Is it good to mix Reason with Religion?

[icehorse]

Will methodological naturalism be in Heaven?

Since I don't believe in heaven I have to recuse myself from answering this question

 

[questfortruth]

Since I don't believe in heaven I have to recuse myself from answering this question

According to my Religion, there will be Natural Theology in Heaven, not Science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My religion is reason only.

 

[questfortruth]

My religion is reason only.

God's name is Reason.

 

[icehorse]

God's name is Reason.

Ok, so you put this thread in the "science and religion" forum. If *your* God's name is "reason", does your scripture hold up to logical, critical analysis? (Most scripture does not.)

 

[Nimos]

Science appears to be an anti-religious organization (for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church).

How is that science fault? Science doesn't care about religions, it's about providing the most accurate explanation based on the evidence we have. If a religious claim doesn't agree with the evidence, then the problem is the religion and not the science.

I mean, it's not the scientific methods fault that the people who wrote these religious texts had no clue what they were talking about. Sorry but that is simply to deny knowledge, just for doing it, can't see how that is beneficial for anyone?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I do not mix Science and Religion together. I mix Natural Theology and Religion. Science appears to be an anti-religious organization (for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church). Natural Theology studies nature as well, but welcomes and does not prohibit references to Religion and God; before the beginning of any study or research activity, prayer takes place to drive out demons and UFOs from devices, computers, and brains. And what demons influence the measuring equipment is evidenced by the fact that cosmic rays flew out directly from the Earth, not the cosmos:

"Antarctica's Spooky Cosmic Rays Might Shatter Physics As We Know It,"
Bizarre Particles Keep Flying out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter Modern Physics

Derek B. Fox, et.al., The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard Model Particle, and Supporting Observations from IceCube, arXiv:1809.09615 [astro-ph.HE]
The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard...

So, to make the "peace deal" between Reason and Faith, one needs back the Natural Theology with its school prayers. How is prayer indifferent to God, when Jesus Christ often prayed and through His prayers, the Lazarus has been resurrected and many miracles have been made and are documented for example in the Holy Bible? Are you questioning the Bible? Even the satan did not do so when he has tempted Jesus Christ in the wilderness: satan did not tell the Christ that the one who appeared to Him is an alien, and that "there is no God." Be the way, the alleged presence of alien life at stars or even galaxies contradicts the dogma of the conciliarity and uniqueness of the Church.

The true purpose of any research is to point God's folk to the spiritual realm:
"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" John 3:12 NIV.

The Dark Matter is invisible in the sense that it is not found in underground detectors, and it is not produced at CERN. Another fact is that the human soul is invisible as well. Simple logic tells then, that the soul is a living invisible matter, whereas the Dark Matter around the galaxies is inanimate invisible matter. Mathematical proof: Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

Look at your legs: the left leg has exactly the same length as the right one. It is a fact for the overwhelming majority of us. With a coordinating soul inside the body, is it any wonder that both legs of a person grow to the same length?

I suppose that if you have an unreasonable religion then mixing reason with it would be detrimental.

 

[Nimos]

Natural Theology studies nature as well, but welcomes and does not prohibit references to Religion and God;

This is the first time, I have actually heard the term Natural theology, so obviously googled a bit to get some information, but couldn't really find a lot.

So just out of curiosity, how do one approach a given topic, lets say evolution for instance, since you brought that up as an example?

Is it a way to seek answers, which can be verified, at least to some degree, since you allow God as an explanation, or what exactly is natural theology suppose to achieve?

Does it differ from intelligent design? or is it just another name for it?

You don't have to go into great details, as this post is not meant to have a go at it or anything like that, its simply out of curiosity as I haven't heard of it before?

Hope you can cast some light on it... cheers.

 

[Valjean]

I do not mix Science and Religion together. I mix Natural Theology and Religion. Science appears to be an anti-religious organization (for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church). Natural Theology studies nature as well, but welcomes and does not prohibit references to Religion and God; before the beginning of any study or research activity, prayer takes place to drive out demons and UFOs from devices, computers, and brains. And what demons influence the measuring equipment is evidenced by the fact that cosmic rays flew out directly from the Earth, not the cosmos:

Science isn't anti-religion, it's pro-fact. Scientists think not a wit about how their discoveries will affect religion. If a fact disagrees with religious doctrine that's just the way it is. Don't blame science if people no longer believe the Sun circles the Earth.
Demons? UFOs? Where do you come up with this drivel? Cosmic rays? Did you read the article you linked to?

"Antarctica's Spooky Cosmic Rays Might Shatter Physics As We Know It,"
Bizarre Particles Keep Flying out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter Modern Physics

Derek B. Fox, et.al., The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard Model Particle, and Supporting Observations from IceCube, arXiv:1809.09615 [astro-ph.HE]
The ANITA Anomalous Events as Signatures of a Beyond Standard...

A new and unexpected phenomenon is discovered and you think this discredits science? This is the sort of thing scientists live for. This is how science advances.

