There is no contradiction in Religion and Science

[paarsurrey]

There is no contradiction in Religion and Science; as both are modes of human virtual travel into the unseen realm in a sense; the later in the physical and secular realm only while the earlier goes deep in the meaning, purpose, characteristics, attributes, morals and spiritual. They are complementary not contradictory. One is the Word of the Creator God while the other is Work of Him. Both created by Him. If we fall short of at times understanding the Work of God, the same way we may misunderstand the other; the fault is always on our side as to err is human, and to shift it on the side of Creator God would be naturally unjustified.

What is the remedy to this scenario? Just to improve our understanding with the available appropriate tools in the relative realm. With more experiments and experiences we could improve and photo-finish our understanding.

Maybe what we consider as a scientific reality as laymen, is not a scientific reality in the eye of Real Scientists; it is an idea, an opinion, a hypothesis, or a theory not yet ripe enough to be a law on merit; so naturally it should not correspond with the Word of the Creator God.

Human error could play havoc with the Word also. A priest/monk, the fake one of course, may not and must not be able to understand the Word correctly so it would not and must not match with the Scientific Laws, resulting into an apparent ambiguity, which is not there in reality, it is our own personal or collective illusion for the most part.

This is what I think. Your opinions/comments are welcome.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The word of God says the world was created in ways scientific discovery says is not true. Even if you reduce holy books to only their oughts, you would have to deny a lot of the "is"s.

 

[mycorrhiza]

While religion itself doesn't contradict science, there are many interpretations of religions that do. YEC for example.

 

[idav]

Religion says god did it. Science has been proving that god isn't a necessity for the things we've always attributed to the gods.

 

[paarsurrey]

While religion itself doesn't contradict science, there are many interpretations of religions that do. YEC for example.

I agree with you; but don't understand as to what you mean by "YEC".

Science may also interpret the data wrongly; hence a false result.

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion says god did it. Science has been proving that god isn't a necessity for the things we've always attributed to the gods.

Ordinary persons may sometimes say things out of ignorance or may be carried away by sentiments; that does not affect our topic, principally.

 

[paarsurrey]

The word of God says the world was created in ways scientific discovery says is not true. Even if you reduce holy books to only their oughts, you would have to deny a lot of the "is"s.

NT Bible is neither written by Jesus nor dictated by Jesus. Jesus did not provide any authentication that it is Word of God.
It was canonized some 300+ years after Jesus. So it is the word of the scribe that wrote it; not of the Creator God.

 

[freethinker44]

You can force anything to fit anything else. We see what we want. The only sure way to make your religion comply with science, is to forget your religious beliefs and just focus on science. We can interpret anything to mean anything else, but what is the point? If you get to the point where you need to interpret your beliefs to be in-line with science, then you have obviously decided science is true. So why drag your religion around with you? Why not just let it go and enjoy the freedom of intellect that science brings?

 

[mycorrhiza]

I agree with you; but don't understand as to what you mean by "YEC".

Science may also interpret the data wrongly; hence a false result.

YEC is Young Earth Creationism. It means that the Earth is about 6000 years old, the great flood actually happened and all beings were created, not evolved.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

NT Bible is neither written by Jesus nor dictated by Jesus. Jesus did not provide any authentication that it is Word of God.
It was canonized some 300+ years after Jesus. So it is the word of the scribe that wrote it; not of the Creator God.

Then let your creator speak to each of us individually, if you hold no value in scripture.

 

[Jove]

There is no contradiction in Religion and Science; as both are modes of human virtual travel into the unseen realm in a sense; the later in the physical and secular realm only while the earlier goes deep in the meaning, purpose, characteristics, attributes, morals and spiritual. They are complementary not contradictory. One is the Word of the Creator God while the other is Work of Him. Both created by Him. If we fall short of at times understanding the Work of God, the same way we may misunderstand the other; the fault is always on our side as to err is human, and to shift it on the side of Creator God would be naturally unjustified.

What is the remedy to this scenario? Just to improve our understanding with the available appropriate tools in the relative realm. With more experiments and experiences we could improve and photo-finish our understanding.

Maybe what we consider as a scientific reality as laymen, is not a scientific reality in the eye of Real Scientists; it is an idea, an opinion, a hypothesis, or a theory not yet ripe enough to be a law on merit; so naturally it should not correspond with the Word of the Creator God.

Human error could play havoc with the Word also. A priest/monk, the fake one of course, may not and must not be able to understand the Word correctly so it would not and must not match with the Scientific Laws, resulting into an apparent ambiguity, which is not there in reality, it is our own personal or collective illusion for the most part.

