paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Everybody is welcome to give one's valued thoughts here.
Regards
Regards
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In short, studying the sciences always has a religious motivation, though this may not necessarily be tied to a specific religion. There are certainly many cases of individual scientists pursuing their field because they want to understand "God's creation" or the like.
Religious people have, of course, contributed to scientific discoveries. But, I fail to see how religion itself has contributed.Everybody is welcome to give one's valued thoughts here.
Regards
Religious people have, of course, contributed to scientific discoveries. But, I fail to see how religion itself has contributed.
Everybody is welcome to give one's valued thoughts here.
Regards
Actually, science is not about finding a "final explanation".Religion opens the doors to exploring the greatest depths of reality.
It frees science from the restraints of always striving for a 'final explanation' that would best appear to 'make God redundant' in any particular field
I think this is primarily why most scientific progress has come from skeptics of atheism.
Actually, science is not about finding a "final explanation".
As George Box said (paraphrasing).....all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
In other words, every theory stands ready to be replaced by a better one.
I don't know what Dawkins has to say about it (not someone I read).Oh sure, Dawkins is always quick to point that out when talking about evolution!
I don't know what Dawkins has to say about it (not someone I read).
But yes, if a better theory arrives to dethrone the TOE, then it shall reign.
Any contenders out there?
Many issues raised."Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...[] It didn't have to be true, but it is....Evolution is the only game in town.
(Dawkins, atheist celebrity and evolutionary biologist who contributed less to actual scientific progress than the inventor of the Chip Clip)
"Science progresses one funeral at a time" Max Planck (notable skeptic of atheism and originator of quantum theory)
Most of us ignorant masses are as skeptical of evolution accounting for all life, as we were of classical physics accounting for all physical reality.
What is the point? And, considering Science means "to know" then many things of the past could be called early versions of science and science knowledge.Everybody is welcome to give one's valued thoughts here.
Regards
Many issues raised.
Here we go.......
"Evolution" typically refers to 2 different things.....
1) An observable change in species over great time. This rises to the level of being factual because it is data.
2) An explanation behind this process of change. This is a theory.
Interestingly, even #2 rises to the level of factuality when applied to systems engineering, eg, genetic algorithms.
Dawkins has some basis for his certainty about evolution (#2 type).
There really is no competing theory which is testable or has explanatory power.
The alternatives are merely ad hoc rescues for various religions.
Most atheists are also skeptical of atheism.
I'm typical in that I cannot prove there are no gods, therefore they could exist (even though I don't detect them).
I don't have THE TRUTH....just my speculations.
Except for evolution , which is "fact" apparently.Actually, science is not about finding a "final explanation".
As George Box said (paraphrasing).....all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
In other words, every theory stands ready to be replaced by a better one.
I thought TOE was Theory of Everything?I don't know what Dawkins has to say about it (not someone I read).
But yes, if a better theory arrives to dethrone the TOE, then it shall reign.
Any contenders out there?