So, to make the "peace deal" between Reason and Faith, one needs back the Natural Theology with its school prayers. How is prayer indifferent to God, when Jesus Christ often prayed and through His prayers, the Lazarus has been resurrected and many miracles have been made and are documented for example in the Holy Bible?

School prayer? What does school prayer have to do with "Natural Theology?"
Now here you start spouting Christian doctrine as if it were fact. It hasn't been established as fact, so why are you treating it as axiomatic and using it as evidence?

Are you questioning the Bible? Even the satan did not do so when he has tempted Jesus Christ in the wilderness: satan did not tell the Christ that the one who appeared to Him is an alien, and that "there is no God." Be the way, the alleged presence of alien life at stars or even galaxies contradicts the dogma of the conciliarity and uniqueness of the Church.

Spouting Christian folklore again? Support it or it'll be ignored.
Alien life "at stars and galaxies?" What are you talking about? No-one's found alien life, and what is this dogma of conciliarity you think it violates?

The true purpose of any research is to point God's folk to the spiritual realm:
"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" John 3:12 NIV.

What research are you talking about? The church doesn't do research. Traditionally the church has opposed research.
The true purpose of research is to figure out how high energy cosmic rays are apparently penetrating so much mass.

The Dark Matter is invisible in the sense that it is not found in underground detectors, and it is not produced at CERN. Another fact is that the human soul is invisible as well. Simple logic tells then, that the soul is a living invisible matter, whereas the Dark Matter around the galaxies is inanimate invisible matter. Mathematical proof: Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

But invisible dark matter, like invisible air, is detectable. No-one's ever detected a soul. If a soul were detectable there would be general agreement about its existence, as there is for air.

Look at your legs: the left leg has exactly the same length as the right one. It is a fact for the overwhelming majority of us. With a coordinating soul inside the body, is it any wonder that both legs of a person grow to the same length?

No, the legs are the same length because natural selection selected for functionality.
How is this not obvious? What mechanism do you think this co-ordinating soul uses to regulate leg length?
All living things have highly co-ordinated anatomy and physiology. Do they all have souls?

 

[blü 2]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church.

Isn't that an example of the truth setting you free?

So, to make the "peace deal" between Reason and Faith, one needs back the Natural Theology with its school prayers.

The difference seems to me that science studies reality, the world external to the self, and must answer to a standard as objective as we can make it. Religion sets up hypotheses about beliefs that are internal and about as subjective as you can get ─ as witness the sheer number of the world's religions and sects.

What do you say science would gain by ditching its ideal of an objective standard?

I suspect we both know what religion would stand to lose by adopting such a standard.

 

[Tambourine]

School Prayers are the exact opposite of Natural Theology.

Natural Theology is a discipline of theology that seeks to explore God and faith with the help of Reason, and by observing the ordinary experience of nature and natural life.

 

[gnostic]

I do not mix Science and Religion together. I mix Natural Theology and Religion.

Natural Theology is just another name for SUPERSTITION.

It is wishful thinking to associate natural phenomena and natural processes with a divine powerful invisible entity.

Science appears to be an anti-religious organization (for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church).

That’s funny, but when Darwin started out his voyage on the HMS Beagle from 1831 to his publication of On Origin Of Species in 1859, he was a Christian. It was only after 1965 that he started philosophically followed his friend, Thomas Henry Huxley’s agnosticism.

Many Christian naturalists and biologists in his days, agreed with his findings and explanations, including one of the earlier advocate for Natural Selection, Asa Gray, an American botanist and a Christian, who think the Creator was responsible for Evolution, hence the earliest believer of the Theistic Evolution. Gray was one of those people who think that science and religion can co-exist.

And Asa Gray wasn’t the only Christian to accept Evolution as factual explanation to diversification of life over time. Today, there are many Christians (and non-Christian theists) who are biologists or who worked in biology-related fields.

For you to say there is “an anti-religion organisation”, is just nothing more than conspiracy theory, because there are more biologists who are Christians and accept Evolution as fact than there are biologists of combined atheistic and agnostic backgrounds.

This attitude towards Evolutionary Biology being “anti-religion” is only yours and other creationists’ fears that their Christianity have been made redundant or irrelevant, but it’s funny how the majority of Christians don’t share this same fear, advocating Evolution as explanation for the mechanisms to biodiversity of populations.

 

[osgart]

Religions of history are not even good at religion.

The mind must meet reason to justify it's course of living.

If you can't reason it then you can't even live whatever it is.

Religion needs a healthy dose of reason. It needs proof and evidence too. If it can't be deduced or inducted then what life is there in it?, And what reality is there in it? None!

Ultimately the religion needs to meet the standard of undeniable in order to sanely live it. If it ain't undeniably true then it is in error and no one can justly be responsible for it.

You need sense in order to have will and motive, knowledge or belief and that takes reason and experience.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God's name is Reason.

Not seen much reason in God, his son, prophets, messengers, manifestations, messiahs, mahdis other than lame people need crutches.

I suppose that if you have an unreasonable religion then mixing reason with it would be detrimental.

