does being religious means rejecting science?

Jump to Last Post 1-18 of 18 discussions (131 posts)

63
pisean282311posted 13 years ago
why do religious people reject scientific facts while use all benefits of science in day to day life?...like big bang theory is half baked or wrong..theory of evolution is speculation..human species existence since .2 million is false and such things..
reply report
1. 57
  Consuliaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hell-------------o! pisean.
  
  Good questions but they're often misconstrued questions that are not truly applicable. The assumptions that Bible believing people do not subscribe
  to many science related ideas is assuming that there are no true scientists
  who support, through research or experimentation, or historical data, the
  works that sustain that the big bang theory relates to the Genesis 1:1-
  Chapters 2-3. However, the way that the "more popular scientists" approach
  this is to ignore that the "Big Bang" occured as the requirements that are
  stipulated as necessary before a creation by a Supreme Being could have
  happened. However, you are probably aware, that the theory states there
  must be time, space, matter, motion, energy, sound.
  In earlier, and later scientific research, many aren't under the creationist doctrines, but many are. In providing evidence that the exclusion of a
  difinite Designer, or design and orderly creation support, the requirements
  demanded by non-biblical scientist are all accounted for in the Genesis
  record. In the beginning-is definitely time, the earth was empty - space-
  water covered the earth-matter-the Spirit of god moved upon the waters-
  motion-energy, God said (spoke) sound.
  There are many other elements in Biblical writing that supports a Designer, and many scientists that focus on the mathimatical precision of the planets
  and all the components of the universe conclude there must be a designer.
  Well there is a reason that the Scriptural declared that God sits on the circle
  of the earth, even when others said the earth was flat! Thanks for the stirring thought provokers. I really enjoyed reading and thinking through what you've
  said. And one does not need to be religious to know truth, God of the Scripture is not a religion, but He is a Spirit Person.He is creative and so are
  his creations especially people.----Consulia
  reply report
2. 82
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I saw another thread by a theist called "Why are unbelievers so obsessed with telling Christians they're wrong?"
  
  The poster was told by several people in no uncertain terms that the wording of the thread title was loaded because it had an assumption built in, and was a generalisation of "unbelievers" that amounted to a misrepresentation. I pointed the same thing out myself.
  
  As no one has yet cared to mention the wording of your thread title, I'll go right ahead. Your thread title is a also a loaded question which makes an incorrect assumption and generalisation that misrepresents. For your benefit, a less loaded title might have been:
  
  "why do [some] religious people reject [certain] scientific facts while . . ."
  
  As is stands the answer to your question is not all religious people do reject scientific facts, nor do they need to. Many eminent scientists also happen to be religious.
  reply report
3. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Same reason scientists reject theist 'facts' yet use them in daily life. Faith, hope, even love, good will, war, hate etc etc.
  
  But really, both are the same.
  Neither have 'facts', only information they call evidence. Example: an artifact is found in Egypt.
  Scientists use a human designed system to explore, evaluate, process and determine the 'date' that object existed. But no one really knows. Theists use a human designed system to explore, evaluate, process and determine what that artifact 'means'.
  Both argue for thousands of years over that one artifact, causing all kinds of havoc, build temples of both glass & steel or stone & marble (museums actually) to worship that artifact from both perspectives. The only fact: they found an artifact and the process by which both came to their 'astounding' conclusions is identical...
  reply report
4. 57
  Dorkiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just to simply answer your question: No. Being religious does not mean that you reject science.
  reply report
5. 45
  jacobkuttytaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Being religious does not mean rejecting science
  reply report
6. 62
  qeylerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Scripture itself speaks of Evolution; darkness/light, from the sea to creeping, then flying, then mammals, then humans.
  
  Scripture itself explains the 'two' creations, that is the physical, in Gen 1 and the Spiritual in Gen 2.
  
  There were 'male & female created He them and He .... told them to be fruitful and multiply...' then one Man was taken from among the others, (dust of the ground...) and given a soul, hence we have the people who were there, multiplying and the Spiritual creation of soul...which one can interpret as consciousness.
  
  We then have Adam and Eve gaining the knowledge of right and wrong; able to judge.
  
  The problem with Science and Scripture is that those who know one don't often know the other.
  
  If you know Science, for example, you can conceive how Aaron's sons brought petroleum into the temple and were burnt to a crisp. If you don't know science you'll skim the portion assuming some kind of supernatural cause.
  reply report
7. 59
  christwannabeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If I can correct your assumption first off pisean282311,
  
  "Religious people" do not reject science. I am personally related to three scientists in fields of study today, two of which are "religious people." Science actually proves the Bible to be true in each and every discovery science has made.
  
  However, when you refer to the Big Bang theory or Evolution as "Science," this is where we "religious people" balk. In the first place, all of the items you questioned are indeed theory. A theory is basically an idea of how something COULD be, but not yet proven. Science would be to develop those theories, test them, and then record the data.
  
  For instance, if evolution were true, why can't we see it happening in nature around us now? Oh yes, we "religious people" have heard the argument that it takes millions and millons of years to happen, but isn't that just convenience and not science? An unproven theory, with many logical flaws...
  
  Also, if these theories were true, why have we only just started hearing about them in the last 100-200 years? Wouldn't it have been seen throughout human history? Wouldn't there be a much greater foundation if these were true? Would there even be debate?
  
  The truth is pisean282311 that we "religious people" simply believe that things were created and ordered by God. It is Faith. Just as you believe that your teachers who taught you about evolution and the big bang theory knew anything they were talking about. It is Faith in what you have been taught. You didn't just up and know about all those things...
  
  I have a fun little project for you if you are interested. Don't take someone else's word for your beliefs, find out for yourself. Question your teachers, or anyone you know who believes the theories you mentioned. Find out how they learned them, where they learned them, what proof they had. It is fun to watch professors get flustered and talk in circles trying to explain themselves. Happy Hunting!
  reply report
49
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
does being religious means rejecting science?

No; not necessarily.

