Can Religion and Science work together?

[Thief]

What does spin have to do with it? Every atomic particle spins. So what?

at the point of singularity.....there is nothing.....the void

that's the problem science has with it.
all that is in one place...
gravity well beyond comprehension
density, heat, and mass beyond numbers.....
no dimensional qualities at all.....no height, width or length

existence with no light, no sound......void

no atomic structure

as the expansion takes place ....a simple 'bang' would be a single pulse of energy
a hollow sphere of a shock wave

but that's not what we see when we look up

the spin needed to be in place BEFORE the expansion began

that would be the pinch and 'snap' of God's fingers

Sprit first

 

[Demonslayer]

Between conflating religion with dogmatism

Most religions have some dogma at least, of course varying between religions and even individuals as to how strong the dogma must be applied. Dogma is just a set of principles...if there are no principles or groupings of ideas, is there a religion? Like your religion...admittedly I don't know about about it other than you believe in more than one God. Don't you have some set of principles associated with it?

claiming religion doesn't stem from reason

"Reason" is a tough term. Maybe we'll table this one for now.

that "hard core" believers think other religions are stupid

This one I think I get what he's saying, and I think his used of the word 'stupid' might have thrown you. For example, folks who literally believe in the existence of the Christian God view the existence of Zeus as absurd and impossible to believe. You'd have to be "stupid" to believe in Zeus, says the Christian as he kneels to pray to Yahweh.

Don't you find some other religions ideas about God to be "stupid?"

and apparently being in denial of people like me existing

Can you PROVE you exist?? Oh, wait, you can...never mind.

"strange" was a polite way of saying "this is a load of $#@%."

Ah OK then why didn't you just say so!

 

[Demonslayer]

Sprit first

Bros before hoes

 

[Quintessence]

Most religions have some dogma at least, of course varying between religions and even individuals as to how strong the dogma must be applied. Dogma is just a set of principles...if there are no principles or groupings of ideas, is there a religion? Like your religion...admittedly I don't know about about it other than you believe in more than one God. Don't you have some set of principles associated with it?

I don't think that's how they were using the term "dogma," because the argument doesn't make sense otherwise. Dogmatism doesn't just mean "a set of principles" it means "a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" (or that have to be believed, as they put it). Many religions lack that. As far as I'm aware, dogmatism is pretty foreign except to Abrahamic traditions, as they have the structure to enable dogmatism to happen. Where dogmatism is present in some of these traditions, there are still disagreements and schisms, that splinter of into new traditions that are changed from the originals. Clearly, one can still be some flavor of Christian without being a Biblical literalist, hanging on the Pope's every word, etc.

 

[Demonslayer]

"a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" (or that have to be believed, as they put it). Many religions lack that

Sure that makes the definition much stronger. Still, there are "things" one must believe, or really should, to be counted as a believer in a certain religion. Hinduism isn't Abrahamic, but the ideas of karma, dharma, caste, reincarnation...this is part of the 'dogma' even though it might not be the right word to use.

Clearly, one can still be some flavor of Christian without being a Biblical literalist, hanging on the Pope's every word, etc.

Yes sure, but the dogma is there regardless of the individuals. If you don't believe, for example, that Jesus rose from the dead literally, you can still call yourself a Catholic but you're rejecting part of the dogma

The fact that some (many) individuals of any faith don't follow every letter of the dogma, doesn't mean the dogma doesn't exist in the religion.

 

[Quintessence]

Sure that makes the definition much stronger. Still, there are "things" one must believe, or really should, to be counted as a believer in a certain religion. Hinduism isn't Abrahamic, but the ideas of karma, dharma, caste, reincarnation...this is part of the 'dogma' even though it might not be the right word to use.

I wouldn't use the word dogma except in cases where the principles are rigid and fixed within some aspect of human culture (mathematics is very dogmatic, for example, as is much of law). A member here once floated the suggestion that in determining religious adherence, we treat it like diagnosing medical conditions. You have a list of characteristics, and a certain number of those needs to be present to say "this is a Hellenic polytheist" or what have you. I thought this was an excellent way to think about it, and wish I could recall who brought it up. In the case of dogmatic things, the diagnostic chart would be much more rigid: all of these must be present, rather than some of these must be present. i

 

[Riverwolf]

Sure that makes the definition much stronger. Still, there are "things" one must believe, or really should, to be counted as a believer in a certain religion.

Well, if religion is something "believed in" rather than "practiced", then you'd be correct. From a Christocentric position, this is the case: belief is central.

However, I'm under no obligation to "believe" in the Gods' existence. I do, however, have some "obligation" to act as a member of some community, and keeping the Frith with my family (a very loaded topic in Heathenry.)

