zippo9211989
New Member
Science attacks religions. Religions attack each other.
How do you feel about this?
How do you feel about this?
-
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 and religion
- Thread starter zippo9211989
- Start date
zippo9211989
New Member
excellent point But you cant say no one has ever tried to discredit another religion in the name of their own.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Science, that is, actual scientific research, has nothing to say about religion. Science has disproved many religious claims, such as Young Earth Creationism, the Flood Myth, and the "non-variance of Kinds"; but science does not "attack" religion itself.
There are those who use science to attack supernatural beliefs, but that is akin to using a bat to attack someone. The bat is not doing the attacking. The person is using the bat as a weapon. And the bat, like science, was not made to be a weapon. (Although both can be effective ones.)
Science is a means of finding objective truth in our natural world. Many times the truth clashes with belief. This is not in and of itself an attack on that belief. Just a clarification of natural truths.
As for religions attacking each other. It seems to be a case of thinking one has "the truth", and a need to disprove all other "reveled truths" in order to bolster ones own faith. These subjective "truths" are usually only true to the holder of the belief.
zippo9211989
New Member
good point. Science really has no religion as a rival because it in itself is not a religion
turntechGodhead
i warned you about stairs
science - belief in things that are proven
religion - belief in what you've always been told
religion - belief in what you've always been told
People don't just choose religion because they were brought up with it.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Many things in science are not 'proven', but rather evidenced.
And many beliefs in religion are new to the believer.
Science- the resulting body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and convincingly explained (Aristotle), or testable and predictable knowledge of the natural world.
Relies on objective evidence.
Religion- belief in and/or worship of supernatural explanations for what is observed or felt. Relies on subjective evidence.
Science is the effort to understand the how of things.
Religion is the effort to comprehend the why?
What is most interesting to me is the "moral" indignation from those that claim nothing is to be gained by considering why?
Zadok
I don't know, I think religion also delves into the how and what.
I feel that it is wrong. People attack each other.
Besides, science pretty much leaves religions alone.
Wrong.
I was raised without religion. I became religious 100% on my own.
Besides, if that definition of religion were the case, then science would most certainly be a religion, because scientific facts are what I've always been told.
Religion and Science shouldn't even be talking to each other. Spirit and matter are completely incomparable.
ak.yonathan
Active Member
This may have been posted before, but I think it is a sad fact. I think that both of them are not mutually exclusive to one another. In my personal opinion I think that the scientific method can and should be applied to religion (that the idea of God is a falsifiable hypothesis). If God can be shown to not exist scientifically then I will accept that He does not.
Agricola aka Pam34
B'net refugee
By definition (God as spiritual entity, bodiless, outside space/time) it is not possible to test ('prove') whether or not such a deity exists using 'science' as a method. Science confines itself only and solely to the natural world of our space/time. 'Things' (or beings) outside that (wholly or only partially) are not subjects of scientific enquiry.
You may certainly use 'science' (or logic, or archeology or whatever) to test ('prove') CERTAIN CLAIMS which religions make, about the world or about God, but you can't actually test 'god' (the question of the existence or nature of deity). In my opinion.
You may certainly use 'science' (or logic, or archeology or whatever) to test ('prove') CERTAIN CLAIMS which religions make, about the world or about God, but you can't actually test 'god' (the question of the existence or nature of deity). In my opinion.
ak.yonathan
Active Member
Sorry, but I disagree. Science concerns itself with anything that can be falsified. That I believe is the main qualification for calling an idea as scientific. What you have described is physics, not science. God maybe beyond physics but He is not beyond science. Therefore in my opinion the idea of an omnipotent being should be put under the same scrutiny as any other scientific idea.
Agricola aka Pam34
B'net refugee
I believe you are incorrect in your assumption, or at least a bit sideways. Science concerns itself with anything that can be falsified IN THE NATURAL WORLD using natural means. Science does not and cannot 'test' (falsify) matters of the immaterial, spiritual 'world'. Wrong tool.
I should admit, at this point, that I happen to BE a 'scientist'. I have my MSc in Geology, thesis topic concerned metamorphic petrology and multi-element geochemistry, and I have nearly 40 years of professional work experience in that field. I also got reasonably close to a PhD, lacking only one class and a finished dissertation - but that's not enormously relevant.
There is no way to use 'science' or the scientific method, to 'test' (falsify) evidence of a supernatural anything.
Now, if a religious faith MAKES CERTAIN CLAIMS which involve the history, behavior, or makeup of the natural world - now THAT you can test.
As a for instance, Hare Krishnaites claim the sun is closer to the earth than the moon is. THAT can be tested (and proven wrong, by the way).
I should admit, at this point, that I happen to BE a 'scientist'. I have my MSc in Geology, thesis topic concerned metamorphic petrology and multi-element geochemistry, and I have nearly 40 years of professional work experience in that field. I also got reasonably close to a PhD, lacking only one class and a finished dissertation - but that's not enormously relevant.
There is no way to use 'science' or the scientific method, to 'test' (falsify) evidence of a supernatural anything.
Now, if a religious faith MAKES CERTAIN CLAIMS which involve the history, behavior, or makeup of the natural world - now THAT you can test.
As a for instance, Hare Krishnaites claim the sun is closer to the earth than the moon is. THAT can be tested (and proven wrong, by the way).
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I haven't ever seen science attacking religion, its the other way round for sure.