Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[j1i]

Many answers that have a good scientific base in logic were given before man started on a path where materialism instead of God, motivated humanities destiny.

You reminded me of a great interview, this is the short version, the full interview is well worth a read.

An Arms Dealer Tries to Sell War to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

Regards Tony

I am very happy because you wrote to me in my language

With respect and appreciation

The question remains of the creation of these basic materials

Thank you
Wishing you a happy

I WILL pray to you for as I can

 

[Earthling]

That said, the United States is, after all, a republic, It has a constitution. That constitution acknowledges the inherent freedom of Man to believe what they choose to believe, and there is nothing any government, force, imprisonment, etc. can do to change that. The Constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from interfering with that right, which is inherent in Man as Man. Most State constitutions echo that acknowledgment, which prevents the States from interfering with that right as well.

Theoretically, yes, but in actuality your Constitution was created only to give you the illusion of freedom. Link.

Joe Bidden couldn't have written the Patriot Act expecting it to come into effect, with a constitution.

So what is a 'religion'?

I find that a religion is best explained by it's characteristics. Not all religions have a god or gods. They do not have to be organized. An individual's belief is his own, regardless of whether a religion is organized or not.

i have found this to be the best explanation of any religion:

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, when arguments extending from that. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Jesus Christ exists, and that He is who He says He is (namely the Son of God, and part of the godhead). ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from that initial circular argument. It is not possible to prove whether Jesus Christ ever existed, or not, and it is not possible to prove whether His claim is True or False.

Atheism is also a religion. It's initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist. All other arguments in atheism stem from that initial argument. Again, it is not possible to prove no god or gods exist, since such an argument results in an Argument of Ignorance fallacy.

Two examples, same characteristics.

In any religion, you can have fundamentalists. These people attempt to prove their religion, which is not provable. The fundamentalist is one that does not recognize the circular nature of their religion and make and the circular argument fallacy (failure to recognize a circular argument for what it is). That is, indeed, the best definition of any fundamentalist.

There are fundamentalists in atheism (most of them) and fundamentalists in Christianity (some of them). At least Christians, on the whole, admit their religion is based on faith. Most atheists don't.

Should either religion be taught as 'science' in schools? No. Neither religion is 'science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Every theory of science MUST be falsifiable, which means testable for that theory's null hypothesis using a specific test producing a specific result, and the test must be available and practical to perform.

Should the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogensis, or the Theory of Creation be taught in schools as 'science'? No. Both are not theories of science. None are falsifiable. They all have arguments extending from them. They are all religions. Science has no theory about a past unobserved event. Such theories can only be tested by going back in time to see what actually happened. The test is not available.

Very well said, I agree completely. But I don't care. I don't care if Evolution or Creation is taught in public schools because I think that anyone with a mind of their own knows that the [expletive] taught therein is government sponsored propaganda designed to dumb down the citizenry, and quite effective as such. I would prefer them not to teach Creationism because they would [expletive] it up just as the Creationists have.

I don't think that was our argument, but again, I don't care. I don't remember what our argument was, if there was one. It doesn't matter. You've presented such an interesting post, gasping for a breath of fresh air in this regard, whatever argument we might have had has slipped my mind, and for that, I thank you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Medical research is good when it comes to establishing is drug A is better than placebo or drug B. We can do double blinded randomised control trials, If we have a sufficient sample size and what we are measuring is easily quantifiable then its straight forward.

Unfortunately many of the questions we want answered about human behaviour are not so easy to answer and often practically impossible. For one thing we can't do randomised control trials, for another there are multiple factors we need to standardise for.

Research can be a powerful tool for answering some question and impotent for addressing others.

I'm not sure if I did a bad job communicating, but there's a disconnect between what I'm trying to say and your response.

A scientific approach apportions beliefs to the evidence. If the scientific conclusion is "we can't definitely say that God does not exist, but we can find no justifiable reason to say he does," it's a rejection of the science to say "oh, but we're going to take the position that God certainly does exist!"

In this regard, many forms of theism - including yours - uses the same tactic as other forms of rejection of science. Pseudoscience and science denialism often comes down to incorrect assessments of certainty: creationist arguments often hinge on under-representing the amount of certainty warranted by the evidence for evolution. People who sell sham medical treatments and products often base their case on over-representing the amount of certainty warranted by poor evidence like anecdotes.

