Standards Of Truth: Science v. Religion?

[MaddLlama]

Hi, I would like to say something. If we look at the truth it is simple to answer this question. What does science state ? If we can find one thing wrong through out the book. Well can any one come up with this one thing? I have hurd many try but not one lagit answer. Now lets put science to the same test. Now because this is funny to me, I'll first give your answer . That was years ago and we know the truth now. HAHA Is the world still flat? cause science has MURDERED many people for not believing that lie from the devil. Now the question is how many more lives will be lost to science. Facists are based on science and evolution.

Umm...I think you're confused here. Are you trying to compare science to science, or science to religion?
Proof reading, my friend, is the key to success.

 

[gnostic]

Is the world still flat? cause science has MURDERED many people for not believing that lie from the devil. Now the question is how many more lives will be lost to science.

When did anyone in science ever murder anyone with this question, Alexander?

Scientists have been persecuted in the past by Christians for putting doubts on the Bible and Christian teachings.

In the West, the Church had strong hold on how we think and what we think, and anyone questioning were considered heretics. Galileo was jailed because he didn't believe the earth was centre of the solar system. Newton feared to published some of his work due to the Church.

I don't know what the Jews stance towards science, though.

 

[Willamena]

The "standards" in science are developed for finding the truth of objective reality. Religion seeks something entirely subjective, that being a relationship of man to divinity. Religion sees truth about itself and one's self.

By a comparison of "standards" I assume you mean that one holds to the truth more dearly than the other? Truth is truth. Both science and religion look for truth, but about different things.

 

[BruceDLimber]

In the Baha'i view, BOTH science and religion have high standards, BOTH are necessary for well-rounded understanding, and BOTH dovetail very nicely!

If both are properly viewed, there is no inherent conflict between the two whatever....

Best,

Bruce

 

[Mainiack11]

In science, for something to be considered "true"the mechanism used to prove it must be able to be re-tested. In Religion, if it is written i the religion's holy text, it is "true."

 

[Booko]

I chose "other" because the standards in science and religion are simply different.

Other human endeavors have different standards as well, such as the standards in literature or history.

To demand that all other pursuits conform to scientific standards seems to be rather silly.

To demand some rationality be involved somewhere is reasonable, though.

 

[Torgo]

Science and religion are completely different. You simply cannot compare them.

I have never understood why anyone would see any sort of conflict between them. I am captivated by biology and just finished an internship at the National Human Genome Research Institute. I am also a Christian and cannot imagine where I would be without God.

Information cannot hurt you. Diseases have always been caused by germs, the universe has always been vast and old, and humans have always had a common ancestor with chimps. Finding these out did not change anything about the world or humanity. It is how people use this knowledge that matters. Applied for good science can cure diseases or allow us to see parts of the universe we could never imagine. Applied for ill, it creates hydrogen bombs and biological weapons. One thing science can never do is tell me the meaning of my life or help me know right from wrong - that is simply out of its scope. But knowing these things doesnt help me one bit if I want to build a telescope or treat leukemia - that is out of any religion's scope.

 

[MoFacta]

The reason why I chose 'other' was because I found the question to be a bit ambiguous and maybe a little paradoxical. In science, any 'truth' that is conceded upon by the relevant scholars and scientists has been painstakingly observed, noted, hypothesized, concluded and retested over and over again until sufficient data can be obtained to either prove or disprove a theory. In religion, because all notions of 'truth' are based more on faith and belief than actual provable fact (I'm hoping we can all agree on that even though I expect most religious zealots will claim that, for eg. the proof for God is in the Bible and the creation of the earth is evidence enough for his existence), any comparison to science and it's call for truth is incomparable to the requirements for 'truth' in religion. This is because in each case, the notion of 'truth' differs entirely. They are apples and oranges, to put it into a cliche. In fact, science is, in my opinion, the polar opposite to religion if looked at from a strictly comparitive view-point. Science is based on the scientific process of incontestable, tried and tested data, and religion is based upon a heritage, a burning in your chest, an unprovable faith that is called faith because is exactly what it is; an irrational (careful Greg), feel-it-to-my-bones certainty. It's hardly acceptable and totally unlikely for a scientist to say, "Yes, well, I think I've found the cure for cancer, I don't know how or why, but I feel it in my bones so it must be it." It's even more unlikely that his collegues will back him up and it's even MORE unlikely that any pharmaceutical company will publish his findings and manufacture his cure. Ironically, it's even more unlikely and no doubt unacceptable for a Christian to say, "Yes, well, I've studied this immensely, tried and tested my data over and over again, and now I know, and can PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I have scientifically proven the existence of God." His fellow Christians would be flabbergasted.

