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

[paarsurrey]

What are 'truthful religions'?

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

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

As have many people in other religions.

It is the mistake of the individuals not necessarily of the religion, please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No, it gives evidence that some religious scientists put science above religion.

On what basis, these are different domains?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

A lot of atheists think it does. However, they're wrong. They've been sold a nonsense story from modern secular historians. Everyone should do themselves a favor and read this book (or try to, I'm not sure if I wasn't in the mood because alot of other stuff was going on, or if it was dry).

The Discoverers - Wikipedia

It's about how the Judeo-Christian world, but more specifically the reformed Jewish and the Christians created much of this modern world. Sorry Muslims, you didn't make all this.

Now, why would we think otherwise? Because we are sold this story about Galileo or Copernicus (these twits are too similar) getting condemned by the church because he tried to sell ppl on heliocentric theory. "See? See? Religion is anti-science!" Uhhh no, I don't see. What I do see is that this guy tried to quibble with the church over their own dogma, then went out of his way to play the martyr for it. It's one thing to quietly assert that perhaps the Earth is round or perhaps it revolves around the sun among the scientific community (which at the time was working with the church because of the scholastic movement), it's quite another to call the church out on it's own theology. Since atheists have no sense of equivalency, I'll try to explain. Rhis would be like C.S. Lewis, if he were around with Dawkins basically coming to his place and publicly shouting "Look! Look! This proves God exists!" with a bunch of atheists around. That's how you publicly shame people. And usually how you die. In fact, the Pope supported Copernicus's astronomical reforms.

Christian History Timeline: Christianity and the Scientific Revolution | Christian History Magazine

This theory that religion somehow opposed science is calked the "warfare theory" and originated in the French Revolution as a way to discredit Catholic Church. Too bad it's nonsense.

The Christian Face of the Scientific Revolution: Christian History Interview - Natural Adversaries?

In fact, the only religions to have nearly our technological strides for their era was Taoism and maybe the Egyptian/Roman religion. China (and Japan) as a result of alchemy, mostly from emperors seeking elixirs of immortality, produced a great number of side advances, like crude seismic devices and gunpowder. The Egyptian/Roman religion like created advances in architecture and the latter had created so. However, there are limits. Taoism for instance believed that an ideal life is less suited for labor-saving devices, and that an ideal state has people live contentedly in villages and never wander to another country ( proof that China has lost the Tao, right now) even though the land is close enough that one can "hear the cock crow". And the two pagan religions for the most part were advancing mainly due to their state rather than because anything was intrinsically geared to the study of science.

Christianity, on the other hand, was involved in a deity that created things, and was curious about the natural world, having none of old Judaism's hangups with "tradition." Lacking a strong teaching about mitzvahs , Christian people instead focused on knowing God and his creation, and there was a strong mentality that people become "co-creators." But while Christianity specifically saw science as a means to understand God better, they have in recent times put the brakes on UNETHICAL science. Cloning people in a laboratory, harvesting little children for organs, making nukes (or worse)? I don't think these are ways we should use science.

"A lot of atheists think it does. However, they're wrong. They've been sold a nonsense story from modern secular historians."

I agree with one here.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, yes Dad, we're used to this from you by now. For the sake of other readers (it will be like water off a duck's back to you, I realise) I will now give my usual short speech on this tosh of yours:-

Science has succeeded, since its inception after the Renaissance, by leaving God out of its method of understanding nature. That is what enabled scientific progress to be made.

In the Medieval world, people labelled things they could not explain, such as thunder, earthquakes and epidemics of disease as "acts of God", beyond human understanding. That made them feel a bit better about accepting such things, no doubt, but it did not advance understanding of them in any way.

The change, at the dawn of the Enlightenment, was not to be content with passive acceptance, but to question and investigate by observing patterns in nature and linking them. It started with things such as Copernican astronomy and the success of Newton's laws in accounting for what was observed. Brilliant successes such as these led to the same type of thinking being applied to a wider range of phenomena. And there were more successes. So people realised this was a powerful way to understand nature. Clearly, then, there was no need to merely accept things as acts of God beyond our understanding.

In fact, thinking of phenomena in that way promoted just the sort of passive, unquestioning acceptance that had held humanity back in previous eras.

It is worth noting that most of the early scientists were religious believers and quite a number of them were clergymen. So this method of enquiry into nature was not a sign of "atheism" in any way, shape or form.

Thanks for the input.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think you would run into some issues with that. If we go by the definition of natural:

1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

So it has to derive from nature and not being created unnaturally. If God is suppose to be eternal then he is not natural and therefore he can't have derived from nature.
If he is natural then it is even more relevant to ask who created him? Which obviously lead nowhere.

So regardless of how you look at it, either one would have to explain who created God or one would simply have to stick to the idea that God is eternal based purely on faith. Which means that it is nothing but a claim that can't be verified, which is what most believers will cling to.

G-d is who always existed and will exist, so that question does not arise. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I see, so true religion was heart and soul behind science inventing the atomic bomb and other womd. True religion was heart and soul behind science when it invented ways to change sexes and kill babies easy, and replace the truth of creation.

