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

[paarsurrey]

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

"genetic code is sacrosanct and not to be modified."

Please quote from the religious scripture with the verses in the context in this connection.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Please quote from Jesus in this connection to support one's point.

Regards

 

[Nimos]

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

As I said, to say that God is eternal is simply a claim based on an unjustified belief. Im not really sure, what counterargument you would use, if I said that Grillion is the true creator of God, and God is only eternal as long as he allows it.

 

[ChristineM]

"genetic code is sacrosanct and not to be modified."

Please quote from the religious scripture with the verses in the context in this connection.

Regards

Are you saying your god is imperfect?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

If so, then you should be able to demonstrate a spirit or soul. Right, please? So go ahead, demonstrate. Right, please?

 

[shunyadragon]

Please quote from Jesus in this connection to support one's point.

Regards

Quote Jesus?!?!? He did not address the question of the harmony of science and religion, therefore over the hundreds of years there was a lack of guidance concerning science.

 

[paarsurrey]

Quote Jesus?!?!? He did not address the question of the harmony of science and religion, therefore over the hundreds of years there was a lack of guidance concerning science.

So, the truthful religion is not at fault.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If so, then you should be able to demonstrate a spirit or soul. Right, please? So go ahead, demonstrate. Right, please?

One's question does not fall under the domain of science, it falls under the domain of the truthful religion. The religious knowledge tell us:

[17:86]وَ یَسۡـَٔلُوۡنَکَ عَنِ الرُّوۡحِ ؕ قُلِ الرُّوۡحُ مِنۡ اَمۡرِ رَبِّیۡ وَ مَاۤ اُوۡتِیۡتُمۡ مِّنَ الۡعِلۡمِ اِلَّا قَلِیۡلًا ﴿۸۶﴾
And they ask thee concerning the soul. Say, ‘The soul is by the command of my Lord; and of the knowledge thereof you have been given but a little.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 17: Bani Isra'il

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you saying your god is imperfect?

Did I say it, please?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Did I say it, please?

Regards

You implied

 

[paarsurrey]

As I said, to say that God is eternal is simply a claim based on an unjustified belief. Im not really sure, what counterargument you would use, if I said that Grillion is the true creator of God, and God is only eternal as long as he allows it.

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

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You implied

I never implied, there was no discussion about perfection of G-d. Right, please?

Regards

 

[dad]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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'

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.

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

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One's question does not fall under the domain of science, it falls under the domain of the truthful religion. The religious knowledge tell us:

[17:86]وَ یَسۡـَٔلُوۡنَکَ عَنِ الرُّوۡحِ ؕ قُلِ الرُّوۡحُ مِنۡ اَمۡرِ رَبِّیۡ وَ مَاۤ اُوۡتِیۡتُمۡ مِّنَ الۡعِلۡمِ اِلَّا قَلِیۡلًا ﴿۸۶﴾
And they ask thee concerning the soul. Say, ‘The soul is by the command of my Lord; and of the knowledge thereof you have been given but a little.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 17: Bani Isra'il

Regards

What do you mean by "the truthful religion?"

I'll tell you what, let's invite an highly evolved alien society from another galaxy to visit, and we'll put all of our religious texts in front them. And all you have to do is show why your religious text is "truthful" and all of the other ones are not -- using nothing but the texts themselves.

And if we can't reach the aliens, then why don't you do it for us? Should be easy -- just show why your holy book is truthful, and all the other ones are false, using nothing but the texts themselves. And if you can do that, then surely you will convince all those billions of fools who believe those other books.

Go ahead, make that your mission.

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you mean by "the truthful religion?"

I'll tell you what, let's invite an highly evolved alien society from another galaxy to visit, and we'll put all of our religious texts in front them. And all you have to do is show why your religious text is "truthful" and all of the other ones are not -- using nothing but the texts themselves.

And if we can't reach the aliens, then why don't you do it for us? Should be easy -- just show why your holy book is truthful, and all the other ones are false, using nothing but the texts themselves. And if you can do that, then surely you will convince all those billions of fools who believe those other books.

Go ahead, make that your mission.

Has ever science taken up the issue "religion stalls progress of science",please?
So, I don't agree with one,please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

I never implied, there was no discussion about perfection of G-d. Right, please?

Regards

You requested information that implies your god is not perfect

 

[ecco]

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

Not in the least.

A lot of atheists think it does. However, they're wrong.

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

 

[ecco]

The things will be the same even if there is no science. Right,please?

Wrong. No please required.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, the truthful religion is not at fault.

Regards

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

 

[QuestioningMind]

That was not the question asked in the OP.

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?