• 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!

Poll: “Science has proven” and “God says”

Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other?

  • I see problems with “Science says ...” that I don’t see with “God says ...” (Please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I see problems with “God says ...” that I don’t see with “Science says ...” (Please explain)

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • I see most or all of the same problems with both ways of thinking

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • Other (Please explain)

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'd prefer both could agree on NOMA for their own improvement. When religion speak about science or when scientists speak about religion, it usually ends in embarrassment.
I see no reason for putting limits and I see no way to enforce them.
If that means that some groups can't overcome their greed and/or hubris at least those who "signed" the contract, can point their fingers.
Science speaks to factual claims based on the available evidence.

I agree that scientists shouldn't overstate what the actual science says, but as long as they're speaking only to what's supported by the evidence, why should they limit themselves?

I mean, if a religion chooses to make claims about some factual issue about the physical world. If it turns out that the religion is wrong, why criticize the peole who discovered this? If the emperor has no clothes, this nobody's fault but the emperor.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
but as long as they limit themselves to reality, why should they limit themselves?
Do you also see the contradiction?
I see the contradiction inherent in NOMA, if that's what you mean.

Science is self-limited by the available evidence. IMO, any inferences from that evidence are fair statements to make, regardless of whether they ruffle religious feathers or not.

Maybe you can clarify what you meant when you said "when scientists speak about religion, it usually ends in embarrassment."
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.
I chose "Other".

I don't see a problem with someone using either science or God or even both in their search for truth.

The problem with believing that someone needs to pick either science or God assumes that one has to be false.

These sources of information are not mutually exclusive.

Both can be true. I believe that both are true.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
@Jim

Using the words “prove”, “proven” or “proof” are the wrong words to use with science.

Proof is logical model or logical statements, often represented in the forms of formulas, equations, metric constants, etc. Proof isn’t physical.

Science relied on evidence, not proof.

Evidence is physical that can be -
  • observed or detected,
  • quantified,
  • measured,
  • compared against other evidence,
  • tested (which would include verifying or refuting).
The mathematical constants, like pi, for instance, is proof, not evidence. Newton’s equations for motion, forces and gravity, are all proofs, not evidence. Einstein’s field equations and his famous Mass-Energy Equivalence equation are proofs, not evidence. Ohm’s Law (I = V / R) is proof, not evidence.

When scientists and mathematicians use the word “prove” or “proven”, they are used in association with mathematical models, by formulating a new equation or formula, modifying equation, deriving a new equation from existing equation, using algebra or calculus, etc, these are ways or techniques that can “prove” equations.

eg trying to simplify multiple complex equations into a single equation. That’s “proof”.

While maths (proofs) are useful tools in science, it is evidence, not proof that will determine which models are true or false.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I've found that "God says" changes quite a bit, just not in a way that's systematic or error-correcting.
I agree that it changes quite a bit. I disagree with saying that it is not in a way that’s systematic or error-correcting. I’m thinking that sometimes it is.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
In my view there is Harmony between Science and God's Creation. It is humans clinging to ancient agendas that see conflicts between science and religion.
I’m thinking that it’s humans clinging to ancient agendas, and modern ones.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I’m thinking that it’s humans clinging to ancient agendas, and modern ones.

I will give a yes and no here without more information. Clinging to anything blindly without reasonable uncertainty is probably unwise, but not believing in anything is anarchy.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
How has a religion changed, in any significant way? I accept new religions have appeared that may better reflect the times.
Have you actually thought about it, to see if you could think of any changes in “what God says” in Christian churches, in the last few centuries, and even the last few decades?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see we have records of what God has offered us. So it can be said what has been written, is what God has said, our understanding of that may be the issue.

I see Science has made many discoveries in the material world, so science can say this is what we have found, to date. Thinking that they are absolute truths, may be the issue.

Regards Tony
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Have you actually thought about it, to see if you could think of any changes in “what God says” in Christian churches, in the last few centuries, and even the last few decades?
Yes, of course I've thought about it. Do you think I'm stupid?

I asked you for an example, please?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
For 'God says', one should really say 'someone has written or spoken in lieu of God' - so that is my main problem - and there are so many of such.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I would have no problem with “In one of the Bible stories, God says ...” with the exact words from some version of the Bible.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Slavery. Homosexuality. Women in the priesthood. Women’s issues in general.
OK, some churches have moved in order to survive. But the 'scriptures' remain the same. Just adapted the way they are interpreted.
There are still many churches/faiths that have not moved on these issues. The Church of England is facing huge problems with the issues you list, especially with African elements of their church.
How may female Catholic priests are there? How many female Imams?

No one has said. "Actually, the Bible is rubbish, we need a re-write"
 
Top