...so in this regard, most theism - including the Baha'i faith - rejects science with regard to gods. "We just don't know" fundamentally conflicts with "we do know... and we're so sure that we're going to build our lives around it."

 

[Earthling]

Ever seen the joke that someone in the house is watching it rain outside but it's a sprinkler going off outside? Grass isn't green if you're colorblind or wearing certain colored shades. Science means determining the cause of the falling water. Science means determining a light frequency to define "green".

Which is exactly what I said.

 

[Salvador]

It should try therapy.

Yeah, it's hard to take a party that used to be just interested in tradition and common fiscal sense and turned it into "seig heil, let's go put some more kids on the barbie."

Take the Kroger shooter, the synagogue shooter, the serial bomber -- what do they have in common? They aren't liberal Democrats by any stretch of the imagination.

Take the Congressional softball field shooter, the violent angry mobs of antifa, and the serial ricin hate mail sender -- what do they have in common? They aren't Trump supporters by any stretch of the imagination.

I

My grandfather was a Republican, back when all it meant was conservatism. Thank God he died before the Nazis took over the government (at least so blatantly).

My grandfather actually was a Nazi.

 

[Valjean]

I'm just one county away from the synagogue shooter, too. I'm HIGHLY uncomfortable, even though I'm not Jewish. Terrorists don't use due process or fact-checking to make sure they're killing the "right" people.

Tilting at Pizzarias, so to speak.

Religion got us thinking about flying to the sun...

Religion got us dreaming about it. Science made it a real possibility.

Question: Who created man? The Main Source

You don't seem to understand science. Science doesn't deal with "who," just as religion is best advised to avoid dealing with "how."

The scientists speak on television as if they know
But they do not know the science of God creation

How is "God creation" a science" It strikes me as more akin to magic.

IS that because they do not like the fact that there is a Creator that will put their total freedom at risk

I doubt that thought ever enters their minds.

Or they want to make a reality that suits the changing desires of this age

It's the religious who weave dreams. Scientists just describe reality as it is, warts and all.

with respect
I wish you all the happiness and joy

And here we're in accord.
Peace, brother

 

[Altfish]

Science is a study. Is it ever wrong? Is it ever right? When?
In some religions there is examination, and experimentation, and consideration of what facts are. See my post here. Hope it helps.

So, no examples as I requested.
Yes, science can be wrong. BUT it is peer reviewed and other scientists discover the mistakes.
Please give me an example of experimentation in religion

 

[Anna Therese]

So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?

Thank you for your comments.

Science is not at all opposed to the Catholic religion. In fact, many of the great scientists in history were Catholics. Speaking of religion, the theory of evolution has long become the religion of atheists. But that's another topic for another time. Today the majority of what people view as science is nothing but pseudo-science.

 

[Earthling]

So, no examples as I requested.
Yes, science can be wrong. BUT it is peer reviewed and other scientists discover the mistakes.
Please give me an example of experimentation in religion

If I may interject, in order to understand exactly what you mean by experimentation and clarify why one would expect it in religion and what significance it's presence or absence would be in religion, could you please give an example of experimentation in auto mechanics, or fractional reserve banking, or any mundane thing like that?

 

[Valjean]

... But Galileo, you say. The church told him that given the current models, they had no way of proving the thing so he should limit what he believed to a hypothesis. He kinda didn't. The church supported Mendel, and other scientists.

The church opposed those who's work called into question its exegetical traditions. Galileo did, and he proffered extensive supporting data.He nearly lost his life, and was forced to recant.
Mendel, on the other hand, wasn't so threatening to established dogma -- plus, he was a monk.

You know what the church is consistently against? Using science to cause death (against eugenics and abortion) and using science for control of others

Yes, I can see how this would be a serious trespass into the church's traditional domains.

From the creation of these living beings and the creation of the sun

Who created this system

who created us and who created the universe puzzling question

It is not easy to answer OR ignore it

Nor are these questions within the domain of science. Science can only answer 'how', not 'who'.

