|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:00 am
Everyone has different views on science and religion.
You go from the science is nothing but nonsense and the bible (enter other holy book here) rules all to the science is everything and the holy books are just made up.
Usually people are in the middle of these two extremes. For example, I think God gave us a mind to explore what he created. I see science as something holy.
Then, I have a friend that is opposite of me and thinks the bible is everything. I have no problem with that. I just grew up in a house where Christianity and science had equal say. Now, I am applying science to religion to explain things. Works for me.
So, what are your views on this science and religion concept?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:49 pm
Well, first off, the Bible wasn't made for Science, it was made for the teachings of God. Secondly, many things in the bible are actually factually. Such as this... In the bible it says God created all the animals at the same time. And, this can be proven. There is something called a cambrian explosion which is basically where there is just a HUGE burst of fossil life and what not. And, what's funny, is that the lower and lower you get, the fossils don't change much, and beneath the cambrian explosion is no trace of life, and above it we find fossils of dogs, cats, dinosaurs, brids etc.
Another thing I think about how evolution mat not be true is that, if an animal were to change genetically over time, than it would be ultimatly lead to the creatures extinction. Think about it, if, over time, a land animal were to become a bird, how logical is that? If that WERE possible, than please, tell me how, because I don't think evolution is possible through molecular change...
Ah poop, I just got off on an evolution rant. Well, basically, science and the bible somewhat clash, and it's hard to be a christian these days with modern science and what not. But, like I said, the bible was not made for science, it was made for Gods word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:48 pm
My dad said something on this matter that makes sense to me. He said that when god was telling "Adam" about how he made the world god realized that he was just a simple creature. The first people wouldn't understand much about science even if it was directly told to them so he made it simpler to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:52 am
Yehecatl Quipoloa Science is merely the physical "how" of the world, the "stuff" the physical realm is made out of. As physical, science can neither prove, disprove, or really have anything to say about the spiritual realms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:57 am
Damn, I could probably write pages on this (not that being able to do that is unusual... but... yeah). So here's some angles.
Science IS religion, depending on how broadly you define religion. Even with narrower definitions, science is still the functional equivalent of religion in the lives of many and thus the following of science to exclusion could be said to be a religious following (with religious here meaning zealous devotion to a particular cause or system of belief). Religion is about asking (and answering) those big questions in life, and that's exactly what science does. Science may be distinct as a subset of the religious in how it narrows its scope of operation via use of specific methodology though.
And just as two 'different' religious systems are not wholely incompatible (nor compatible) with each other, same is true of science plus anything else. Depends on which two you are mixing and how absolutist you are about Truth. If you seek Truths rather than Truth, you can easily mash together just about everything and see the merit in it (and also the flaws of course). I use science extensively in my religious system, so this whole practice of presuming they are in conflict strikes me as a bit absurd at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:56 am
mazuac Well, first off, the Bible wasn't made for Science, it was made for the teachings of God. Secondly, many things in the bible are actually factually. Such as this... In the bible it says God created all the animals at the same time. And, this can be proven. There is something called a cambrian explosion which is basically where there is just a HUGE burst of fossil life and what not. And, what's funny, is that the lower and lower you get, the fossils don't change much, and beneath the cambrian explosion is no trace of life, and above it we find fossils of dogs, cats, dinosaurs, brids etc. First, I'd like to see some sources of where you got the information from the cambrian explosion. Quote: Another thing I think about how evolution mat not be true is that, if an animal were to change genetically over time, than it would be ultimatly lead to the creatures extinction. Think about it, if, over time, a land animal were to become a bird, how logical is that? If that WERE possible, than please, tell me how, because I don't think evolution is possible through molecular change... Second, it looks as if you don't understand the mechanism of evolution and are thus trying to base your disbelief of it off of that; that'd be akin to someone saying "I don't understand the mechanism of gravity, therefore I don't believe in it." And as far as logical goes, how logical is it that some being that is infinitely more powerful than we could ever imagine made us? I mean, why not something more powerful, more useful, more entertaining? Also, evolution has been witnessed through molecular change, one of the reasons why there is no cure for HIV/AIDs is because of how rapidly evolving the virus is; some insects gain immunity to pesticides through random genetic mutations that make them immune to that pesticide. These are both products of evolution at the molecular level. Now if evolution happens at the molecular level, it is not impossible for it to happen at a much larger level because with enough changes at the molecular level there will be changes at a larger level. Thus, from enough genetic changes, it is possible for a species to result from another species. This does not necessarily kill off the parent species, all it does is create a new subspecies from the some portion of the offspring of the parents. Also, if a species were static and resistant to change in the environment, this would lead to their extinction - since if the environment changes and the species cannot, then the species will be unable to adapt and will die off. Quote: Ah poop, I just got off on an evolution rant. Thus making me do the same... Quote: Well, basically, science and the bible somewhat clash, and it's hard to be a christian these days with modern science and what not. But, like I said, the bible was not made for science, it was made for Gods word. As far as the Bible goes, I cannot see how one is unable to accept any currently valid scientific hypothesis and still follow the Bible; unless you believe the Bible is to be taken with a complete literal meaning. Finally, as far as my outlook on science and religion; I'm an agnostic atheist who happens to combine the metaphysics of the eliminative materialist with the (incomplete) metaphysics of Hume. Thus my religion could be stated as science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:41 pm
Arabic Saying:
الله عرفوه بالعقل
God was recognized by the mind
Science and religion are not the same thing, though they are related.