Sorry, don't think so, in fact the opposite is true.

The truthful religion has always been an ally of science in peaceful, ethical, positive and moral things. Right, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

As have many people in other religions.

Actually no, by far the overall majority of Hindus, and Jews have accepted the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis. The Baha'is accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis. historically and today (40-50%+) reject the science of evolution and abiogenesis. With Muslims it is more variable, because many accept the literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

The truthful religion has always been an ally of science in peaceful, ethical, positive and moral things. Right, please?

Regards

Actually historically no, as @dad believes, and many of not most Christians reject the science of evolution and abiogenesis in one way or another.

 

[ChristineM]

On what basis, these are different domains?

Regards

On the basis that at their fundimental levels science and religion contradict each other.

Take the case of Norman Borlaug, his work included genetic modification of crops, in doing so he has saved over a billion people from starvation. In religion belief is that god made things perfect, therefore the genetic code is sacrosanct and not to be modified.

The only way a human can take the path he took was to put science over religion

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We really cant accurately claim there is zero evidence. It does exist. However, the credibility amd strength of said evidence is a different story.

Seriously, I know of zero evidence for a separate "spirit." I can't see gravity, but I can demonstrate it with ease. Nobody can see quantum spin, but it's used every day in MRI machines to provide detailed looks inside people's bodies.

Nobody, however, has ever produced a single means of demonstrating the existence of a spirit outside of the workings of the physical and chemical workings of the human body.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

I do not accept the idea of "religious knowledge." I accept the idea of "religious belief," but that's a very different thing. Somebody, long ago, believed something (or pretended to believe something) and wrote it down. It got collected in a book (different books for different religions), then people decided to believe it or not. But at no time has there been evidence for most of what is believed -- it's just believed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A lot of Nobel prize winners have been Christian.

But not a single one of them ever invoked the Bible to refute the results of their experiments.

How do you know how they interpret the Bible or whether it's OK with them?

In most cases, I don't know how they interpret the Bible, but that's not what I said. Take, for example, the example of Isaac Newton. Newton was a religious man (actually, with some odd religious notions, and liked alchemy as well). However, when you read Newton's magnificent work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or the Opticks or Method of Fluxions. In those books, he restricts himself to the methods of science, and doesn't let his religious notions intrude. And that is all that's required.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And what is one's understanding of subjective, please?

Regards

Subjective is relevant to one, but meaningless to others. A favorite food. A personal belief. Experiences that cannot be shared in a way that others can see they occurred. These things are true for the person that has them, but not for all people. Chocolate cake is the best cake ever made, may be true for me, but it is not true for the person that thinks white cake is the best cake ever.

 

[paarsurrey]

Subjective is relevant to one, but meaningless to others. A favorite food. A personal belief. Experiences that cannot be shared in a way that others can see they occurred. These things are true for the person that has them, but not for all people. Chocolate cake is the best cake ever made, may be true for me, but it is not true for the person that thinks white cake is the best cake ever.

With the understandings provided by one and another friend @Shadow Wolf , communications with G-d is objective as well as subjective. Some or many aspects of Him are objective while other many aspects are subjective, as per the truthful religion. None of them stall the progress of science which is in an altogether different domain. Right, please?

Regards

 

[stvdv]

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

Regards

Of course not.

Some scientists even receive new inventions, given by God, in their dreams.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I don't know the specific statistics too well.

Actually no, by far the overall majority of Hindus, and Jews have accepted the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis. The Baha'is accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis. historically and today (40-50%+) reject the science of evolution and abiogenesis. With Muslims it is more variable, because many accept the literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[paarsurrey]

In most cases, I don't know how they interpret the Bible, but that's not what I said. Take, for example, the example of Isaac Newton. Newton was a religious man (actually, with some odd religious notions, and liked alchemy as well). However, when you read Newton's magnificent work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or the Opticks or Method of Fluxions. In those books, he restricts himself to the methods of science, and doesn't let his religious notions intrude. And that is all that's required.

"In those books, he restricts himself to the methods of science, and doesn't let his religious notions intrude. And that is all that's required."

And that is what is required of a truthful religious person and a scientist.Right,please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not accept the idea of "religious knowledge." I accept the idea of "religious belief," but that's a very different thing. Somebody, long ago, believed something (or pretended to believe something) and wrote it down. It got collected in a book (different books for different religions), then people decided to believe it or not. But at no time has there been evidence for most of what is believed -- it's just believed.

I don't agree with one.There is no compulsion for one, be happy,please.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Seriously, I know of zero evidence for a separate "spirit." I can't see gravity, but I can demonstrate it with ease. Nobody can see quantum spin, but it's used every day in MRI machines to provide detailed looks inside people's bodies.

Nobody, however, has ever produced a single means of demonstrating the existence of a spirit outside of the workings of the physical and chemical workings of the human body.

If there is no spirit then there cannot be any spirituality as some atheist have claimed in this thread.
However, the religious knowledge confirms existence of spirit/soul. Right, please?

Regards