Science by definition does not cover the whole of human life; it only deals in the things physical. Religion covers the whole life and provides guidance and goes beyond the physical to ethical, moral and spiritual. So there is no necessarily any contradiction in the truthful religion and the truthful science. No messenger prophet of the Creator God ever opposed science; they always supported science and the scientists if they were correct on an issue. Science searches reality with experiments while religion with experiences.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of the era, supported science and exhorted to gains its knowledge.
For many years the Catholic Chruch refused to accept many scientific truths in the UK for fear it would detract from religion
That is not true. Science does not support your twisted definition.
Yet, we can see by your posts that your religion has not taught you to be moral or ethical, so your point is moot.
Yet, in the reality of which you have not joined, religion and science are contradictory.
Science is not mutually exclusive with religion. If science proved the existence of God, would that somehow detract from religion?
Science only deals with the physical and since you cannot demonstrate that life is anything more than physical then it remains just that. Physical.
Science covers everything about life because life is physical.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise?
Science is not just the physical.
Logic is the science of inference and rational thought.
Psychology is the science of behavior and mental processes.
Those are just two examples of non physical sciences.
The topic of what is truly a science and what isn't is debated greatly among those who are on these forums... some think that logic trumps science, some think vice versa. Some think only physical sciences where the scientific method can be applied are true sciences.
Why is it that people actually debate science vs. religion? I am not asking for an answer. Debates are an ego feeding proposition. Science cannot prove there is a God. So what. Is there a crisis of people wanting science to do that? Again; doesn't require an answer. Being curious for the sake of it is not really not useful. People do it to for sense gratification. Hey, if you want to let the finite mind / body senses direct your life; then go ahead. At least be honest here. You don't really have any conscious contact with God; otherwise your speech and thought would become enlightening, and, always useful to the initiated and troubled alike. No. That's not your interest. It is to read wordy books and engage in windy arguments. My hope one day for all is; that each human comes to a place in time and space, in the pursuit of knowledge and experience and they are squarely confronted with the "issue" of God. One that they can no longer duck. Either God is everything or He is nothing. What is your choice to be?? Can you answer that question? Unless you serve God; you have no business with God. Because you want to tickle ears and feed your bodily senses. I don't care how much you talk about God or understand about all the theology written about God or Jesus; none of what you are doing can give you an experience with God. Do you know your constitutional position in God's universe. Any of your books discuss that? Do you know that YOU do not lead your mind/body; it leads you? You don't even know who you are, yet you want to talk about what you "know". What does it profit a man to win the whole world and never address the "issue"of his soul or self.
Why would one consider approaching science in an effort to understand or have an experience with God? OH that's right they wouldn't. You do know there is something after a decision to resign from the debating society ?
Obviously debates are for speculation of the mind. The human mind has the propensity to cheat. That means it leaves stuff out Or makes things up in argument. Because the honest truth in debate is that one tops the other. Winner/ loser/ right/ wrong/ intelligent/ knowledgeable/ interesting. There is no place for the disturbed or honest desire for God. Debate is about winning. Argument is about ego. Both are only concerned with being right or thought of by others as being "right". I don't see one showing up to a debate and listening quietly with the thoughts of someone that knows. Debaters have all the answers; so they can't be shown anything. They have no power to change from what is pleasing their senses to what is good for the soul or self. If one is willing to have God by practical instruction on FIRST "finding" God; then I can show them a simple process that has proven to work. The evidence of God is proven by the actual experience with God. One does not have to believe that there is or have faith in God to follow the instruction. All one needs is a willingness to believe that there MIGHT be a God. This is agnostic. There might be a God but no knowledge of that God. This is most people. Consider by thought; finding a power that is greater than human power. In order to be greater than human power it would have to be a source of power that NO human being can alter, change or effect. Why anyone would try to explain or defend God to one that says because there is no visual proof of God- He cannot be; is IGNORANT. A person that requires visual proof of God can't have any conscious awareness of anything beyond the five bodily senses. People, that, prior to having a conscious relationship with God and NOW know God; do because they came to a place in life of defeat. No body gets to God by sitting on the couch one day while watching football with the thought suddenly crossing their mind that " hey, it's a nice day, I feel pretty good; I think I'll start a relationship with God tomorrow" God IS for the desperate and WEAK. I don't know why people that supposedly have God get so defensive when a non-believer tells them only weak people have a God.
I mean they hit the nail right on the head. BUT THERE IT IS AGAIN - the EGO amounts to what I think others think of me. STOP it. Why are you concerned about what others think? What about what and how YOU are thinking ? Consider that; because that's where you block yourself from God. DEBATING God is a straight waste of time. NOBODY is selling anyone their bullshit. In my estimation; unless it is an effort to be helpful HERE; it is useless and a waste of time. With that; I hope this helps somebody!
If one side of the debate/argument is based entirely on faith based beliefs and that side claims they are special in that they have experiences with gods while others do not, then there isn't a debate/argument at all.
That indeed is a useless waste of time and not helpful in the least.
