-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Confused - God or science?
- Thread starter Dream Angel
- Start date
Master of the Wind
Father of Reema
Just listen to your heart and let your mind decides the best according to your believes.
Tashe delek and welcome to RF! 
Peace,
Mystic
Peace,
Mystic
I'm new. I'm not sure where the previous post came from. I just wanted to comment on Confused - God or Science. For me there is no confusion. It"s not God or science. It is God and science. There are two sources of information how our world came into existence and how it operates. 1. The Bible: narratives of ancient people who claim to be inspired by God. This is valuable information in the historical context of time and place. 2. The natural world: The natural world, inspired by God, speaks directly to us, without human intermediaries, Science is a gift from God just as surely as the Bible is. Both science and the bible have enriched my relationship with God. Just a reminder there are scientists misrepresent and misuse science just as there are Christians who misrepresent and abuse the function of the bible.
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
Peace be on you. Welcome..Proven Science is work of same God who sends Divine Books.
kepha31
Active Member
There is no conflict between God and science.
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist. It features histological slides.
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
There are three different kinds of "sciences." The difference between them is the degree of abstraction that is involved. The mind might just focus on the physical by experimental observation. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science"). He can also move toward a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number which can be distinguished apart from the material things. This is called mathematics. The highest abstraction is when the mind deals with being or reality itself as being. This is called metaphysics.
What the modern mind needs to remember is this: all three sciences are different and one method of science cannot be the method of another. This has been the error of both the modern and the ancients. As Dr. Kreeft said, "the ancients used a philosophical method to do science and the moderns use a scientific method to do philosophy." One cannot say that since relativity is true in physics, morality and truth are relative. Physics is also mathematical. Does this mean we need a mathematical morality? If relativity is true in physics, does this mean that mathematics ought to be relative?
A new science does not necessitate a new religion or a new philosophy. To mix them is committing what the scholastics call the fallacy of uniform method of science. As Fulton Sheen said,
"Here we call it the 'Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science' -- the fallacy of taking one science as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science." (Philosophy of Religion, 185)
Physics should be treated as physics, mathematics as mathematics, and especially, metaphysics as metaphysics. One should not use a scientific or mathematical method to do metaphysics and vice versa. As Etienne Gilson said,
"Theology, logic, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, are fully competent to solve their own problems by their own methods…no particular science is competent to either solve metaphysical problems, or to judge their metaphysical solutions." (The Unity of Philosophical Experience, page 249)...
...At the same time, we should not limit all knowledge to science. First, because it cannot be scientifically proven that everything should be scientifically proven or limited to science. It is self-contradictory. Second, because there are many things which are true but cannot be proven scientifically such as mathematics, love, aesthetics, morality, and the laws of logic.
To be faithful in science does not mean one ought to be an empiricist. A religious person ought not to look down upon science and a scientist ought not to look down upon a religion. Both persons need to look up and thank God for making a beautiful universe; so beautiful that it makes them wonder about that universe, especially their place and purpose in it.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p33.htm
What the modern mind needs to remember is this: all three sciences are different and one method of science cannot be the method of another. This has been the error of both the modern and the ancients. As Dr. Kreeft said, "the ancients used a philosophical method to do science and the moderns use a scientific method to do philosophy." One cannot say that since relativity is true in physics, morality and truth are relative. Physics is also mathematical. Does this mean we need a mathematical morality? If relativity is true in physics, does this mean that mathematics ought to be relative?
A new science does not necessitate a new religion or a new philosophy. To mix them is committing what the scholastics call the fallacy of uniform method of science. As Fulton Sheen said,
"Here we call it the 'Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science' -- the fallacy of taking one science as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science." (Philosophy of Religion, 185)
Physics should be treated as physics, mathematics as mathematics, and especially, metaphysics as metaphysics. One should not use a scientific or mathematical method to do metaphysics and vice versa. As Etienne Gilson said,
"Theology, logic, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, are fully competent to solve their own problems by their own methods…no particular science is competent to either solve metaphysical problems, or to judge their metaphysical solutions." (The Unity of Philosophical Experience, page 249)...
...At the same time, we should not limit all knowledge to science. First, because it cannot be scientifically proven that everything should be scientifically proven or limited to science. It is self-contradictory. Second, because there are many things which are true but cannot be proven scientifically such as mathematics, love, aesthetics, morality, and the laws of logic.
To be faithful in science does not mean one ought to be an empiricist. A religious person ought not to look down upon science and a scientist ought not to look down upon a religion. Both persons need to look up and thank God for making a beautiful universe; so beautiful that it makes them wonder about that universe, especially their place and purpose in it.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p33.htm
I thought this link might interest you, Dream Angel.
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist. It features histological slides.
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Welcome, and there is no reason for science and religion to be at odds. They are not at odds for me. I think both are an essential part of life.
Guys this OP is from 2007.
kepha31
Active Member
good grief!
Woops... Lmao
"Similar threads" at the bottom of the page makes such an annoying problem. It has to be refined somehow.
Why not both I find it easy for me.