Thanks
reply report
75
miss_jkimposted 13 years ago
To be quite honest, I believe there is enough proof that science and faith are intertwined. There is truth in both and one proves the other. It is not necessary to choose one over the other.
reply report
1. 49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friend miss_jkim
  
  I agree with you. The focus of religion is guidance of humans in ethical, moral and spiritual realms while the focus of science is on the physical realm; so both science and religion are harmonizing; not contradictory.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you paarsurrey for your comment.
  
  I normally don't get involved in these kind of discussions as they end up very confrontational and in no way peaceful. It is nice to have someone who walks the path of peace.
  reply report
2. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Wow - I never knew this.
  
  What scientific advancement or discovery proves there is a god?
  
  And which god is it please?
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My God
  reply report
  75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mark,
  
  I said I believe FAITH and science are intertwined, I did not say God or any one diety. I am a person of faith AND a person who has seen the proof of the existence of a higher power's hand in creating and continuitng to create this awesome world around us.
  
  Unfortunately, the human race is bent on self distruction and disbelief.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  human race wont destroy itself..human race has always been like what we see right now..fights , violence , no care about environment is part of human race since it first evolved...but it knows art of survival ..it is what made us come from jungle and it is what would carry us forward...
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So - what scientific evidence supports FAITH in that case? And FAITH in what exactly?
  
  We are obviously using the term "proof" in different ways though. Can I ask that we stick to the dictionary definition instead of interchanging it with "belief" please? That makes for much more flowing conversations and I do not feel like I am being treated like an idiot when the proof turns out be something other than actual, demonstrable, measurable or evidential proof. Please?
  reply report
63
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
I love God and like Darwin
reply report
1. 75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Greek One,
  
  This is one of those areas that I agree AND disagree. I do believe in evolution, but not in the commonly held belief of man evolving from monkeys. If one studies the history of man, one can easily see man's ability to evolve in scientific discoveries, medicine, technology and a host of other areas.
  
  We are still evolving today and will continue to do so. The concern I have is, "will we evolve ourselves into extinction?"
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Men did not evolve from monkeys. Where did you get this nonsense from? We evolved from ape-like creatures that modern apes also evolved from.
  
  You cannot say you believe in evolution - except some of it. LOL.
  
  I take it you are a Christian - they believe in the bible - except the bits they don't like.
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  but I'm a Christin, Mark.. and unless I get my $4 soon... you will be too
  reply report
  75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said earlier Mark, I believe faith and science are intertwined. I clearly stated that I don't believe man evolved from monkeys, perhaps I should have said ape like creatures. I realize that there is only one difference between the DNA of man and the DNA of apes. Obviously one tiny difference makes a HUGE difference between man and ape. This is why I don't believe man evolved from apes; furthermore, because of this difference apes have not developed human speech patterns, nor have they evolved socially, intellectually or technologically.
  
  They may be similar to man, yet they are NOT our ancestors.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ya but their ancestor and our ancestor can be common..isn't it?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If it happened once why does it not continue to reocure?
  
  Maybe, ... every 78,000 years something happens to scramble DNA
  
  Then it remains stationary until that ocurance happens again, every 78,000 years?
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  how did you reach to 78,000 years figure..evolution is on going process..but like most processes of nature it takes long long time..earth was formed billions of years ago but human species arrived .2 million years ago..
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it's all about natural selection..
  
  In the past, genes where past on through the mating process where one's partner was selected by certain subconscious crtieria.. eg the health of a potential partner's skin, evident strength, good breeding hips, etc.
  
  In today's modern world, with the advent of internet dating, I foresee a time when our species will evolve into sloppy large people who posses fast typing skills and the ability to post funny images on forum posts.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just thinking out loud
  Trying to be open minded concerning evolution.
  
  If man evolved from an ape? ..That would mean that this species had reached a point in evolution. My question is why did it stop ??? Why do we not continue to see this process of A female ape giving birth to humanoids.
  
  If this evolution process does occur there must be some kind of catalyst. Suddenly .. Poof here it is.
  
  Why did I choose 78,000 years? Just for grins I guess.
  
  Every 26,000 years a cycle completes itself such as the
  Dec 2012 event.
  Assuming that this is but one cog in a larger wheel, assuming the ratio of 12 such as it often seems to be the case.
  Possibly ?? when that cycle comes around, there could be an event that does allow DNA to be altered.
  
  Unless SOMETHING happens that hasn't yet been explained, I just can't but evolution as it is currently being explained.
  There is a page missing.
  just using a wild imagination , looking for possibilities.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Personally - I find it extremely funny that people who take the Turin Shroud as proof positive that Jesus was the son of god (despite having never seen it) cannot "buy" evolution because there is not enough evidence. Or there is something missing.
  
  That would be the very definition of close minded.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I remember making some kind of statement pointing to the shroud as being yet another piece of circumstantial evidence or something like that?
  That was a long time ago. If you have that saved to the side someplace I'd enjoy revisiting that comment.
  
  I consider your coment as a compliment.
  
  Many thanks.
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  One hub that truly impressed me recently was "Darwin vs Biodiversity" by American Tiger, and this section really sums up the 'THEORY' of evolution debate, and the debate about evidence for scientific debate in general
  
  Quote from this hub.
  
  The Scientific Process, as taught to me patiently by people who studied hard to learn their trade, is about Testable, Repeatable, Verifiable facts. You make an assumption -informed or not- or ask a question. You then posit a theory about your assumption, and go about testing the hell out of that theory.
  
  Every Single Test you apply to that theory has to prove True, and be repeatable by people who've never even met you. If, at any point, on any test, your theory should prove False, your theory has failed. One False against 99 Trues is still a False. Your theory holds no water, and is incorrect. That is the Scientific Method.
  
  Name one FACT that you know to be Absolutely True about evolution.
  
  Evolutionary Theory is a long line of untestable suppositions, and unproven assumptions. I'll allow that a Lack of Evidence is not necessarily Evidence of Lack, but we've been beating this drum for 150+ years, and still not a damned bit of concrete evidence. And the more we discover about the actual mechanisms involved, the harder it is to force them into the Evolutionary Mold.
  
  One of DNA's untold functions is a series of self tests built into the process of translating Amino Acid chains in Proteins, which get folded into the components which the Molecular Machines are all made from. Every step in the process goes through a Quality Control check, to ensure that what the DNA describes is what actually gets built. Ask anyone who has built a model airplane or rebuilt a carburetor: If you get the wrong part, or assemble it in the wrong order... It ain't gonna fly.
  
