There is no contradiction in Religion and Science

[yoheisato]

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.

1. I assume that you have some Abrahamic religion such as christianity. An Abrahamic religion is a religion, but the word 'religion' does not necessarily mean an Abrahamic religion. Maybe more respect towards other religions is needed here, I feel.

2. Science is a faith system based on logic, evidences, proofs, repeatable phenomena, experiments, etc. Consequently, it is a system that is not compatible with an Abrahamic faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

1. I assume that you have some Abrahamic religion such as christianity. An Abrahamic religion is a religion, but the word 'religion' does not necessarily mean an Abrahamic religion. Maybe more respect towards other religions is needed here, I feel.

2. Science is a faith system based on logic, evidences, proofs, repeatable phenomena, experiments, etc. Consequently, it is a system that is not compatible with an Abrahamic faith.

Yes; I am an Ahmadi Muslim.

Science and religion work in their own spheres; science is narrow, naturally bound by space and time; religion is of broad vision, talks of life in absolutes.

I don't have any complain with religion or science.

Both religion and science benefit from experiences; the experiments also result to an experience.

Thanks for your input.

I could not make out your religion. Are you a Buddhist?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No; that is never my intention. Religion is for ethical, moral and spiritual realms and it finds a purpose to human life. It is not a text book of science. When somebody objects on religion on the basis of scientific know-how; my stance is that that objection is invalid and does not fit on the truthful Word revealed.

So you're saying whether or not a religion is true is irrelevant as long as it makes people behave and they feel significant?

 

[paarsurrey]

So you're saying whether or not a religion is true is irrelevant as long as it makes people behave and they feel significant?

How did you conclude that?

 

[yoheisato]

Yes; I am an Ahmadi Muslim.

Science and religion work in their own spheres; science is narrow, naturally bound by space and time; religion is of broad vision, talks of life in absolutes.

I don't have any complain with religion or science.

Both religion and science benefit from experiences; the experiments also result to an experience.

Thanks for your input.

I could not make out your religion. Are you a Buddhist?

Thanks for the reply.

IF you separate spheres, yes, they will necessarily go hand in hand because they can NOT conflict with each other that way.

But how do you view the evolutionist account of science? How about big bang? If science says that everything is made of atoms, do you accept that god is also made of atoms? In my mind, science does intervene into metaphysical spheres.

I am not a buddhist. I have a faith system of my very own called LYS (Libraism by Yohei Sato). It is re-engineered from scratch and does not belong to any existing religious groups.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

How did you conclude that?

Because science finds answers based off of what is already known to be true. You say that science (proven fact) is invalid when debating religion because religion teaches ethics/purpose. That implies that the truth doesnt matter in a debate on religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Because science finds answers based off of what is already known to be true. You say that science (proven fact) is invalid when debating religion because religion teaches ethics/purpose. That implies that the truth doesnt matter in a debate on religion.

Science could be useful for research in the physical matters; that is its reference point; it cannot work in the dimensions it has not been designed for; that in itself would be unscientific to do.

 

[shawn001]

" science is narrow, naturally bound by space and time; religion is of broad vision, talks of life in absolutes."

Well religion has to follow the laws of nature bound by time and space, which we learn about using science.

"Science could be useful for research in the physical matters; that is its reference point; it cannot work in the dimensions it has not been designed for; that in itself would be unscientific to do. "

"Science could be useful for research in the physical matters"

Its extremely useful and the tools we use.

"that is its reference point; it cannot work in the dimensions it has not been designed for"

How does organized religion work in other dimensions?

theortical physics and string theory are working on 11 dimensions.

QM, has everything going on at once.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Science could be useful for research in the physical matters; that is its reference point; it cannot work in the dimensions it has not been designed for; that in itself would be unscientific to do.

There's nothing that science isn't designed to figure out; the whole idea behind science is making the unknown known. There's nothing real that can't be discovered through scientific research.