In agreement with Torgo, I also do not find any difference between the world around us; which is filled with things that can and can not be explained by science; and the world 'above us' (God, religion, existence). This is of course, not from a birds-eye-view, but rather after careful scrutiny. In an ultimate sort of way they are one in the same. If the earth is a manifestation of God, the creator, then surely the laws of science, which is a manifestation of the world around us, are one in the same with him. Maybe ultimate science and things we can not explain is God. Maybe God is the force that compells atoms to organize and form the universe. We'll never know. So therefore, given that we'll will never know, it holds more weight to focus not on the trivial things like "Science vs. God", but more on the things that make life happier and better for everyone; like love. )(

 

[indecisive cookies!!!]

Are people on this site simply non-religious or what! The bible is the truth. Its accuracy is perfect. It has scriptures in their which if scientists would yield to, could be used for greater good!
Psalm 104:
'15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.'
How long did it take for people to understand this! Lets admit it science has ruined our earth. one may say we have gained great things through science but look at the state of this earth now. Its nearly ruined! Why onn earth do you think Yahweh placed man in a garden not a factory and left Asdam to look after the garden!
I may be wrong on this bit but it genesis 4 it says
'7 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech. '

Wasn't it Cain and his descendents who began creating these big cities? Wasn't Seth was it! Thats something to think about!
]
Science is non-comparible to religion. Its questions like these that get me angry. Any religious person should understand this. Can science save this planet i don't think so. Can science bring back the dead long past, i don't think so. Can science teach us to live the kingdom way of life, certainly not!

there might be away to do that in the future, replace the human mind with command scripts from computer, basically making a living computer

or creating a high-density wormhole so we dont get sucked in the sun

 

[Real Sorceror]

Science searches for facts.
Religion searches for truth.
Truth and fact are not quite the same thing.

 

[Ryan2065]

Science searches for facts.
Religion searches for truth.
Truth and fact are not quite the same thing.

Science takes facts and trys to create theories based on these facts.
Religion is typically told what is true and this does not change.

If religions "searched" the religious texts would change.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Science takes facts and trys to create theories based on these facts.
Religion is typically told what is true and this does not change.

If religions "searched" the religious texts would change.

You're quite right. I suppose "spirituality" is more along the lines of searching for truth.
But remember that many religions have no texts. Really, only the Abrahamic religions cut short the search for truth.
If I might ask, what is that thing on your head?

 

[indecisive cookies!!!]

very true

 

[Ryan2065]

If I might ask, what is that thing on your head?

Oh, heh... That was from when I had a big EEG thing and they had to paste all this fun stuff to my head... Ive been told those are my "sexiest" pictures so I display them proudly!

 

[Willamena]

Oh, heh... That was from when I had a big EEG thing and they had to paste all this fun stuff to my head... Ive been told those are my "sexiest" pictures so I display them proudly!

It's sort of symbolic ...of the knowledge that leaks out of your head and onto my computer screen through the wonder of technology.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

I'm inclined to say science has higher standards, just given science's emphasis on evidence and rigorous proof and experimentation and so on. This is not to say religion is untrue or has no truth. But faith (and please, this is not a criticism, since I wouldn't expect this of faith) is, rather by definition, not based or based only in part on evidence and such. The rest is, well, faith. That's kinda the point...