  What this means is that while genetic drift can occur (every dog on the planet, Great Dane to Toy Poodle, is actually a wolf with a little genetic drift tossed in), the safeguards in the genome aren't designed (there's that word, again) to allow changes in species to occur.
  
  There is a species of fruit fly with a 24hour life cycle. We've been studying these little guys for years and years, varying their environments and living conditions, in the desperate hope of seeing a little Speciation (one species diverging into two or more completely different species). To date: Well, we've managed to induce a little genetic drift and mate preference, but nothing anyone can call definitive. Biologists are still arguing over what a Species actually is, and whether or not ANY speciation has ever been actually observed.
  
  To quote evolutionary biologist Joseph Boxhorn "...it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. To test this idea, I asked about two dozen graduate students and faculty members in the department where I'm a student whether there were examples where speciation had been observed in the literature. Everyone said that they were sure that there were. Next I asked them for citings or descriptions. Only eight of the people I talked to could give an example, only three could give more than one. But everyone was sure that there were papers in the literature. ...[Most of] the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred." That means some scientist "guessed" speciation had happened, but couldn't really point to any facts or proof.
  
  They're all still trying to figure out HOW speciation might occur, WHAT constitutes a species, and cannot yet point to any unquestionable, verifiable occurrence. But don't you dare say evolution might prove False!
  
  I give thanks to American Tiger for clarifying the issue, read his hub (I guess I can publicise someone else's hubs, forgive me if I shouldn't do that, but it's a great hub!)
  
  John
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Name one test that has proven the theory false please. This has simply not happened. Therefore the theory has not been dis proven yet. It may be - in its present form - as it is constantly adapting. But - there has been no False.
  
  Simple basic definition of evolution: "a change in allele frequencies over time."
  
  All facts we have that evolution occurs - and there are millions of them - are not in dispute. All scientific disciplines agree that evolution happens.
  
  We have evidence that species have evolved and changed. And eventually change so much that they are unable to breed with their counterparts that have not evolved. This is where one species becomes another.
  
  Here is s list of new, observed species with references:
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
  
  And yes - the theory is not written in stone, and there are discussions and arguments over all sorts of details.
  
  But - if you can prove it False - we will both be rich men. Seems to me that ignorance of the theory, process and evidence that evolution absolutely does occur is not really Falsifying anything though.
  
  Funny hub you quoted from. I am glad they let writers create humorous hubs here.
  
  There is no debate about evolution. Or controversy. Just liars for jesus. No morals. None. Child abuse when they teach this nonsense to their children.
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Shucks Mark, we were almost doing OK until you could not resist a goad....
  
  John
  
  BTW the hub stands as proven to me!
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well - no one is accusing you of rational or logical thinking - so no surprises there.
  
  Anyone that believes the nonsense you believe is not going to have too much trouble swallowing the idea that all scientists are lying, are they?
  report
  49
  Anicholposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @Mark
  Mark your no less rational in your thinking than anyone here in these forums.
  
  You belive what is thrown at (evolution wise) you because thats what you want to believe in and you do not have the personal strength to look to far beyond it or bother to question some of its theories.
  
  You have descided to make your stand in your little box of reality and will never become anything more than a bigot who adds nothing!!!
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLO
  
  My my aren't you brave when you can hide behind the internet.
  report
  49
  Anicholposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My dear arent you a stupid dinosuar
  report
  79
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You put that in the wrong slot. ... or did you?
  report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is just one of many cases in which believers have a problem with science, the case being the spread of disinformation. No, that is not the Scientific Method.
  
  But, that doesn't matter in the least to a believer who will use any and all means of such fabrication to dissociate their beliefs from anything scientific that may tend to not support their dogma or belief systems. Of course, they will indulge and enjoy every single modern convenience and aid science has brought to them but will turn on science the moment it threatens their religious worldview.
  
  This is one of the most exasperating and frustrating contradictions put forth by the believer. Even though scientists spend years learning how things work in nature and more years of rigorous research and experimentation, they are "closed minded" and must yield to the believers faith in the worldview of myths and superstitions, their years of hard work and rigor trumped by the irreconcilable differences of religious sects and the innumerable variety of gods and their diametrically opposed messages.
  
  There are many caves in which a believer could move to if they do believe such things of science and scientists and at every turn will fabricate nonsense to degrade what science has brought them, but they won't and will continue to embrace these conveniences and aids while despising the processes and people who provided them.
  reply report
  82
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think the problem is more that both sides seem to stretch the bounds of science. For example the claim the world is 6000 years old (made by some theists) can be tested. The scientific evidence is the data gathered by the radiometric dating technique, and the process by which this is used to establish the earth's age. That data allows us to tentatively assert that the earth is four billion years old.
  
  But that's all it allows us to assert. Anything beyond that is an interpretation of a scientific fact. We can spin this fact any way we like in relation to a deity. We can interpret it as evidence that the the Christian bible is inaccurate, therefore unlikely to have been the work of an all-knowing deity, therefore perhaps casting some doubt on the existence of a deity. Or we can interpret it to mean people's reading of the bible is at fault and a less literal reading is required.
  
  But unfortunately these interpretations of scientific facts are often cited as "proof" a deity does or does not exist. "Scientific" proof no less. That's misleading, inaccurate and gives science a bad name in my opinion.
  
  The same is true of evolutionary facts. Evolutionary facts are often interpreted to indicate that a deity does not exist. It's also be interpreted by some theists as simply a process instigated by a deity. What do the scientific facts actually tell us about this? Nothing. The scientific facts themselves tell us nothing about which of these interpretations is true. They are mere descriptions of things. No more, no less. Suggesting otherwise is to bring science into disrepute. Science does not do the "why?" only the "how?", "what?" and "when?".
  
  That doesn't stop theists and non theists alike insisting that evolutionary facts (or the refutation of evolutionary facts?!) represent "scientific evidence" for the existence or non existence of a deity.
  