 

[gnostic]

2. Science is a faith system based on logic, evidences, proofs, repeatable phenomena, experiments, etc. Consequently, it is a system that is not compatible with an Abrahamic faith.

I would agree with you that science use logic, evidences, repeated testings and experiments, and try to explain natural and artificial phenomena (hence, theory)...And I would agree with you that Abrahamic faith is not compatible with science…

…BUT I must say that SCIENCE is not FAITH.

Faith (in religion) is coming to conclusion (like belief) without evidences, like believing or accepting deity/deities (hence, theism) or miracles...things that you can't prove. All this is belief, not knowledge, or more precisely - belief that is not VERIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE.

Religion relies on faith, especially unsupported belief. Belief in deities and miracles are not falsifiable. And what is not falsifiable, is also "not scientific". It cannot be observed, nor tested, so it doesn't and wouldn't meet the requirements if scientific method.

Scientific method is a tool or methodology in finding truth (I'd prefer to use the word "fact", instead of "truth"), and explaining this truth.

In science, hypotheses that are not falsifiable or don't meet the requirements of scientific method, then this hypothesis is discarded, and should be discarded. Evolution is falsifiable, and meet the conditions of scientific method (evidences supported and it can be tested repeatedly), and the theory explain mechanisms (for there are number of different mechanisms, eg natural selection, genetic mutation, etc) and fact behind evolutionary biology.

Science allow for theory to change, or to be corrected, if new evidences present itself. And that is different to faith.

Religion rely on dogma and traditions, and often hard to change, even when all evidences prove these belief, dogma or tradition to be wrong.

I am quite sure you know this. All I am saying, do not confuse science with faith. Science uses evidence, not faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

There's nothing that science isn't designed to figure out; the whole idea behind science is making the unknown known. There's nothing real that can't be discovered through scientific research.

A question.

Is there any creditable science journal in the world which publishes peer reviewed articles on subjects of science?

Just name one, please.

 

[Thistle]

Maybe more respect towards other religions is needed here, I feel.

There is no reason whatsoever to have the slightest respect for any religion. I prefer to respect people, no matter what they believe, unless and until their actions make me lose that respect. Religion itself, like ideologies, opinions, and ideas, require no respect whatsoever. They are subject to scrutiny and peer review, and deserve to be classified as garbage when unmasked as total BS.

2. Science is a faith system based on logic, evidences, proofs, repeatable phenomena, experiments, etc

Faith is what happens in the absence of logic, evidence, and proof. Science is not a faith system.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no reason whatsoever to have the slightest respect for any religion. I prefer to respect people, no matter what they believe, unless and until their actions make me lose that respect. Religion itself, like ideologies, opinions, and ideas, require no respect whatsoever. They are subject to scrutiny and peer review, and deserve to be classified as garbage when unmasked as total BS.



Faith is what happens in the absence of logic, evidence, and proof. Science is not a faith system.

There is no reason whatsoever to have the slightest respect for atheism; its adherents must be subjected to scrutiny.

However they should be respected only if they stick to reason and arguments; though that seldom happens.

 

[Thistle]

There is no reason whatsoever to have the slightest respect for atheism;

That is absolutely correct.

its adherents must be subjected to scrutiny and what they say deserves to be classified as garbage.

How nice of you to leave out one small but very essential part of the text you're paraphrasing: "...deserve to be classified as garbage when unmasked as total BS."

However they should be respected only if they stick to reason and arguments; though that seldom happens.

How odd, to blame the logical consequence of using reason and arguments in terms of religion (i.e. atheism) for a perceived lack of reason and arguments. And this from someone who claims in another topic that science's obvious inability to prove the existence of god is proof that god exists...

 

[tumbleweed41]

A question.

Is there any creditable science journal in the world which publishes peer reviewed articles on subjects of science?

Just name one, please.

Here is a comprehensive list for you.

