• 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!

Science fights the Religion

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

In all cases, where Science has to choose between Religion and Godless Solipsism, the Science choses to say "Universe, self-awareness, and reality are an illusioon, persistent mass-hallucination." That due to the following of the methodological naturalism. Look for yourself:

The Universe As We Know It Shouldn't Exist

New findings have physicists questioning reality
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see Science and Religion need to be in harmony.

Both should be used to search for Truth and make a better world for all life, to aid in the unity of the Human race

Then let the Scholastic approach be our way.

Regards Tony
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

I'm sorry, I am not following your Proof.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.
Science and Religion both looking for the same answers, but in two very different ways, does that make one of them right and the other wrong? In my understanding, no it does not.
And none of them fight each other. they can disagree yes, but no need to fight.

Religions say somethings that science has yet to discover, and probably the other way too, science has seen things religions do not speak of.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

Science looks at the natural not magic
Darwins theory has never been disproved but has been improved and shown to be evidenced repeatedly, thats good science.

Guess and god magic cannot be falsified because there is nothing un them that is natural
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.
NO!
God is magic; science can't explain 'magic' because it cannot be repeated
Science gives explanations for the natural world; if those explanations falsify religion, it is a by-product not a reason d'etre.
Research should not start with a pre-ordained target such as "Religion friendly"
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.
No one is out looking for "godless" explanations for anything. It just so happens that in all of the explanations they have come up with, natural processes are found to be at work, and God has simply not been observed to be present.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

"Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects."

It is a political statement of the Atheism people, I understand, science does' support it. If it does then:
  1. Please quote when this issue was took up by the science.
  2. Which discipline of science take it up.
  3. Please quote in this connection from a text-book of science.
  4. Or from a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute.
Right, please?

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
No one is out looking for "godless" explanations for anything. It just so happens that in all of the explanations they have come up with, natural processes are found to be at work, and God has simply not been observed to be present.
Is it failing of science or failing of the Atheism observer, please?

Regards
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Science looks at the natural not magic
But it need not gut the natural of its magic and wonder. If it does, that's a loss.

Guess and god magic cannot be falsified because there is nothing un them that is natural
I take the mythological to be a sort of prescientific language about the wonder of nature. Science is a more grown up language, but only if one doesn't go so far as to strip the wonder and mystery of life away. But that's not what science actually does. It's only our lack of imagination that chooses to do that.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
But it need not gut the natural of its magic and wonder. If it does, that's a loss.

It doesn't gut anything, if magic and wonder can be repeatedly duplicated then science will look at them. Seeing as they can't then they are of no interest to science. Lack of interest does not equate to gut


I take the mythological to be a sort of prescientific language about the wonder of nature. Science is a more grown up language, but only if one doesn't go so far as to strip the wonder and mystery of life away. But that's not what science actually does. It's only our lack of imagination that chooses to do that.

Science understands life, understanding removes the mystery. I don't know about you but i would prefer knowledge than dreams
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
NO!
God is magic; science can't explain 'magic' because it cannot be repeated
Science gives explanations for the natural world; if those explanations falsify religion, it is a by-product not a reason d'etre.
Research should not start with a pre-ordained target such as "Religion friendly"
Aren't the Atheism people prone to magic, please?

Regards
_____________
" up to a third of self-declared atheists in China believe in astrology. A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation, and a similar number of their Danish counterparts think some people have magical powers."
Atheists still believe in the supernatural, new report finds
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.
Still waiting for proof...
Hells bells, I would settle for evidence.
Got any of that even?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Aren't the Atheism people prone to magic, please?

Regards
_____________
" up to a third of self-declared atheists in China believe in astrology. A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation, and a similar number of their Danish counterparts think some people have magical powers."
Atheists still believe in the supernatural, new report finds
Again, that would be religion.
Of course, they weasel word it from magic to some synonym like "gods will".
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
" up to a third of self-declared atheists in China believe in astrology. A quarter of Brazilian atheists believe in reincarnation, and a similar number of their Danish counterparts think some people have magical powers."
Atheists still believe in the supernatural, new report finds

You have been shown the definition of Atheism several times to my knowledge and repeatedly you ignore the definition so you can make snide and irrelevant digs to massage your own ego...

Let me provide the definition again this time with the relevant words highlighted

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less, anything else you personally wish to attribute to atheism only highlights your own misunderstanding

Astrology is not a god
Reincarnation is not a god
David Blaine is not a god
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It doesn't gut anything, if magic and wonder can be repeatedly duplicated then science will look at them. Seeing as they can't then they are of no interest to science. Lack of interest does not equate to gut

Science understands life, understanding removes the mystery. I don't know about you but i would prefer knowledge than dreams

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
You have been shown the definition of Atheism several times to my knowledge and repeatedly you ignore the definition so you can make snide and irrelevant digs to massage your own ego...

Let me provide the definition again this time with the relevant words highlighted

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less, anything else you personally wish to attribute to atheism only highlights your own misunderstanding

Astrology is not a god
Reincarnation is not a god
David Blaine is not a god

Does that mean that Atheism people can know and practice magic, astrology etc, please?

Regards
 
Top