  If someone claims human beings appeared in their current form, sure we can assert that scientific data indicates that claim to be false. But if someone simply claims that an eternal, omnimax being exists, then evolutionary facts tell us nothing about the truth of that claim. It depends on how we interpret the facts in relation to the claim, which has got nothing to do with science. I wish those people who suggest otherwise would stop abusing science.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  While that may be true to some extent, science does not pick any side of that argument, it simply offers us the understanding of our world and nothing more.
  
  Even though the age of the earth has not been verified as dead accurate, the evidence does in fact refute the theist claim by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, the evidence is irrelevant to the claim made and the belief abounds.
  
  Notice that science never claims nor offers "proof" hence it is those who don't understand this concept that give science that bad name.
  
  But, isn't that exactly what we're led to believe regarding scriptures, that we were all made in our current form and no mention of evolutionary concepts are presented whatsoever?
  
  Agreed. How is it though that one can claim an eternal, omnimax being exists, without the observation of seeing this being? Scientific hypotheses are not created this way, which is an outstanding difference between the process in which religious claims and scientific theories are presented.
  report
  82
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely agree.
  
  Exactly. Scientific facts are relevant and important and those who treat them otherwise are guilty of dogmatism. Not all theists fall into this category. Some eminent scientists also happen to be theists. It's unfortunate that so many theists view science as being anti religion when in fact science is not pro or anti anything.
  
  Yes. And I find it frustrating that's the case.
  
  Theists tend to be in two camps on this in my experience. Some take the Christian bible literally word for word. So Adam and Eve really did appear in that garden with the talking snake. They tend to be the ones who don't like the theory and facts of evolution, for obvious reasons.
  
  Others suggest the bible uses literary devices (allegory, metaphor, analogy etc) to convey important information in a way that is simple enough for someone in 1000BC to understand, but sophisticated enough for someone in 2010 to understand with his knowledge of literary devices and ability to see beyond the literal text. Those theists would tend to interpret the bible account of 'creation' just as a story. Similar to telling a child a fairytale to explain aspects of morality, rather than explaining it in philosophical, cultural and socio-political terms which may be beyond the child's grasp.
  
  So in my experience not all theists believe human beings were created fully formed, but simply believe the salient points of the story: a single being to which the existence of the universe is related in some way, human beings becoming enlightened in some way leading to a loss of simplicity. That's an over-simplification but you get the point. No literal Adam, Eve, snake or fruit. Those theists tend not to have a problem at all with evolutionary facts, presumably because it doesn't challenge their particular reading of the bible. They use the bible stories as a framework on which to pin their emotional and mental response to the fact of existence, but are happy to let science provide the nuts and bolts as much as it can.
  
  Indeed. And that difference constitutes the gap between the two approaches to truth. Consequently theists and non-theists are communicating from entirely different frames of reference. I have to admit I find those different frames of reference and the intersection between them fascinating.
  report
  82
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This I think is the crux of the matter. God-belief is not formed on the basis of evidence. And it's clear not all our beliefs are. These include simple, everyday, 'common sense' beliefs.
  
  So for example my belief I have a headache is not formed on the basis of evidence. The pain is not evidence. I don't reason that I have a pain in my head, therefore I have a headache. Instead my belief is grounded in my experience of pain in the head. If there was no objective, verifiable data available as evidence, I would still believe it. I would not cease believing it. Unless there was absolute, categorical evidence that I could not experience a headache, I would believe I was.
  
  I think something similar is happening with god-belief. I think people perceive certain things as experience of a deity. So their god-belief is grounded in that perceived experience. It's not formed on the basis of evidence. E.g. someone prays to a deity. If they then experience a feeling of forgiveness, love, joy, or anything else, they may perceive that as some kind of interaction with a deity.
  
  So the subject of evidence for a theist is a moot point. There is no 'observation' in the sense of an objectively verifiable observation, on which the god-belief is formed. Instead the belief is grounded in apparent experience. In the same way people don't need evidence to form the belief they have a headache, only the apparent experience of it. People don't need evidence to form the belief a deity exists, only the apparent experience of it.
  
  The reason I think such beliefs (including god belief) are so powerful is because they are grounded in experience, which has a higher epistemic status than evidence. In other words we're more likely to belief something we have (or think we have) experienced ourselves, than something we simply have evidence for. Why so? I think it's because giving priority to what we believe we are experiencing helps us live in the world.
  
  Intellectually we can doubt everything. In fact the infinite regress of justification problem inherent in evidentialism could trap us in an infinite requirement for evidence, which needs to be supported by evidence, which needs to be supported by evidence etc. The reason we don't all do this and become philosophical sceptics is because we simply stop doubting at some point. We just assume something to be true. In this case we assume our sensory perception is accurate. We know intellectually our perception might not be for all sorts of reasons, but practically we tend to assume it is, because it more helpful to assume that, than to doubt everything.
  
  So if a young woman with no apparent dysfunction in her faculties apparently feels great joy after praying to a deity and perceives that as experience of deity. Then like the rest of us, she will not doubt her perception even with a lack of supporting evidence because, again like all of us, her apparent experience is more valuable in epistemological terms, than than a lack of evidence.
  
  Suggesting her belief is false due to lack of evidence is therefore as meaningless to her as someone suggesting her belief in a headache is false due to lack of evidence. In truth she may or may not be experiencing a deity. She may or may not be experiencing a headache (she could be dreaming a headache). Either way, the point is that in believing both, she is simply trusting her perception.
  
  So god-belief does have a completely different frame of reference to scientific understanding, which is evidence based. But it's not isolated in that regard. Through looking at god-belief, it has been realised that some of our beliefs are formed differently, and god-belief is just an example of such belief. Of course it gets more attention because of the social, cultural and political ramifications of god-belief and religion, but essentially it no different to any of the other beliefs formed in the same way. Those social, cultural and political factors are the only thing that differentiates it.
  
  Of course, that says nothing about the truth or falsehood of such belief, it just indicate that looking at how beliefs are formed and why plays a vital part in understanding them. I'd love to see a concerted effort by those in the disciplines of sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology etc make a concerted effort to give us even greater understanding of this type of formation of belief. Unfortunately some of the leading experts in these fields (Professor Dawkins for example) are otherwise engaged telling theists they're stupid. My frustration at scientists not doing good, useful science is beyond words.
  report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - you clearly stated your beliefs. Sadly - science does not agree with you. Sorry. You are wrong.
  