Yeah, trying to mix science with Abrahamic religions is detrimental to them. In following Abrahamic religions, reason should be abandoned.

What do you say science would gain by ditching its ideal of an objective standard?
I suspect we both know what religion would stand to lose by adopting such a standard.

Blu, Science does not need to ditch objective standards to co-exist with religion. My belief (Advaita - non-duality) is 100% in confirmation with science. But God, avataras, sons, prophets, messengers, manifestations, messiahs, mahdis need to be abandoned. These are imagined.

 

[questfortruth]

Ok, so you put this thread in the "science and religion" forum. If *your* God's name is "reason", does your scripture hold up to logical, critical analysis? (Most scripture does not.)

Not the scripture itself, but the interpretation of it given by my Church. "The Bible does not interpret itself" - is the dogma of my Religion.

 

[questfortruth]

How is that science fault? Science doesn't care about religions, it's about providing the most accurate explanation based on the evidence we have. If a religious claim doesn't agree with the evidence, then the problem is the religion and not the science.

I mean, it's not the scientific methods fault that the people who wrote these religious texts had no clue what they were talking about. Sorry but that is simply to deny knowledge, just for doing it, can't see how that is beneficial for anyone?

The Church comes first because I care more for my soul than for the comfort of my body. I am angry at anything, which without sufficient reason harms my Church wellbeing.

 

[blü 2]

Not seen much reason in God, his son, prophets, messengers, manifestations, messiahs, mahdis other than lame people need crutches.Yeah, trying to mix science with Abrahamic religions is detrimental to them. In following Abrahamic religions, reason should be abandoned.
Blu, Science does not need to ditch objective standards to co-exist with religion. My belief (Advaita - non-duality) is 100% in confirmation with science. But God, avataras, sons, prophets, messengers, manifestations, messiahs, mahdis need to be abandoned. These are imagined.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I was referring to supernatural religion.

 

[questfortruth]

This is the first time, I have actually heard the term Natural theology, so obviously googled a bit to get some information, but couldn't really find a lot.

So just out of curiosity, how do one approach a given topic, lets say evolution for instance, since you brought that up as an example?

Is it a way to seek answers, which can be verified, at least to some degree, since you allow God as an explanation, or what exactly is natural theology suppose to achieve?

Does it differ from intelligent design? or is it just another name for it?

You don't have to go into great details, as this post is not meant to have a go at it or anything like that, its simply out of curiosity as I haven't heard of it before?

Hope you can cast some light on it... cheers.

I have invented the term "Natural Theology" by improving the term "Natural Philosophy". Look: there is "Science and Religion", not the "Science, Philosophy, and Religion." The true philosophy should be part of Religious activity. Natural Theology has the CERN, has all the research facilities, but it differs from Science in the love for God. Natural Theology allows equations to have the function of freedom X, which explains all the miracles: Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

 

[gnostic]

I have invented the term "Natural Theology" by improving the term "Natural Philosophy". Look: there is "Science and Religion", not the "Science, Philosophy, and Religion." The true philosophy should be part of Religious activity. Natural Theology has the CERN, has all the research facilities, but it differs from Science in the love for God. Natural Theology allows equations to have the function of freedom X, which explains all the miracles: Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

No, questfortruth, Natural Philosophy started out by the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians of the time, to use and explain the natural world and natural processes without the need for superstitions that come with believing in their religion and cults.

The word for science just mean “knowledge” or epistḗmē ἐπιστήμη.

Natural Philosophy continue to exist among the leading philosophers and mathematicians through different cultures and ages, among Muslims (Golden Age) and Christians (Renaissance and post-Renaissance).

That’s not the case for Natural Theology, which still relies on superstitions.

 

[joelr]

I do not mix Science and Religion together. I mix Natural Theology and Religion. Science appears to be an anti-religious organization (for example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution has greatly reduced the number of members of the Church)

Science is not anti-religious. It looks at reality and makes models. Then it tests them and eventually we arrive at some theories that seem to be true. It does not take religion into account. If some findings contradict and fictional myths created by humans that doesn't make science anti-Greek myths or anti-religious or anti-sci-fi or anything else.

So, to make the "peace deal" between Reason and Faith, one needs back the Natural Theology with its school prayers. How is prayer indifferent to God, when Jesus Christ often prayed and through His prayers, the Lazarus has been resurrected and many miracles have been made and are documented for example in the Holy Bible? Are you questioning the Bible? Even the satan did not do so when he has tempted Jesus Christ in the wilderness: satan did not tell the Christ that the one who appeared to

Satan is a fictional character in the Bible. Why would a character in a story question the reality of the story?
Bilbo Baggins doesn't question Sauron and any other aspect of Middle Earth?
All of the Bronze Age and older cultures had fully worked out deep religious myths with gods and sons/daughters of the god doing miracles and stories of godly magic and miracles. They are not real. The Israelite version later became merged with the popular mystery religion version going around the region and ended up being a religion Rome decided to use. So others were wiped clean off the Earth. Still doesn't make this one myth real. Some of the wisdom and moral teachings are real.

Why wouldn't you question the Bible?