Science is conclusions based on observations. Religion goes beyond that and dapples into the what is not observable.
However, as a Muslim, throughout the Qur'an especially, time and again, there is a constant emphasis for people to contemplate on and observe the world around them, and study the very amazing and intricate natural laws in the world around them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:05 pm
There is a connection between religion and science and I definately agree with Kim says in the definitions of how they relate. As a kemetic, science is part of our faith with Djehuty as the patron of science. Through science, through the studies and melding of religion and gained knowledge through trail & error, dreams (within which provided inspirations and imparted wisdom from the Akh and from Netjer as it is believed), and studying thier surroundings, nature and the sky (stars at night and the path of the sun during the day), the Egyptians were able to build massive monuments, chart the stars, develop medical practices that were, at that time, the most advanced in the known world, and many other things. Even now and today, those who follow the Kemetic faiths are urged by Netjer (Mostly by Djehuty) to seek out both old and new wisdom, about the world and about ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:05 pm
Actually His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a great admirer of scientific inquiry, as am I. I consider myself a Buddhist. If you examine Buddhism, it is a lot like the scientific method. The Buddha looked around himself and saw that people were suffering. The suffering, he thought, had to have a cause. So he examined himself, and saw that the suffering has a cause, and that there is a way to end it, through the Noble Eightfold Path. In fact, to those of you that are interested in science, Karma is so true. Karma is the law of cause and effect. If you do something, the effect is something else. There is no higher being or power to it. And the Buddha taught that you should always question everything, or you will never learn. If you would like to see how Buddhism has effected modern scientific research, you should read "The Universe in a Single Atom" by HH the Dalai Lama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Well... The Bible isn't a science book, so... I can't really say a lot of stuff on how science and religion*Christianity* clash...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:58 am
His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama is an avid supporter of scientific inquary into the various traditions of Buddhism, even claiming that the Buddha was a "Scientist,...which means that a true Buddhist should follow the course of reason" (Time, March 2008 ). He states, "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality." You may claim that he doesn't mean this, but rather is trying to get converts to Buddhism. I, on the other hand, wholeheartedly feel that HH is searching for the truth, which is what all the religions of the world are about. He is one of the few monks in any tradition that tells people "not to take up [their religion] but to study within their own traditions, where their roots are deepest" (Time, March 2008 ). Tenzin Gyatso At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light. But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently. I believe that Science and Religion are compatible. Should science prove a commonly held belief, like HH and the moon, religion should be rewritten. I also believe that in the matter of morality, religion can be very helpful to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:45 pm
mazuac Well, first off, the Bible wasn't made for Science, it was made for the teachings of God. Secondly, many things in the bible are actually factually. Such as this... In the bible it says God created all the animals at the same time. And, this can be proven. There is something called a cambrian explosion which is basically where there is just a HUGE burst of fossil life and what not. And, what's funny, is that the lower and lower you get, the fossils don't change much, and beneath the cambrian explosion is no trace of life, and above it we find fossils of dogs, cats, dinosaurs, brids etc. Another thing I think about how evolution mat not be true is that, if an animal were to change genetically over time, than it would be ultimatly lead to the creatures extinction. Think about it, if, over time, a land animal were to become a bird, how logical is that? If that WERE possible, than please, tell me how, because I don't think evolution is possible through molecular change... Ah poop, I just got off on an evolution rant. Well, basically, science and the bible somewhat clash, and it's hard to be a christian these days with modern science and what not. But, like I said, the bible was not made for science, it was made for Gods word. I believe in evolution...up to a point. I believe God created the world. I think 7 days stands for millions of years. God just had to simplify it to let us get our minds around it. Someone that is only alive for maybe a hundred years can't grasp what time a million years is. However, for God it could be a day. He doesn't die. I do believe in evolving species. Like the person said before me, the viruses are involving. When something evolves from a species, it just goes off in a different direction. If we humans have this wonderful brain to grow crops, why would we waste our time searching endlessly for fruit? The apes are still alive, aren't they? They gathered fruit. There is a Christian that believes in evolution somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:53 pm
There's an interesting webpage related to this here: http://templeton.org/belief/It's surprising how often religious beliefs and scientific fact overlap. However, when religion and science blatantly contradict each other, I tend to accept the science and take the religion either metaphorically or flat out ignore it, depending on the situation. Actually, it all depends on the conflict between religion and science that you have. I don't think it's ever safe or wise to make a blanket generalization for a multitude of potential situations. Religion, in part, is intended to 'fill in the gaps'. If you take nothing literally, and always philosophically, then there is no need to conflict religion with science. Besides, I tend to view religion as ideally being purely philosophical. That's how I tend to view things of the spiritual nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:17 am
okay science to us is all that has nothing to do with the gods its what happens naturaly, were as religion is what happens through a divine cuase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