  I don't really care why you believe science is wrong. This is a religious reason and complete nonsense. Your FAITH is just that - faith. You have nothing else and science has proven you wrong.
  
  Your lack of understanding of evolutionary biology is quite obvious. I suggest you do some research before making bold assertions that all scientists are wrong. You evolved from ape like creatures. There is no compatibility between your FAITH and science. None. They are not intertwined.
  reply report
  75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My, My, My, Mark, aren't we in an adversarial mood?
  
  I never said that any scientists are wrong, nor did I say science is wrong.
  I have simply stated, and continue to believe, that science and faith are compatible and that they intertwine.
  
  Mark, I also stated that I don't normally involve myself in this kind of debate for this very reason. People become confrontational and angry. Every person on this earth has their own beliefs and the right to believe them.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i agree with jkim on this..right to belief...
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Of course you did. You cannot choose to believe one part of evolution and not another. We evolved. From apelike creatures. Adversarial? Sure - if you think explaining that you are completely wrong and that your faith had no intertwining with science - I guess so.
  
  Should I just agree with you instead? Sure - you are right - all the scientists are wrong - we did not evolve from apelike creatures.
  
  What did we evolve from in that case?
  reply report
  62
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You evolved from apelike creatures...we all evolved from single cell organisms - It's absurd.
  
  Are you saying DNA and RNA can be reproduced in a lab and therefore are positive proof of evolution.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  proof of evolution are not based on single thing..it has lot fo other things involved..fossils , cave drawings , tools etc etc..it is formed thorugh collection of evidences which point to how journey might be...
  reply report
  62
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It had to start somewhere and it all comes down to DNA and RNA believe it or not.
  
  Teri
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  well unfortunately you and me wont be there at time..but we are already moving in producing life in lab..atleast science creates physically what it puts as theory and that is appreciable...speculations must be backed by physical proof which can be seen by all..till then they are mere speculations be it be scientific or philosophical or religious...
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no i dont think so..we wont evolve ourselves into extinction..only thing which can make us extinct is some comet blasting..one is expected to pass from near to earth in 2029...another possibility is some virus or bacteria ..sun has still lot more years left in it...aliens is what we dont have proof yet..mathematically it is possible though...
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  what did we evolve from then?
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  may be jkim didnt see pic of bush closely...
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
A creator said "Let it be" and ... "BANG" there it was.

Civilization flourished ... an extinction event happened.

Mankind was reestablished upon the earth. (a few times)

science and religion walking through life trying to figure it all out. they each have their theories; many of which are compatible. Many aren't.

Extremist on both sides continue to kick up sand blurring everyone's vision.
reply report
1. 49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A creator said "Let it be" and ... "BANG" there it was.
  
  Please revise it:
  
  The Creator-God Allah YHWH said "Let it be" and "it started to happen" or "it started to evolve as per His design".
  
  Thanks
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can we compromise and settle on a teeny, tiny small bang instead of a big bang?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  SURE can.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And it is still happening.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and what about human species existence span?
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The human species was created in the late 1800s.. simultaneously with the advent of ice hockey
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...i thought it was created with birth of greek one..since before that human species was less human
  reply report
  63
  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm liking you more and more, Pisean
  reply report
  49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It becomes greek to me.
  reply report
  49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi friends
  
  Human species also started evolving with the words "to be" and evolution is an ongoing process; it has not stopped. Has it stopped?
  
  As I have mentioned Religion focuses on ethical, moral and spiritual realm; it (Quran) does not claim to be a book of scinece.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it wont stop..
  reply report
  49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It will stop when the Creator- God Allah YHWH would command the words"not to be"; then it would stop as destined by Him.
  
  Thanks
  
  I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  well that is your speculation or should i call believe...human evolution would stop only when humans become extinct...
  reply report
  49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well that could be your speculation
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  could be..after all what i believe or you believe is mere our perceptions..i take history of human race and view from that perceptive..now my perception can be wrong..you take some book and derive from that..now this can also be wrong..it is also possible that both of us are wrong
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please revise it.
  
  1. Evolution does not allow for a predetermined developmental destination. This would make every single piece of scientific knowledge we have pertaining to evolution, geology, geography and any number of other disciplines - wrong.
  
  2. This is an extremely inefficient way of reaching the predetermined destination and I am surprised you would choose to grovel to a god this inept.
  
  I could have created us in our present form in one day if I was all powerful. It would not have taken me 4.5 billion years and millions of extinct species to do so.
  
  3. You imply we have finished evolving - this is not possible.
  
  Therefore your invisible super being does not exist. Sorry - I see why you are so angry and pouring propaganda onto these forums now.
  
  Please at least try and have some reason and rationality in your unfounded assertions. Otherwise you appear to be just another ignorant religionist.
  
  Thank you.
  
  At least you admit you are a monkey. That is a step in the right direction.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  82
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Indulge me. You are hypothesising that if an omnipotent being did in fact exist, then such a being would not have created humankind through the process of evolution? I was confused at this. I wondered, on what grounds can someone possibly make such an assertion without resorting to guesswork themselves.
  
  Apparently the grounds for this remarkable assertion are that "I could have created us in our present form in one day if I was all powerful".
  
  And because
  
  "this an extremely inefficient way of reaching the predetermined destination"
  
  And the necessary logical conclusion from this is:
  
  "Therefore your invisible super being does not exist"
  
  This is sarcasm isn't it, or some kind of humour. You're having a bit of fun. You didn't really just say that a real all powerful deity would do things differently, therefore an all powerful deity doesn't exist, while at the same time accusing someone of "unfounded assertions". Or if you did say that you didn't mean it. Or I've misunderstood the argument. I'm happy to be corrected. Just please don't tell me that a serious argument for the non existence of a deity rests upon second guessing what a hypothetical omnipotent being would or wouldn't do. Anything but that. Lie if you have to.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What was your point again? That you do not understand evolution and think that this would be the desired way of "creating" us - the end result of 4.5 billion years of planning and arranging conditions to "create," us?
  