UCB Libraries | Dean's Office | Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journals

 

[gnostic]

But Science has not been able to fully explain how the world came to how it is right now.

Sure, there are lot that science has not explained.

Do you think for a moment that any of the religions (including your Baha'i faith) - including their scriptures and traditions - even explain "how the world came to be" better than science?

The problem with all Abrahamic religions is that it used the same ancient creation myths about how this world and humans came to be, in unrealistic and impossible supernatural occurrences. God created everything in 6 days, he created man from the earth, dust or clay, talking serpent, and destroyed the world with global flood. All of these - unsubstantiated myths. All of which, borrowed and modified from the Sumerian-Akkadian myths.

And then there is matter of the existence of this one god, and other spiritual entities - angels, demons and djinns. Or that of heaven, paradise, hell, purgatory and afterlife. These are fine in their religious contexts, but in reality they don't exist.

Just because there are still things that are unexplained (in science), doesn't mean religion is the most acceptable or truthful sources for answers of the unexplained.

I rather wait for science to come with explanation than accept any word from these so-called "prophets", "messengers" or "apostles" who really don't understand how this world works, let alone the universe.

 

[Thistle]

Sure, there are lot that science has not explained.

Do you think for a moment that any of the religions (including your Baha'i faith) - including their scriptures and traditions - even explain "how the world came to be" better than science?

The problem with all Abrahamic religions is that it used the same ancient creation myths about how this world and humans came to be, in unrealistic and impossible supernatural occurrences. God created everything in 6 days, he created man from the earth, dust or clay, talking serpent, and destroyed the world with global flood. All of these - unsubstantiated myths. All of which, borrowed and modified from the Sumerian-Akkadian myths.

And then there is matter of the existence of this one god, and other spiritual entities - angels, demons and djinns. Or that of heaven, paradise, hell, purgatory and afterlife. These are fine in their religious contexts, but in reality they don't exist.

Just because there are still things that are unexplained (in science), doesn't mean religion is the most acceptable or truthful sources for answers of the unexplained.

I rather wait for science to come with explanation than accept any word from these so-called "prophets", "messengers" or "apostles" who really don't understand how this world works, let alone the universe.

True. I would summarize it as follows. Both science and religion are at this moment unable to explain how everything in the universe came to be and how it all works (only parts of it have been explained by science). However, science is on a quest to find out, is self-correcting, and teaches us new things about the universe each day. Religion, on the other hand, asks to simply believe what an old book says, or what the teachings of prophet xyz tell you. Religion is not on a quest for truth, it is - at best - on a quest to somehow validate its unproven and baseless dogmas.

 

[shawn001]

There is no reason whatsoever to have the slightest respect for atheism; its adherents must be subjected to scrutiny.

However they should be respected only if they stick to reason and arguments; though that seldom happens.

You do know the Romans use to call the early Chirstians atheists for not believing in their gods.

 

[paarsurrey]

True. I would summarize it as follows. Both science and religion are at this moment unable to explain how everything in the universe came to be and how it all works (only parts of it have been explained by science). However, science is on a quest to find out, is self-correcting, and teaches us new things about the universe each day. Religion, on the other hand, asks to simply believe what an old book says, or what the teachings of prophet xyz tell you. Religion is not on a quest for truth, it is - at best - on a quest to somehow validate its unproven and baseless dogmas.

It is a misconception that religion is against science; no founder of any revealed religions was against science; in fact they were secular in this respect.
For example anybody to please quote from Quran for its being against science and or technology in principle; it is not.

Quran does not claim to be a text book of science (and the same way, I think other revealed religions also); if somebody thinks that a verse of Quran is against science; that could be a misunderstanding only.


Science is in fact a joint product of theists and atheists.

 

[paarsurrey]

Here is a comprehensive list for you.

UCB Libraries | Dean's Office | Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journals

I had the list already from Wikipedia.

I wanted him to name one such journal which in his opinion is the best in science.