Take the Congressional softball field shooter, the violent angry mobs of antifa, and the serial ricin hate mail sender -- what do they have in common? They aren't Trump supporters by any stretch of the imagination.

My grandfather actually was a Nazi.

I think you're buying into the current "violent liberal mobs!" propaganda. You're conflating lone nut cases and Black Bloc agitators with ordinary citizens who are concerned about the parallels between today's political movements and those of 1930s Germany and Italy.

Gandhi was anti-Fascist, Martin Luther King Jr was anti Fascist. Antifa is a peace movement.

Most violence, of course, comes from the Right. Trump's base tend to be Authoritarian Followers, and authoritarian aggression is #2 in the Authoritarian Triad. No?

 

[ChristineM]

THANKS
I ENJOUED SHARING YOU (^_^)

From the creation of these living beings and the creation of the sun

Who created this system

It is a dynamic and complex dynamic system

What a dangerous face in faith is that there is a Creator for all

who created us and who created the universe puzzling question

It is not easy to answer OR ignore it

GOD BLESS YOU
AMEN
HAVE NICE DAY BROTHER

All the idea of a creator is doing is filling gaps in knowledge. Some people are content to say, "I dont know, and given current technology the chances of knowing are close to zero"

Then there are others who say "i done know .i dont like not knowing so god must have done it"

There is actually more evidence for creation of the universe by natural caused than there is for any god.

There is no need for a creator so why make the assumption that the universe was created by an imaginary magic being?

 

[Salvador]

The church opposed those who's work called into question its exegetical traditions. Galileo did, and he proffered extensive supporting data.He nearly lost his life, and was forced to recant.
Mendel, on the other hand, wasn't so threatening to established dogma -- plus, he was a monk.

Yes, I can see how this would be a serious trespass into the church's traditional domains.


Nor are these questions within the domain of science. Science can only answer 'how', not 'who'.
I think you're buying into the current "violent liberal mobs!" propaganda. You're conflating lone nut cases and Black Bloc agitators with ordinary citizens who are concerned about the parallels between today's political movements and those of 1930s Germany and Italy.

Gandhi was anti-Fascist, Martin Luther King Jr was anti Fascist. Antifa is a peace movement.

Most violence, of course, comes from the Right. Trump's base tend to be Authoritarian Followers, and authoritarian aggression is #2 in the Authoritarian Triad. No?

Anifa is a domestic terrorist group, not a peace movement.

The feds reportedly have formally classified antifa activities as “domestic terrorist violence”


According to Wikipedia, a reliable reference source of that most can agree:

Antifa (United States) - Wikipedia

"The Antifa movement is a conglomeration of left wing autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant groups in the United States.The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action harassing those whom they deem to be fascists, racists and right wing extremists. Conflicts are both online and in real life.

They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage and physical violence.They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly far-left and militant left, which includes anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically."

 

[j1i]

All the idea of a creator is doing is filling gaps in knowledge. Some people are content to say, "I dont know, and given current technology the chances of knowing are close to zero"

Then there are others who say "i done know .i dont like not knowing so god must have done it"

There is actually more evidence for creation of the universe by natural caused than there is for any god.

There is no need for a creator so why make the assumption that the universe was created by an imaginary magic being?

Thank you for sharing
I appreciate you this dear
Wishing you happiness wherever you go
Who created the nature that you think created the universe
We will not finish
We will end up with one that stands behind all these ideas

I apologize for the disturbance
I wish you a pleasant and happy time

 

[j1i]

The church opposed those who's work called into question its exegetical traditions. Galileo did, and he proffered extensive supporting data.He nearly lost his life, and was forced to recant.
Mendel, on the other hand, wasn't so threatening to established dogma -- plus, he was a monk.

Yes, I can see how this would be a serious trespass into the church's traditional domains.


Nor are these questions within the domain of science. Science can only answer 'how', not 'who'.
I think you're buying into the current "violent liberal mobs!" propaganda. You're conflating lone nut cases and Black Bloc agitators with ordinary citizens who are concerned about the parallels between today's political movements and those of 1930s Germany and Italy.

Gandhi was anti-Fascist, Martin Luther King Jr was anti Fascist. Antifa is a peace movement.