  Obviously you are going with the "you are too small minded to be able to understand the workings of the *insert deity here*'s mind and just because it looks like it took 4.5 billion years of non random evolution to produce you - there is actually an intelligent plan here that you cannot understand.
  
  LOL
  
  Guess you are too lazy to read anything either. What I actually said was:
  
  "I could have created us in our present form in one day if I was all powerful. It would not have taken me 4.5 billion years and millions of extinct species to do so. "
  
  So - no - I didn't really just say that a real all powerful deity would do things differently, therefore an all powerful deity doesn't exist. How would you have done it by the way? And are you in any way swayed to the idea that an all powerful deity dun it this way?
  
  And I was responding to:
  
  "The Creator-God Allah YHWH said "Let it be" and "it started to happen" or "it started to evolve as per His design"."
  
  But - prolly best to ignore that huh?
  
  Yes - I use common sense as one of my tools.
  
  Consider yourself indulged.
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Imagine that if I had said everythng that you just said above... You would call me a crazy man..
  
  And you would be right.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - you would be called reasonable. Or are you saying that the universe being 4.5 billion years old is crazy?
  reply report
60
Pandoras Boxposted 13 years ago
I think it's true that many religious people in america will quickly disregard any science which doesn't fit into or compliment their world view, even if they don't outright reject it.

Global warming is a good example. While of course as we all know many politicians have goaded the far right into outright rejecting the possibility, think about it. If you believe in their god stories, what difference does it make?

Much like the truest fundies who reject medical help. They think their god will take care of it all anyway.

With this mindset in place, why bother with science?

Science looks for answers. The mindset of your average committed christian is that all the answers they need are in the bible.

Sure there are exceptions.
reply report
1. 63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i think average religious person are similar every where and for every faith...average religious muslim would believe all answers are in quran..while hindu was believe all answers are in vedas except how recipe of mcdonalds and google's 400 criterias ...
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, yes. But as far as the predominantly or traditionally christian regions go, the U.S. ranks among the most extreme.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh..is it?..i didnt knew that...
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yes, americans take religion far more seriously than the vast majority of european countries, and even more seriously than a good deal of south american ones.
  
  Check it out. Religious Tolerance Comparison of US Religious Sentiment vs. Other Predominantly Christian Nations
  
  Here's a snippet about my assertion:
  
  Americans, Irish, Filipinos, and Poles together form a group of Christian cultures with a much higher degree of traditional religious belief than the other predominately Christian countries shown.
  
  And here's one which addresses your OP:
  
  The results on the evolution question may reflect the strength of a scientific, secular world view in the society. The results on the existence of God might reflect the strength of traditional religious belief. The two seem to be inversely related.
  
  Also interesting to note:
  
  since 1944, the Gallup Poll has been asking Americans whether they "believe in God or a universal spirit." The answers have always been 94% or more affirmative. These numbers have been so widely reported in academic articles, and the media that they have been almost etched in stone. However, the ISSP results are under 63%. The wide gap is probably due to the different wording of the question asked. The ISSP requires a degree of certainty of belief in God that is not present in the Gallup Poll. This shows that many Americans who believe in God are not very certain about their conviction. An additional difference is caused by the term "universal spirit" that Gallup has introduced into the question. Many Americans believe in some vaguely defined supernatural entity, but do not refer to him/her/it/them as "God."
  
  Yet even with the more moderate numbers that specific questions return, we're still very significantly more religious than the vast majority of other traditionally christian countries.
  
  Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we've been spared religious wars in our country which otherwise might have impressed upon us the silliness of it all. But more likely it's related to the reconstructionist movement, which then again, perhaps has only been able to be so successful here due to our nation's lack of experience in religious persecution and holy wars.
  
  Most americans have the ignorance to protect them from seeing the destructiveness of the movement many of them embrace.
  
  Sad, considering our founding principles, but seemingly true.
  
  EDIT: Where i put "Most Americans have the ignorance to protect them from seeing...." what I meant, and thought clearly implicated by the preceding paragraph but now see that it wasn't very clear, was "Most Americans have the ignorance of the reality of religious persecution and holy wars to protect them from seeing the destructiveness of the [reconstructionist] movement many of them embrace."
  
  I did not mean to imply that christians or most americans were ignorant, just unexperienced in real religious persecution and the path it leads us down.
  
  Sorry for not being more careful with my words.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  well you might be right..in these forums too..we find 'my way only way' theme many times...
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure what you mean there, Pisean, but just want to point out to all listening christians that I did not say that.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I mean when people impose their belief system..i am not religious person..i believe that religions are man made...now that is my belief..i can't impose on christians or muslims or hindus or any..i can discuss , debate but cant simply declare ...that is what i meant...healthy debate is always welcomed..but many people impose on me and other hubbers..that is what i meant...and i dont say that u said that..
  reply report
  62
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed...they pose their beliefs on you in a way that angers you? They give their point of view of a subject ant this is an imposition? Please explain.
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  anger..no i dont think i get angry..i understand that it is their belief system...like i have mine..nothing wrong in it..as long as view of subject is concerned..i am perfectly fine with it..
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, they try to make laws, regulate morality, rewrite history and influence foreign policy which affects all of us, based on their faith, which an ever-growing number of us do not share.
  
  Otherwise most of us would just leave them to their faith and never think twice about it.
  reply report
  62
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pisean said "well you might be right..in these forums too..we find 'my way only way' theme many times..."
  
  No, they try to make laws, regulate morality, rewrite history and influence foreign policy which affects all of us, based on their faith, which an ever-growing number of us do not share
  
  On hubpages...wow!
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pisean's assertion was broad, and inclusive of HubPages, as indicated by the term "too". Your question did not at all indicate that you were focused on the narrow.
  
  Excuse me for misunderstanding you.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I agree with you, just pointing out to others that I didn't say it, that my post had nothing to do with that.
  reply report
2. 75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pandora,
  
  Every faith and belief system have those who are extreme, or devout, however you want to categorize them.
  
  If one lives within the tenants of their faith for "themselves", why should we castigate a negative light on them? If they believe in divine healing and are healed, then they have acted according to their faith, and I say that is well for them. If they are not healed, and die, who are we to say that their faith is wrong or weak? It was, as ALL FAITH is, simply a matter of their choice.
  