 

[LuisDantas]

Please quote from a text book of science where it has mentioned any objection on the Quranic verses quoted by you. Will you? Please
Regards

It is not science's job to decide which (if any) of the multitude of possible readings of any given scriptural text or fragment should be considered reliable.

That can be done, but it very much a deviation from the purposes of both scripture and science.

 

[metis]

In regards to the OP, religion and science can work together as long as the former doesn't use dogma to interfere with objective observation.

 

[viole]

Almost all ancient Greek scientists were also Mysts (initiated in the ancient religious Mysteries). Aristotle, Democritus, Hippocrates. And they created the “cradle of modern western civilization and science”.

They probably also owned slaves. Ergo, yours is a non-sequitur. Being the fathers of modern civilazation does not entail that they were right in everything they did.

Fun fact: did you know that Hippocrates, the father of medicine, used to say that: “the doctor who has no knowledge of Astrology is not worthy of the title ‘doctor’”??

Would you go to a doctor that asks for your star sign in order to prescribe you the correct medicine?

So, there you have it: religion and science working together just fine.
.

Well, as long as you were lucky enough to have the right star sign when you were sick

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

His post is a tad extreme maybe, but I agree with the premise of a lot of it. What do you consider strange about it?

I'm not @Quintessence , but I can certainly appreciate how weird it is for either a believer or a disbeliever to make dogma a necessary and important part of any religion.

Also:

- Religion has no duty to be stubborn, chauvinistic and obscurantist. Nor does it truly benefit from being that way.
- Psychological reasons are not a priori irrational, and are certainly not to be neglected just because they are psychological.
- Even at its worst, religion tends to have its fair share of well-meaning people. To use a cliche, that makes all the difference.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Please quote from a text book of science where it has mentioned any objection on the Quranic verses quoted by you. Will you? Please
Regards

Here's a link to a revision section on Standard Grade (that's O-Level for all you English types!) Biology. It's designed to help schoolchildren revise important information for their exams.

Fertilisation and Sex Cells - BBC Bitesize

The information here is a very brief summary of the same information found in biology textbooks given to schoolchildren during class.

 

[paarsurrey]

Here's a link to a revision section on Standard Grade (that's O-Level for all you English types!) Biology. It's designed to help schoolchildren revise important information for their exams.
Fertilisation and Sex Cells - BBC Bitesize
The information here is a very brief summary of the same information found in biology textbooks given to schoolchildren during class.

There is no reference in it of the verse/s of Quran. You are again wrong.
Regards

 

[Riverwolf]

There is no reference in it of the verse/s of Quran. You are again wrong.
Regards

Does the provided explanation contradict the Qur'an's in your opinion?

 

[morphesium]

Please quote from a text book of science where it has mentioned any objection on the Quranic verses quoted by you. Will you? Please
Regards

Even if God comes and say that God has nothing to do with Quran, you won't believe it. Please for Gods sake use your thinking power, it is what god truly gifted you. Use it.

086.005
YUSUFALI: Now let man but think from what he is created!
PICKTHAL: So let man consider from what he is created.
SHAKIR: So let man consider of what he is created:

086.006
YUSUFALI: He is created from a drop emitted-
PICKTHAL: He is created from a gushing fluid
SHAKIR: He is created of water pouring forth,

086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
PICKTHAL: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
SHAKIR: Coming from between the back and the ribs.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There is no reference in it of the verse/s of Quran. You are again wrong.
Regards

A textbook doesn't need to mention Quranic verses in order to rebuff their contents.

Indulging in your usual pedantry again, I see: deliberately setting Kent Hovind-esque challenges to people so when they inevitably fail to exactly meet your criteria you can claim victory and, again, ignore the substance of their arguments.

You're determined to purvey Regressive Mind, aren't you?

 

[Thief]

Bros before hoes

is that black hoes?.....as in black hole singularity?

God before the black hole......yeah

 

[Riverwolf]

is that black hoes?.....as in black hole singularity?

It's a saying in American "Bro" culture. It basically means prioritizing the needs and company of one's friends ("bros"), over chasing one's sexual urges that could separate one from that circle of friends.

 

[Thief]

It's a saying in American "Bro" culture. It basically means prioritizing the needs and company of one's friends ("bros"), over chasing one's sexual urges that could separate one from that circle of friends.

yeah I know.....I was playing around it

 

[paarsurrey]

Does the provided explanation contradict the Qur'an's in your opinion?

Quran does not interfere with the scientific enquiries and leaves one free in these fields unless they contradict the ethical, moral and spiritual realms. The translations are always interpretation, never an alternative of the original.
Quran uses all literary styles, even poetic*, to remind one of the moral and spiritual goals.

*
having an imaginative or sensitively emotional style of expression."the orchestral playing was colorful and poetic".
synonyms: expressive, figurative, symbolic, flowery, artistic, elegant, fine, beautiful
Why should one take them relating to science?
Regards