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

[paarsurrey]

No, not the way that you mean it ... that is, something that is not physical at all and yet is still somehow "you." No, there's zero evidence for any such thing.

But if, by "spirituality," one means a deep investigation of what is essentially mysterious and unknowable about one's own self, about how one is connected to the universe and all within it, about what it means to have an existence over which one does not have complete control, but which one must nevertheless navigate -- then that is the "spirit" that many atheists accept. ("Believe in" is the wrong phrase for that.)

It is religious knowledge that every human being has a soul/spirit. It is not a scientific knowledge that every human being has a soul/spirit. What is one's basis of the knowledge in one's post, please?
There is no spirituality without spirit. It is just superstition. Right,please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I would say that prayer for most religions is communicating with someone or something that can answer. So, if you don't believe in anything that can change what you want changed there is no reason to pray. However, you could say prayer is helpful because it helps relieve stress or anxiety by imagining someone listening. This type of helpfulness would then equate prayer with meditation or other exercise used in the field of psychology. sorry for the double post.

Another way is that G-d accepts the prayer. Right,please?

Regards

 

[Timelli]

Well, go ahead! You tell me, because I don't pray, having nobody to pray to, and no expectation that somebody will solve my problems for me if I get on my knees and beg.

I'm sure that there are people who will say, "prayer makes me feel closer to God," or "prayer makes me feel better about myself." Sure, they may be right, but since those are 100% subjective, and also 100% unsubstantiable, what does it matter?

I believe in the God who is described in the Bible. This God has infinite wisdom and will therefore choose what is best. However, the Bible makes it clear that we should ask God for things in faith and it says that God will provide. The best example or evidence of this would be the life of Hudson Taylor, there is a biography about him.

 

[McBell]

I believe in the God who is described in the Bible. This God has infinite wisdom and will therefore choose what is best. However, the Bible makes it clear that we should ask God for things in faith and it says that God will provide. The best example or evidence of this would be the life of Hudson Taylor, there is a biography about him.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses does not help you.

 

[paarsurrey]

If God made "nature" then God IS the natural explanation.

Since G-d created nature or whatever G-d created is nature;does one mean that natural explanation is evidence of G-d ?

Regards

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

Regards

Actually it can. Sir Isaac Newton is a perfect example. He was an absolute genius when it came to figuring out gravitation and its effects on orbital bodies in the solar system. He believed that there were natural explanations and that if he studied the problems long enough he could figure out what they were. However there was a problem with certain unstable orbits that he just couldn't find an answer for. But instead of continuing with the notion that if he just kept working on the problem he could eventually find an answer, he instead decided that these unstable orbits were 'the unknowable hand of God'.

It wasn't until a century later that another scientist, Laplace - who insisted that there actually was a natural and knowable explanation - solved what Newton had wrongly concluded was the unknowable hand of god. Thus it can be argued that if Newton had continued to focus his remarkable intellect on the problem instead of invoking the hand of God, then the scientific explanation for Newton's unstable orbits wouldn't have been stalled for 100 years.

 

[paarsurrey]

Disagree. If the claim cannot pass scrutiny under scientific conditions, then there is no way to know if the claim is true. That is why religions are full of untestable claims and rely on faith instead of facts. Those claims of religion which are testable seem to fail regularly.

But none of that is relevant to your original question. You asked whether religion interfered with science. I replied that it did not as long as it was kept out of the scientific process. Science has no need for religion.

"If the claim cannot pass scrutiny under scientific conditions"

One is sure wrong, I understand. A philosophical matter is known from philosophical thoughts, it does not need necessarily to pass any scientific scrutiny. Right,please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Objective Evidence Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Please give me one's own understanding. How does one know objective evidence from non-objective evidence?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It is not an ally. It is superfluous and irrelevant.

There is no compulsion to believe that.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

In a word?? No.

Why not yes,please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

"If the claim cannot pass scrutiny under scientific conditions"

One is sure wrong, I understand. A philosophical matter is known from philosophical thoughts, it does not need necessarily to pass any scientific scrutiny. Right,please?

Regards

You seem to insist on going far afield of your OP.
Now we are going into philosophy? Let's stick with one topic.

 

[paarsurrey]

Please describe "religious evidence." Also, please define what you mean by "does work" in the context of prayer.