  However, if a group or even one person commits a VIOLENT act against another person, or group of people, based on the tenets of their faith, it then becomes a NATIONAL ISSUE. This must be dealt with on another level all together.
  
  If I want to harm myself because it is a part of my belief system, that is my decision. If I cause harm to someone else because of my belief system, that is wrong.
  
  Pandora, the U S ranks highest in TOLLERANCE of other religions, it is by far NOT the most extreme. Even within the Christian belief system.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Extreme?" Not the most extremely christian country? I agree, I never said it was. It does however fall within the top four, according to the center for religious tolerance.
  
  I think you're confused by what the word extreme means, which by the way is a word I never used or implied in my post. It just means like -to the furthest point, it doesn't have anything to do with tolerance of other religions. That would be another topic entirely, which I will not engage you in today.
  
  It's like saying I'm.... extremely rich, which I regrettably am not. Or it is extremely hot today. It just means "very much so". So when somebody says extremely religious, or religious extremist, they just mean "very" religious. It doesn't have to have anything to do with tolerance for others or violence.
  
  My guess is that you have heard the term muslim extremists used far too often, and dislike the implications. So do I, which is why this extremism in America concerns me.
  
  You are mistaken if you think the extremism in american christianity hurts nobody. Won't argue the point, because I don't have time. Must leave soon to pick up middle child from school and take to orthodontist, and this is a concept which you will obviously not readily grasp. I'll give you a quick and easy hint however -gay marriage, but that is far from the full extant of the problem. Another day, perhaps.
  
  I wouldn't go out of my way to stop adult christian extremists (since you have invited the term, I'll use it) from harming themselves if that is what the dictates of their faith demanded, I suppose, unless children were involved. I have no argument with you there and merely used it as an example of the mindset that a god will take care of everything.
  
  In your third paragraph, if you replaced the word VIOLENT, as you put it, with 'harmful, hateful or discriminatory', and the word NATIONAL, as you put it, with 'human' or 'social', then I would agree with you there, but as it stands I cannot as it is attempting to pretend that only religious violence can be of concern.
  reply report
  75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pandoras Boxposted 3 hours ago
  
  Well, yes. But as far as the predominantly or traditionally christian regions go, the U.S. ranks among the most extreme.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Okay granted. This is not the post you responded to, however, and I was trying to figure out why it was you were asserting that americans aren't extreme, I was trying to see if I had said it in some bad way, but could not see that I had used the term at all in the post you were responding to.
  
  At any rate, it's all the same, and makes no difference.
  reply report
63
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
to be and not to be...?

I think Allah has been stealing off of Shakespeare
reply report
1. 63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
62
luvpassionposted 13 years ago
reply report
1. 63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  good one...
  reply report
70
aguasilverposted 13 years ago
No, science is world knowledge, religion is spiritual knowledge.
reply report
1. 63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  science and religion both come from same quest..quest of getting answers..what say?
  reply report
  75
  miss_jkimposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I do agree pisean,
  
  Man has always wanted to understand why and how we are where we are; as well as, what is the reason and meaning of it all.
  
  The quest for the answers have always, and I believe always will be, through both religion and science.
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely, getting answers to different questions!
  reply report
2. 49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you
  reply report
60
h.a.borcichposted 13 years ago
It appears the discussions in the religious forums escape evolving!

Holding my own by the way. Now that the drs have finally identified the problems we are moving onto 2 major surgeries with long recoveries.
I'll pop in again when I can!
reply report
1. 63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  surgery?..hey what happened?..
  reply report
2. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wishing you a very successful outcome, Holle.
  reply report
3. 49
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you are welcome
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 13 years ago
Pandoras Box wrote:
No, they try to make laws, regulate morality, rewrite history and influence foreign policy which affects all of us, based on their faith, which an ever-growing number of us do not share.

Otherwise most of us would just leave them to their faith and never think twice about it.

============================================

I think that there will always be a "THEY" doing that kind of stuff.
Cross the border and there will be a different group saying the same thing against a different "THEY"

There will always be a "THEY" doing that kind of things
take the word religious out and insert "WHAT EVER other name"

Looks like somebody will always step forward and fill that position.
reply report
1. 60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No I rather disagree. Sure we all have philosophical differences, different ideas about what works to fix the problems our societies are faced with, and will argue over policy, but it's really only the religious and the politicians who exploit them attempting to legislate morality.
  reply report
61
wilmiers77posted 13 years ago
Absolutely not! "Science is blind without religion; religion is lame without science." Albert Einstein
reply report
1. 79
  skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg Quote
  reply report
  63
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
63
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.

- Ned Flanders
reply report
79
skyfireposted 13 years ago
If people can believe random guesses of bible, why can't we make hypothesis on his abilities ?
reply report
1. 82
  Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mark was talking to someone for whom God is omniscient, omnipotent etc. Hypothesising about the existence of such a being is fine. But hypothesising that if you had the same attributes you would do a less "inept" job, is problematic.
  
  By suggesting this Mark is in fact claiming that he is currently capable of determining what "inept" is in relation to an all-powerful, all-knowing being (albeit a hypothetical one). Which is in effect the same as claiming that he is currently as capable as, or more capable than said hypothetical being. By making that claim, Mark is effectively claiming to be the god of the Abrahamic religions, which I find rather amusing and not a little ironic.
  
  Simply put Mark can't sensibly argue that his own opinion of what is a better way to do things is more perfect than a hypothetical perfect being. He can certainly argue that he can conceive of a quicker way to do things. But he can't jump from a quicker way, to a more perfect way. He can't even argue that quicker is more efficient in this context (the context of a hypothetical eternal being). That's what he needs to do in order for his argument to be logically valid.
  
  Arguing that the slow process of evolution is evidence that the god represented in Abrahamic religions is "inept", therefore imperfect, therefore non-existent, is logically invalid. the conclusion does not follow on from the premises.
  
  That's the problem. With this concept of god there isn't anything you can sensibly point to and say "a perfect being would not do it this way" without equating yourself with a perfect being. It's a powerful definition and you really don't want to go accepting it or hypothesising based on it. Any theist could have a field day with such arguments.
  