Hey just because I say people should or shouldn't doesn't mean they have to OR even that I am right. I've been wrong before; I'll be wrong again. I don't believe I am today. If what I said rings true and helps one person than it is valid. My message was not meant for the one I replied to. But I know everyone that reads these will read mine. In them there might be one it is helpful to. People live more in thought than they do action and decision. I wear people like a loose garment. Your misunderstanding is that you believe I want in on the debate. I have no SIDE. Of course I believe in God and others don't. If you think that makes me special and others that don't believe less than me; that's on YOU. MY POINT IS THIS; IF (IF) you depend on God and have a conscious relationship with God. REMEMBER I SAID IF. ; Resign from the debating society with others that believe differently than you. THAT is a straight waste of time. Direct your attention to those that are hurting or in need of help. Hey if you enjoy debating and arguing that's your deal. I am in America and people can do and say whatever they want; AS LONG AS they don't impose upon the rights of others. I will add though; I can understand why you assume I am coming from a place of arrogance. It is almost impossible for me not to give that impression and speak with any conviction. I would love for everyone to approve my understanding and points; but the truth is MOST people see it your way. Thank God my thought life is not cluttered with what others think of what I say; in my decision to say it.
Science doesn't detract from spiritual believe however how science is interpeted by some people does.
Take the event of Jesus walking on water there is no way some people will ever accept that idea because they can only accept what seems logical to them.
I was thinking about these super heros we see at the movies like Superman for example and I decided we can not have a superhero because we would very quickly make him/her our God because what they do we can see them doing and so that's logical thus making it acceptable.
We as mankind has proven we can accept and worship stone statutes but never an invisible God.
Science doesn't detract from spiritual belief however how science is interpeted by some people does; and that is their error; after all they are human beings and it is in their natural to doubt and err.
That's magic, are you saying we should accept magic?
We have accepted hundreds of invisible gods throughout history, yours included.
Surely the fact that there has never been a scientific explanation of having a God that many people remain sceptical of religion?
No more so than the reality of anything else science hasn't discovered yet.
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of people. Those who think that things that science hasn't discovered yet(invisible things) are ridiculous, and those who think things that science hasn't discovered yet are possible.
I guess there are also people who just don't care...
By not considering the crank and the crackpot from the scientist, the rational from the irrational and the insane from the sane, your generalization lacks relevancy and foresight.
It is certainly relevant. Some people think that, for instance, proving abiogenesis would prove that God doesn't exist. Others think that it would only prove that abiogenesis exists.
Some people believe that things we can't see are ridiculous. Others believe that there are things which we can't yet see.
Science bolsters the beliefs of those who believe, and bolsters those who don't believe in a similar manner.
Really? Some people think that?
Funny how you think repeating yourself without making the very same considerations between the rational and irrational somehow makes it valid.
And yet, what we've found throughout history is those who believe have been forced to change their beliefs in light of science. Bolster?
Yes. As irrational as it seems, some people think that.
What's irrational and what's rational, to you?
Like people who thought the earth was flat, or the center of the universe. Belief isn't necessarily religious.
None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science.
I want to able to quote this from time to time as it sums up your position in a nutshell while stretching across the vast expanse of fallacy.
"None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science."
Care to try and show me anything fallacious about it? Or do you still deny what the logical burden of proof is?
Show me one scientific discovery that challenges my beliefs.
It depends which field of science you are talking about. Old Newtonian physics was used by science to explain the universe without a need for a god. The belief in a steady universe, which had always existed seemed to show that a moment of creation had not happened, and so therefore there was no creator. However, the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe did have a beginning and therefore has allowed the religious believer the possibility of pointing to science as supporting their belief. And some of the ideas of quantum physics seem almost like magic and supernatural, even though quantum physics has been proven to actually work.
some people have closed minds (not open) and they find ways in which Science can justify what they believed in
I sadly have no belief because i've not been shown proof in a god.
This thread prompted me to write my first hub the other night.
I think with an open mind and heart you can come to your own conclusions about what to believe.
In doesn't have to be in terms of absolutes?
Only the Sith deal in absolutes, and those are bad people.
I believe science detracts from one's spiritual beliefs. Science explains, or trys to explain the otherwise unexplainable, taking the faith away from what we believe in our hearts and souls to be real. Its like the child who believes in Santa and all the like only to hear evidence those figures couldn't have possibly been real in the first. place.
by Richard VanIngram7 years ago
The short answer is, "Yes."Should he or she, though?My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes." Can I understand why some or many rational individuals...
by Baileybear6 years ago
NOTE: This is posted on the PHILOSOPHY forum, not the religious forum.Beliefs - I don't want to know what your beliefs are; I'm interested in why people defend their beliefs, how they get their beliefs and if any...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
All scientific truthful laws discovered by science are to be accepted by Religion as they are derived from the nature or the universe- the Work of the Creator-God; it is not that nature is run by the science or...
by Mmargie19665 years ago
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in...
by thirdmillenium2 years ago
It is quite understandable for the rationals to pity the believers for their purported ignorance and obstinate adherence to their religious beliefs. They think they know the truth which may well be the case. What I do...
by JonTutor7 years ago
Last night there was a debate.... this topic "would you marry atheist".... I said... I'm not atheist... I'm "individualist".... experienced for myself.... this Budhist technique.. ...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.