Does science cure in 100% cases? It does not , it is for this that people die. Human knowledge is not perfect as humans are not perfect?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Not sure. It is a new thing but we have learned a lot about the virus in a short time. It's DNA has been sequenced which will help us combat the virus. And of course it is not some alien that just appeared but is related to other viruses we know a lot about. Much research being carried out. But we obviously have much to learn. I am not dismissing the efficacy of prayer overall. The link I provided is on a result that is not the last word on the question.

"I am not dismissing the efficacy of prayer overall. "

We do accept efficacy of medical science in treatment of diseases though it does not help treat humans with 100% accuracy.
Similarly, prayer does help if the prayer is accepted by G-d. Right,please?

Regards

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Regards

If one believes that the universe was created by God, then studying the universe to learn about it is revealing the work of God. This does not mean that the presence of any god can be claimed by science, since that evidence does not exist for testing. But if believers claim that God created the universe in some fashion, then there is theological justification to study the universe (world, nature) and learn from it.

I believe that those claiming the Bible takes precedence over what we learn about the world are incorrect and it is there interpretations that are wrong.

 

[paarsurrey]

You seem to insist on going far afield of your OP.
Now we are going into philosophy? Let's stick with one topic.

There are different human problems these are solved as to the nature of it, why insist only on solution of them with scientific method?
Religious matters will be solved with religious method. Right,please?

Right, please?

Regards

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does science cure in 100% cases? It does not , it is for this that people die. Human knowledge is not perfect as humans are not perfect?

Regards

It would actually be the application of science in the form of modern medicine that treatments and cures are dispensed. But you are correct, these treatments are not 100% effective. We are not perfect, but through science, we are much better off than our ancestors in many ways.

 

[paarsurrey]

If one believes that the universe was created by God, then studying the universe to learn about it is revealing the work of God. This does not mean that the presence of any god can be claimed by science, since that evidence does not exist for testing. But if believers claim that God created the universe in some fashion, then there is theological justification to study the universe (world, nature) and learn from it.

I believe that those claiming the Bible takes precedence over what we learn about the world are incorrect and it is there interpretations that are wrong.

The truthful religion tells us that human problems will be solved with adopting the correct method according to the nature of the problem. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It would actually be the application of science in the form of modern medicine that treatments and cures are dispensed. But you are correct, these treatments are not 100% effective. We are not perfect, but through science, we are much better off than our ancestors in many ways.

I agree. Our helplessness in the face of Corona-virus tells us that are truthful measures all adopted. No harm in turning to G-d in these times as I understand. Right,please?

Regards

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The truthful religion tells us that human problems will be solved with adopting the correct method according to the nature of the problem. Right, please?

Regards

We have a number of resources to turn to when seeking solutions to problems. Science and religion are two very important sources, but with each, the answers must be weighed and reviewed wisely. We may be able to do many exciting things resulting from what we learn about through science, but our ethics and values are there to keep us from running off the deep end with some of those exciting results. I hope. Religion has an important role in helping us with those ethical determinations, but it should not condemn science out of fear and ignorance.

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually it can. Sir Isaac Newton is a perfect example. He was an absolute genius when it came to figuring out gravitation and its effects on orbital bodies in the solar system. He believed that there were natural explanations and that if he studied the problems long enough he could figure out what they were. However there was a problem with certain unstable orbits that he just couldn't find an answer for. But instead of continuing with the notion that if he just kept working on the problem he could eventually find an answer, he instead decided that these unstable orbits were 'the unknowable hand of God'.

It wasn't until a century later that another scientist, Laplace - who insisted that there actually was a natural and knowable explanation - solved what Newton had wrongly concluded was the unknowable hand of god. Thus it can be argued that if Newton had continued to focus his remarkable intellect on the problem instead of invoking the hand of God, then the scientific explanation for Newton's unstable orbits wouldn't have been stalled for 100 years.

"However there was a problem with certain unstable orbits that he just couldn't find an answer for. But instead of continuing with the notion that if he just kept working on the problem he could eventually find an answer, he instead decided that these unstable orbits were 'the unknowable hand of God'."

Newton was a human being, he did not claim to be a perfect human being. Right, please?

Regards