  So what is the perfect way to develop human beings? Quickly? Slowly? I have no idea. I'd have to know the outcomes of the history of the entire universe and how the way human beings developed impacted on those outcomes. Then I'd have to compare that to the outcomes of the histories where every alternative process for developing human beings was used. And what would be my criteria? Without completely knowing the nature of the universe I have no idea. I can only base my criteria on what I know. And what I know is that I don't yet know certain fundamental things about the universe. So I am incapable of determining what is and is not an "inept" way to create human beings in the grand scheme of the universe. So are you (I assume). I think it's better to accept this is currently the case. It makes more sense to me than to suggest otherwise.
  reply report
61
srwnsonposted 13 years ago
I think to reject science would be to reject religion as well. Science may be the key to proving religion in the end.
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  srwnson,
  You said a mouthful. This is a point I have bring repeating often here on Hubpages, that both sides of this battle are the same in their quest. The female side (the wife) is sensational approach, the masculine (the husband) is the equation approach. After a very long feud and temporal separation, they are reuniting. Although this bothers me deeply, it is inevitable.
  reply report
  60
  Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Eh maybe. I'm open-minded and a possibility does exist. But they won't prove any religion, of that I'm sure. There's just no way any of this shit is pure, and if it is, then I'd kind of have to reject that god on principle of being unworhy -said in reference to the big 3 mostly, but none of them make sense as a religion given us by a god and passed on unwarped by man.
  
  And I do like your last sentence...
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Neither belief system is set on proving or disproving the other, in all honesty. They both just took different paths to get to the place where they realize what they are and have learned is not enough. As you said, none of it is pure. However it is no reason to reject Creator and every reason to reject any concept of G/god (the term meaning ba`al) as it is a human interpretation of Creator/creation. Man has deluded his worth and value by kneeling before such alters of steel and glass or wood and marble. Both their statues/relics, encased in formaldehyde or in softly lit cases; perched on temple roofs or basements molded and dusty. None of them on either side make sense, really, yet minute to minute justify their 'common' place/sense, by expressing the same principles from those vantage points.
  
  The seduction is off the charts on both sides!!! And humans think/feel/believe they 'must' adhere to something in order to be validated, accepted, believed or find truth. None of those and many other metaphors will ever fill the void or satisfy. Not by logic, which is limited to the self, nor by sensation/feeling which is logical limited bootstrapping. After 2 million or 6,000 years, the observed evidence is plain as can be. Do they see it? Yes. Do they address it, yes? Do they act upon escaping it, no. Why? Most of all because it dissolves everything humans have ever conceived or considered. That is perhaps the worst pain of all...
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Albert Einstein didn't think so.
reply report
72
Diane Insideposted 13 years ago
Nobody should reject science, they should embrace it, science is how we learn about the world around us. I love Science.
reply report
49
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
does being religious means rejecting science?

Newton was a religious person; he is one of the best men of science. Many other names could be added to the list.

A good religious man accepts science also
reply report
1. 58
  Dave Barnettposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Truth, is truth. Science doesn't disagree w/ religion, and religion shouldn't be incompatable w/ science. Perspective is the decider. We cannot reduce the divine to human terms.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Science isn't interested or compatible with religious myths and superstitious beliefs. Why would it be?
  reply report
  62
  luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Science isn't interested in religion? That's ridiculous unless you don't consider psychology a science. Archeology and others.
  
  There is no topic under the sun, from bacteria to life on other planets, or from atoms to galaxies, which is not discussed every day by scientists in books, on the television or in newspapers
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Psychology and archeology are not religious belief systems.
  
  What would that have to do with religions?
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really. Perhaps we should use our dictionaries regarding the meaning of "religious" and "belief systems".
  
  religious: something done repetitively, consistently, usually associated with metaphysical ideologies; being redundant; being habitual or forming a set of habits, practices, methods or expressions of an idea;
  
  belief systems: single or multiple ideas a person or group of people consider having some form of value; methods or instruments of pursuing ideas to their farthest lengths.
  
  Sorry sport. It was a noble try on your part.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where did you get that dictionary? Try this one:
  
  Religious:
  –adjective
  1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
  2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
  3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
  4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
  5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.
  –noun
  6. a member of a religious order, congregation, etc.; a monk, friar, or nun.
  7. the religious, devout or religious persons: Each year, thousands of the religious make pilgrimages to the shrine.
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious
  
  Belief:
  –noun
  1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
  2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
  3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
  4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh goodie, dictionary wars!
  
  Oxford & Cambridge Dictionaries:
  
  Religion: (noun)
  a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
  see also religiously;
  
  Religious (adj) -ly: (adv)
  to do on a regular basis; habitual(ly); a ritual(ly)
  
  Belief: An idea one considers to be true, real, tangible, effective, valuable; an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
  
  System: (noun)
  a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done ; an organized scheme or method.
  a set of connected items or parts forming a complex whole;
  
  Together now:
  
  Religious belief system -
  A set of procedures used on a regular basis to measure, test, experiment and hypothesize on something someone or a group of people consider to have value, to exist, to be possible;
  A collective private or public opinion, held in high regard or importance where after debate is considered to be true or worthy of further scrutiny;
  
  Scientific method:
  a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses; (done in a consistent, regular manner; (she was religiously scientific)
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oxford Dictionary:
  
  Religious: adjective
  
  *relating to or believing in a religion:both men were deeply religious and moralistic religious music
  *(of a belief or practice) forming part of someone's faith in a divine being:she has strong religious convictions
  *belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group of people who are united by their practice of religion:religious houses were built on ancient pagan sites
  *treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship:I have a religious aversion to reading manuals
  
  http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr … _gb0699430
  
  Cambridge Dictionary:
  
  -- relating to religion
  religious education
  -- having a strong belief in a god or gods
  He's deeply religious and goes to church twice a week.
  
  http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction … /religious
  
  I can only assume why you would have left out the link to your definitions...
  
  Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing your silly games.
  reply report
2. 59
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Newton based his theories on the assumption that the speed of light was instantaneous and gravity was a pulling force, he was wrong on both counts.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

does being religious means rejecting science?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

does being religious means rejecting science?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies