questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But that does not explain why Science does not study the cases of unknown. Ignorance?
-
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!
Journals that mix Science and Religion
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There aren't any unless you're looking at a scientific journal on the psychology of religion or related.
Otherwise you find self-made so called 'peer reviewed journals' like creation science has made for itself.
Science is devoted to studying cases of unknown when there is objective verifiable evidence of the nature of our physical existence. That is the way of science.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Ask God to double check your math?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Find a miracle that can be studied. Most when investigated go away,
sooda
Veteran Member
I can't even imagine why anyone would mix the study of science and religion. I thought that went out with "Bible Archaeology".
Yes, many cases of the miraculous have been investigated, but of course, none of the results concluded that they were miracle. The answers were always a natural explanation or no result that the miracle occured.
In the Baha'i Faith a miracle is the natural not understood.
The word after miracle in the dictionary is mirage.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Why not email the editors of this one and ask them how they do it?
The Journal of Theological Studies | Oxford Academic
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Religion is a totally separate way of thinking then Science. Why mix it?
Naturalism does mix itself with Science in the mainstream though.
I see that frustration.
Human nature is to infer too much beyond the strict science.
Science should stick to strict physical causation with no extraneous inferences attached.
Seems everybody is desparate for a worldview, and worldview confirmation. Science should not be about worldviews.
Logic and religion is a good relationship though. But logical consistency often times does not lead to truth of reality. Thats true for all worldviews, imo.
It seems all people operate from the assumptions of worldviews and that permeates all fields of endeavour. Thats a shame! It leads to blindness, and closed mindedness.
Naturalism does mix itself with Science in the mainstream though.
I see that frustration.
Human nature is to infer too much beyond the strict science.
Science should stick to strict physical causation with no extraneous inferences attached.
Seems everybody is desparate for a worldview, and worldview confirmation. Science should not be about worldviews.
Logic and religion is a good relationship though. But logical consistency often times does not lead to truth of reality. Thats true for all worldviews, imo.
It seems all people operate from the assumptions of worldviews and that permeates all fields of endeavour. Thats a shame! It leads to blindness, and closed mindedness.
siti
Well-Known Member
Not journals, but you might like books from the Templeton Press - I will not pass judgement on the science in some of the supposedly science-oriented books, but I do have a great deal of respect for (not necessarily agreement with) the thinking of some of the authors such as Paul Davies, Charles Birch, David Sloan Wilson, Arthur Peacocke and John Barrow (to name a few). If you are really interested in reading about the philosophical/religious conclusions some genuinely brilliant scientists draw from their special understanding of the how the world works, these are a good place to start - but most of them are not science - they are the philosophical/religious/theological opinions of scientists...and theologians and others.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
It's not taken religiously-- it's a pragmatic observation that in all of history, there remains nothing showing that any god has actually done... anything.
We are still waiting, all these centuries later, for An Act Of God™ ....
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
So. The excuse you use is "magic", then? With the additional excuse that you have to be gullible first, or "god" cannot "communicate" to you?
Is that how it works?
So either god is maliciously withholding communication to some folk, or is incompetent, and doesn't know how...
hmmmm....
... not much of a "god", is it? My cat does a better job of communication! Seriously-- and he doesn't even speak a language!
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
FACTS:
1. The science is in crisis and has major problems,
2. The science denies to call Absolute Truth "scientific", because it is not falsifiable.
3. Theology acknowledges the existence of Absolute Truth.
Conclusion: the Popper's criterion must be improved to connect Science and Religion.
Last edited:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
The problems of Science are multiplying in exponential progression. Thus, something is wrong in basement of Scientific Building. Some father of Science said something stupid. And now we do not know the 95 % composition of Reality (we called it Dark Energy and Dark Matter problems). Dark Matter and Dark Energy is a manifestation of the spirituality of Reality: it was simultaneously discovered and not found. Discovered on the influence of gravity on the stars (NASA research), and not found in CERN and underground detectors.
No FACTS here
No major problems;computers work, airplanes fly, and technology advances based on advances in science. What is the problem?
Science considers 'Absolute Truth' not falsifiable, but does not deny it exists. It is possible Absolute Truth exists either as God, or the absolute Laws of Nature depending on the belief of the scientist, but yes it is beyond falsification.
True, but not from the human perspective. The essence of truth is God not fallible humans.
Actually, even though Popper contributed to the philosophy of science and the approach to the methods, but in reality scientific methods have basically remained the same as before Popper.
No major problems;computers work, airplanes fly, and technology advances based on advances in science. What is the problem?
Science considers 'Absolute Truth' not falsifiable, but does not deny it exists. It is possible Absolute Truth exists either as God, or the absolute Laws of Nature depending on the belief of the scientist, but yes it is beyond falsification.
True, but not from the human perspective. The essence of truth is God not fallible humans.
Actually, even though Popper contributed to the philosophy of science and the approach to the methods, but in reality scientific methods have basically remained the same as before Popper.
Last edited:
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Maybe you need your glasses adjusted?
Glasses are not the issue. Too many simply natural occurrences, are attributed as acts of God without anymore justification than the anecdotal 'one believes it so,' or supernatural reported events in the ancient past that lack verification. It is a matter of fact that there are no significant events attributable to God that cannot simply be considered natural events.
Last edited:
From what I can tell, this is mostly talking *about* religion and its history. Like any analysis of literature or history, this can be done in a peer-reviewed setting.
I wonder how many actual theological conclusions are reached, though.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Probably very few. But indeed, nor are conclusions reached in papers on interpretation of Shakespeare. That is the point. In the study of religion there lots of shades of opinion and different ways of looking at things. (For instance there are at least three ways of looking at the idea of the "Atonement" said to be achieved by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.) But it is still possible to tell a well-argued contribution, based on a proper scholarship, from a poor one.