Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science. Does it ?

[Milton Platt]

It is not a scientific problem so science has got nothing to do with it, please?

Regards

That is not what you asked in the OP.
As I said, as long as religion is not used to influence the nature and outcomes of scientific research, religion does not cause an issue for science.

 

[shunyadragon]

No truthful founder of any great religions ever opposed science. Right,please?

Regards

In the ancient religions religion was not asquately addressed one way or another.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bias can slow down the progress of science. And if your bias leads you to choose some preconceived notions about nature over the results of your testing, that's not ideal. But that preconceived notion can be anything from young earth creationism to still believing wolves have an alpha dominated hierarchical society. (Something that's a popular myth but has been debunked time and time again.)

Pre-conceived notions are no good for the truthful religion as well is for science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

A lot of Nobel prize winners have been Christian.

So? A great many Christians opposed science in the past and today.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I never meant that.

I never said otherwise.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science.
Does it ?

Regards

It depends. If you turn to God but still give due credit to the observed data, hypotheses and theorems, then no.

But if, as in Galileo's day, you have the data available (anyone could look through his telescope and see what he saw), and ignore it in favour of scripture -- as the Catholic Church did -- then yes indeed, you totally stall the progress of science.

As Galileo is alleged to have said, after he was sentenced to lifetime house arrest for proclaiming the earth moved around the sun (which the church insisted it did not, based on verses in the Bible), "eppur si muove" ("it moves anyway").

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A lot of Nobel prize winners have been Christian.

But not a single one of them ever invoked the Bible to refute the results of their experiments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Only those religious claims which can be tested, such as the efficacy of prayer.

It is not a scientific problem so science has got nothing to do with it, please?

Regards

If one makes the assertion that "prayer works" (meaning that prayer will achieve the desired outcome), then that is automatically a testable and therefore scientific statement.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Turning to G-d does not stall progress of science.
Does it ?

Regards

For most of my adult life - certainly all through graduate school and most of the way through my career as a scientist - I was of the conviction that one could not be a scientist and a theist. The former would be hindered by the latter, surely. I am embarrassed that I was so narrow minded but at least I know better now.

There is no conflict between the two and as Einstein said (and I think it impossible to refute) "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

(yeah I know his view of religion was, let's say, unorthodox - essentially an agnostic. But he was not spiritually dead as many of the "new atheists" are today).

 

[Regiomontanus]

If one makes the assertion that "prayer works" (meaning that prayer will achieve the desired outcome), then that is automatically a testable and therefore scientific statement.

So far the scientific evidence suggests prayer does not work, at least for sick people being prayed for.

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For most of my adult life - certainly all through graduate school and most of the way through my career as a scientist - I was of the conviction that one could not be a scientist and a theist. The former would be hindered by the latter, surely. I am embarrassed that I was so narrow minded but at least I know better now.

There is no conflict between the two and as Einstein said (and I think it impossible to refute) "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

(yeah I know his view of religion was, let's say, unorthodox - essentially an agnostic. But he was not spiritually dead as many of the "new atheists" are today).

It might surprise you to learn that many "atheists" today are not "spiritually dead." You might take a look at French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville's "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality."

It might also surprise you that many theists -- filled as they sometimes are with hatred for anybody not like themselves, and willing to hurt and even kill for that reason -- don't appear to be very spiritual at all, by any definition that I know of. And in there, I include a lot of fundamentalist Christians, and a lot of fundamentalist Muslims.

 

[paarsurrey]

What is meant by that statement is simply, that God per definition is considered supernatural, which is something that science doesn't work with.

If you are performing an experiment and add a bit of God to it, basically anything is possible.

Just to make it perfectly clear, it doesn't mean that religious people are not scientific or capable of doing science. In fact by far the majority of religious people that work in science have absolutely no issue with it.

My understanding of natural is , whatever G-d has created is natural. Since G-d always existed, so He is out of the natural and there is nothing supernatural. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

A lot of Nobel prize winners have been Christian.

Sure, that is an evidence that the truthful religion does not stall progress of science. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That God(s) isn't used as a reason for any scientific test (or lack thereof) nor should we attempt to disprove or prove God(s) using science.

I agree with it, please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That requires objective evidence to verify.

Depends. Some claim prayer is sufficient, and they are just as adamant their religion is the truthful one.

I have tried but don't understand as to what is objective evidence or what is non-objective statement.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It might surprise you to learn that many "atheists" today are not "spiritually dead." You might take a look at French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville's "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality."

It might also surprise you that many theists -- filled as they sometimes are with hatred for anybody not like themselves, and willing to hurt and even kill for that reason -- don't appear to be very spiritual at all, by any definition that I know of. And in there, I include a lot of fundamentalist Christians, and a lot of fundamentalist Muslims.

Does one mean that the Atheism people believe in spirit, please?
Spirituality is derived from spirit. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

So far the scientific evidence suggests prayer does not work, at least for sick people being prayed for.

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

How much science has helped against Corona-Virus, please?

Regards

 

[Regiomontanus]

It might surprise you to learn that many "atheists" today are not "spiritually dead." You might take a look at French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville's "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality."....

To be clear, the term new atheists is one that is sometimes used by those referring to the prominent, outspoken authors like Dawkins, Harris, the late Hitchens, etc. I was not referring to atheists in general.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does one mean that the Atheism people believe in spirit, please?
Spirituality is derived from spirit. Right, please?

Regards

No, not the way that you mean it ... that is, something that is not physical at all and yet is still somehow "you." No, there's zero evidence for any such thing.

But if, by "spirituality," one means a deep investigation of what is essentially mysterious and unknowable about one's own self, about how one is connected to the universe and all within it, about what it means to have an existence over which one does not have complete control, but which one must nevertheless navigate -- then that is the "spirit" that many atheists accept. ("Believe in" is the wrong phrase for that.)

 

[paarsurrey]

So far the scientific evidence suggests prayer does not work, at least for sick people being prayed for.

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

Never-mind, it is the religious evidence that tells that prayer does work. Right, please?

Regards