Most violence, of course, comes from the Right. Trump's base tend to be Authoritarian Followers, and authoritarian aggression is #2 in the Authoritarian Triad. No?

Thanks brother for sharing
I really appreciate you this
Wishing you a beautiful time and happiness for you

Man's thinking about how and why, he paid to seek knowledge

This is what I know

Wishing you happy times and joy

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you for sharing
I appreciate you this dear
Wishing you happiness wherever you go
Who created the nature that you think created the universe
We will not finish
We will end up with one that stands behind all these ideas

I apologize for the disturbance
I wish you a pleasant and happy time

Why should anyone gave created nature?

Actually we will finish, entropy only give life a tiny time slot in the evolution of the universe

What?

 

[oldbadger]

Bahaullah has offered this for all to consider;

"The third Tajalli is concerning arts, crafts and sciences. Knowledge is as wings to man’s life, and a ladder for his ascent. Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the earth, and not those which begin with words and end with words. Great indeed is the claim of scientists and craftsmen on the peoples of the world."
(Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 51-52)

Great indeed they are and this is the same thought;

"This Day, O Shaykh, hath never been, nor is it now, the Day whereon man-made arts and sciences can be regarded as a true standard for men, since it hath been recognized that He Who was wholly unversed in any of them hath ascended the throne of purest gold, and occupied the seat of honor in the council of knowledge, whilst the acknowledged exponent and repository of these arts and sciences remained utterly deprived. By “arts and sciences” is meant those which begin with words and end with words. Such arts and sciences, however, as are productive of good results, and bring forth their fruit, and are conducive to the well-being and tranquility of men have been, and will remain, acceptable before God."
(Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 19)

This above passage is confirmed by Abdul'baha and also shows how science and religion must be in harmony in this passage;

"...With the love of God all sciences are accepted and beloved, but without it, are fruitless; nay, rather the cause of insanity. Every science is like unto a tree; if the fruit of it is the love of God, that is a blessed tree. Otherwise it is dried wood and finally a food for fire....."

Thus I say the results of godless science will soon be apparent.

In my opinion

Regards Tony

Yes........ and not one word of any of it suggests a harmony between religion and science, rather it puts religion ahead of science, just as the writings of both the Bab and Bahauallah which showed before.

But the messages are somewhat veiled with words, many words to delude the unwary, maybe?

The knowledge of such sciences, however, should be acquired as can profit the peoples of the earth,

nor is it now, the Day whereon man-made arts and sciences can be regarded as a true standard for men, since it hath been recognized that He Who was wholly unversed in any of them hath ascended the throne of purest gold,

Science? Or that which will be fed to the people?
I've said it before, will say it again....... it's double-think whipped into a tasty piece of rhetoric. imo.

 

[sealchan]

And if religion would stick to this there would be little conflict with science, but when it starts treading on science' turf and making statements about mechanics and mechanisms it becomes problematic.
Don't take my word for it -- just ask Galileo.

In this day and age many Christian's have been gravely tempted by political power...ironically a temptation that Jesus deftly surpassed in significant scriptures.

 

[Altfish]

If I may interject, in order to understand exactly what you mean by experimentation and clarify why one would expect it in religion and what significance it's presence or absence would be in religion, could you please give an example of experimentation in auto mechanics, or fractional reserve banking, or any mundane thing like that?

#nPeace asserted that religion did experiments. I asked him for examples.
I don't know the first thing about auto mechanics or fractional reserve banking, so can't help you. Anyway, neither of them claim to be sciences,

 

[j1i]

Why should anyone gave created nature?

Actually we will finish, entropy only give life a tiny time slot in the evolution of the universe

What?

We know that there are Factories, which work instead of man, in producing products

So am I wrong to open my field of thinking that these nature Factories are working owner

hahahaha
sorry brother I do not want to cause disturbance
I like sharing you
take care (^_^)

 

[ChristineM]

We know that there are Factories, which work instead of man, in producing products

So am I wrong to open my field of thinking that these nature Factories are working owner

hahahaha
sorry brother I do not want to cause disturbance
I like sharing you
take care (^_^)

Yes, and what? Man has created machines that are able to do things for him. Man has been doing that since he first broke a stone and realised the edge was sharp.

You may think what you like. Its just thought, we all have them.

Sister please.