
Science has never taken up the issue that "the truthful religion impedes or stalls the progress of science". It is not from science, it is a political notion of Atheism people to malign religion, I understand. Right,please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

There are no ghosts. Yet some people believe in ghosts.

In any case, what atheists have claimed: "If there is no spirit then there cannot be any spirituality"?


What "religious knowledge" are you referring to? Religious beliefs are beliefs, not knowledge.

"In any case, what atheists have claimed: "If there is no spirit then there cannot be any spirituality"?"

Please go through the posts of this thread, one will find the post where it has been claimed sort of Atheism who don't believe in spirit/soul yet they have spirituality, if I understood correctly. Right, please?

Regards
____________
#59 Evangelicalhumanist

 

[paarsurrey]

There are no ghosts. Yet some people believe in ghosts.

In any case, what atheists have claimed: "If there is no spirit then there cannot be any spirituality"?

What "religious knowledge" are you referring to? Religious beliefs are beliefs, not knowledge.

"What "religious knowledge" are you referring to? Religious beliefs are beliefs, not knowledge"

Knowledge has many disciplines, philosophical, religions, sciences etc, all for the purpose of understanding G-d creation. Right,please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure it is. What I wrote and: 'Does turning to G-d stall the progress of science?' is essentially the exact same thing. So my answer is YES, Newton turning to G-d DID result in stalling the progress of science. Whether or not Newton thought he was perfect had NOTHING to do with the question. And you stating that he wasn't and now cl;aiming that the question asked is different is just a way for you to avoid admitting that I DID provide you with an example. Right, please?

Is that story ,about Newton, a part of some science project taken up by science, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The question is whether ancient religions provide the guidance need to understand and fully accept science today.

Was this issue presented to Jesus,please? If not, why take it negatively?

Regards

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Every religion that presents a truthful approach on an issue, to that extent it is truthful and from G-d. Right,please?

Regards

What do you mean by 'truthful' here? 'Truthful' by what/whose standards?