This is what I think. Your opinions/comments are welcome.

paarsurrey says….There is no contradiction in Religion and Science; as both are modes of human virtual travel into the unseen realm in a sense; the later in the physical and secular realm only while the earlier goes deep in the meaning, purpose, characteristics, attributes, morals and spiritual.
LOL….and exactly who makes this unique claim, I’ve heard of moral studies as it applies to social standards/structures in the animal kingdom, and this IS science, but to use the term secular science implies what I already believe has deluded you into believing in your own OP here….if there is no contradiction between religion and science then I would love to learn more about this NEW religion I’ve never heard of or seen before.
paarsurrey says…. They are complementary not contradictory. One is the Word of the Creator God while the other is Work of Him.

The Coyote never mentions anything of science, so I think you may need to re-think this a little…no?

paarsurrey says…. Both created by Him. If we fall short of at times understanding the Work of God, the same way we may misunderstand the other; the fault is always on our side as to err is human, and to shift it on the side of Creator God would be naturally unjustified.

Coyote says understanding lost is the fault of the Beaver and Raven…….but nothing about science.

paarsurrey says…. What is the remedy to this scenario? Just to improve our understanding with the available appropriate tools in the relative realm. With more experiments and experiences we could improve and photo-finish our understanding.

Coyote says the Christian white man destroyed all that would accomplish this and tortured the young children who were caught repeating anything of the old ways….maybe the older Christian thought the old ways were science?

paarsurrey says…. Maybe what we consider as a scientific reality as laymen, is not a scientific reality in the eye of Real Scientists; it is an idea, an opinion, a hypothesis, or a theory not yet ripe enough to be a law on merit; so naturally it should not correspond with the Word of the Creator God.

Reality…(?) Reality is relative and never anything more, and never anything less, a real smart white man said this… Albert Einstein. Did a god call Albert stupid recently….I must have missed this.

paarsurrey says…. Human error could play havoc with the Word also. A priest/monk, the fake one of course, may not and must not be able to understand the Word correctly so it would not and must not match with the Scientific Laws, resulting into an apparent ambiguity, which is not there in reality, it is our own personal or collective illusion for the most part.

One reality……ahhh yes, Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
― Albert Einstein

paarsurrey says…. This is what I think. Your opinions/comments are welcome.

It seems like you want or need to redefine the term reality and use it like a sales slogan (dave?), I wonder why and who would need to accomplish this…lets Google this….and here is my first hit. > “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”
― Adolf Hitler

 

[outhouse]

NT Bible is neither written by Jesus nor dictated by Jesus. Jesus did not provide any authentication that it is Word of God.
It was canonized some 300+ years after Jesus. So it is the word of the scribe that wrote it; not of the Creator God.

the same sort of people also wrote about your quote. unquote. creator god mythology

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Religion says god did it. Science has been proving that god isn't a necessity for the things we've always attributed to the gods.

But Science has not been able to fully explain how the world came to how it is right now. How could it be said that God is not necessary for the world, when science has been only providing some explaination upto a certain point? Infact, not only this, but also the science cannot fully understand the most insignificant of creatures.

 

[Me Myself]

Completely depends on the religion.

 

[johnhanks]

How could it be said that God is not necessary for the world, when science has been only providing some explaination upto a certain point?

Hmm. "Your explanation has gaps in it - so my explanation must be correct!" No flaws there, in your opinion?

 

[tumbleweed41]

But Science has not been able to fully explain how the world came to how it is right now. How could it be said that God is not necessary for the world, when science has been only providing some explaination upto a certain point? Infact, not only this, but also the science cannot fully understand the most insignificant of creatures.

Well, anyone who claims to have all the answers is either lying or delusional.

Science never claims to have all the answers. Science is simply a means of finding answers, which ultimately leads to more questions.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Well, anyone who claims to have all the answers is either lying or delusional.

Or it could be that God knows all the answers because he created the earth.

 

[Me Myself]

Or it could be that God knows all the answers because he created the earth.

Or maybe unicorns did it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Maybe what we consider as a scientific reality as laymen, is not a scientific reality in the eye of Real Scientists; it is an idea, an opinion, a hypothesis, or a theory not yet ripe enough to be a law on merit; so naturally it should not correspond with the Word of the Creator God.

Theories do not become Laws.
Laws define in concise terms actions or a set of actions, and can usually be expressed mathematically.
Theories are explanations of related observations and are based on tested and verified hypothesis that are tested numerous times by detached research.
All scientific findings are falsifiable.
You should at least understand science and the scientific method before attempting to make comparisons to religious faith.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Or maybe unicorns did it.

Why do you think that?