|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.|
|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.|
|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 advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
They overlap in some instances, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd definitely go with science.
A german philosopher, Kant, distinguished between the theoretical and pratical reason. The 1st one referes to scientific domain and the possibility of scientific knowledge, the 2nd was related with decision, emotion, beliefs and religious thinking. But they are 2 constitutive parts of human being. Its in the nature of reason itself to go deep and high in the abstract thinking. Probably a century ago Physics was very far away from Metaphysics (the strict philosophical discipline)but now with the advance of it's research they are right in the middle of it. so...
It seems impossible that the science as we know it from Scientific Revolution and Religion can work for the same goal. They are 2 fundamental opposite ways of seeing, understanding and being in the world. They use different concepts and languages.
I don't know if it will be possible an agreement between them but what I do know is that we humankind should be tolerante and open mind, not taking dogmatic positions either on religion or on science domain.
Yes, why not. For the first time in the history of mankind science is reconciliating itself with Qur'an. Take for instance the following scientific facts in accordance with Qur'anic Verses.
Regarding the ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE:
The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicists as a widely accepted phenomenon, popularly known as ‘The Big Bang’. It is supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicists for decades. According to “The Big Bang”, the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a BIG BANG (Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it happening by “chance” is nill. The Qur’an contains the following verse regarding the origin of the universe:
“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?” Qur’an Ch 21:V30
The striking similarity between the Qur’anic verse and ‘The Big Bang’ is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?
Regarding the IMPERMANENCE OF THE SUN'S EXISTENCE:
The light of the sun is due to a chemical process on its surface that has been taking place continuously for the past five billion years. It will come to an end at some point of time in the future, when the sun will be totally extinguished, leading to extinction of all life on earth. Regarding the impermanence of the sun’s existence, the Qur’an says:
“And the Sun runs its course for a period determined for it; that is the decree of (Him) the exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.” Qur’an Ch 36:V38
The Arabic word used here is mustaqarr, which means a place or time that is determined. Thus the Qur’an says that the sun runs towards a determined place, and will do so only up to a pre-determined period of time – meaning that it will end or extinguish.
Regarding the EXPANDING UNIVERSE:
Edwin Hubble, provided observational evidence that all galaxies are moving away from one another, which implies that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is now an established scientific fact. This is what the Qur’an says regarding the nature of the universe:
“With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: For it is We Who create the vastness of Space.” Qur’an Ch51:V47
The Arabic word musioon is correctly translated as ‘expanding it’, and it refers to the creation of the expanding vastness of the universe. One of the greatest astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, in his book, ‘A Brief History of Time’, says, “The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century.” The Qur’an mentioned the expansion of the universe, before man even learnt to build a telescope!
Regarding the MOONLIGHT IS REFLECTED LIGHT
It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon
emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur’an 1,400 years ago in the following verse:
“Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies,
and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light.” [Al-Qur’an 25:61]
The Arabic word for the moon is qamar and it is described in the Qur’an as muneer which is a body that gives noor i.e. reflected light. Again, the Qur’anic description matches perfectly with the true nature of the moon which does not give off light by itself and is an inactive body that reflects the light of the sun. Not once in the Qur’an, is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaaj or diya nor the sun as noor or muneer. This implies that the Qur’an recognizes the difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight.
Regarding the SHAPE OF THE EARTH
In early times, people believed that the earth was flat. For centuries, men were afraid to venture out too far, for fear of falling off the edge! Sir Francis Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he sailed around it in 1597. The earth is not exactly round like a ball, but geo-spherical, i.e. it is flattened at the poles. The following verse contains a description of the earth’s shape:
“And the earth, moreover, hath He made egg shaped.” [Al-Qur’an 79:30]
The Arabic word for egg here is dahaahaa1 which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’an correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’an was revealed was that the earth was flat.
It depends on what you mean by "go together." If you are asking if science can support religion, then no. If you are asking if they can coexist, then yes (it is happening right now). As science advances, though, the percent of religious people declines. "The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm). This number is still decreasing. Therefore, my answer to your question is no. Science contradicts religion in a lot of ways.
What's there to explain? Do you believe that humanism is a form of religion? I assume the answer is yes. If that's the case, The Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto tells us that it is debated among humanists as to whether or not humanism is a religion. Although you could just use the internet to find that out. I guess it really depends on what you believe.
Religion or philosophy, it makes no difference. Both areas of thought concerning themselves with morality and the best way to live, and live amongst one another. Religion tends to use supernatural explanations, although that isn't always the case. The loss of E. doesn't tend to use supernatural explanations, although there are exceptions.
Despite your anti-religion, or anti-philosophical views, there is quite a bit of evidence that science can teach us some of the ways which are optimal for living both our lives and living with one another. Unfortunately for anti-religionists, that requires the study of books they are vehemently against. As someone who claims to believe in the use of the scientific method to understand the world, you don't seem to understand the nature of that method.
The scientific method can never teach us Truth, the best you're going to get is an approximation. The reason the scientific method is superior, is because it works. It has, for example, told us why water freezes at a certain temperature and white boils add another. It can be re-created by anyone with the proper tools. The scientific method is good at telling us the how of things, not so good at telling us the why of things. For that, you need religion or philosophy, preferably a combination of the two.
First of all, the definition of religion is "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Sure, religion concerns itself with the best way to live; it concerns itself with the best way to live if you want to go to heaven for most people. On the other hand, philosophy is defined as "the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics."
Secondly, I find your saying "Despite your anti-religion, or anti-philosophical views" rather offensive. Just because I don't think religion and science support each other doesn't make me an "anti-religionist." Plus, you say "As someone who claims to believe in the use of the scientific method to understand the world, you don't seem to understand the nature of that method." Please elaborate. Maybe it's because I'm only in high school, but I really don't understand where you are coming from with this statement.
Last but not least, I want to touch on this last statement of yours: "The scientific method is good at telling us the how of things, not so good at telling us the why of things. For that, you need religion or philosophy, preferably a combination of the two." Religion creates many more hows and whys for science, or further developed religion, to explain. For most people I know, religion gives them peace of mind. People don't want to believe that after death there is nothing. Science and history, however, continue to disprove many pieces of religion. Believe what you want, I just don't think religion and science support each other. Religion doesn't seem to be a necessity as is shown by the declining percent of religious people in the world. If it makes any difference, I am agnostic and not "anti-religionist." Please don't make assumptions like this before you post to the forums.
My apologies, I thought I was talking with someone older. OK, in that case, philosophy and religion are more intertwined that you might thing at first glance. It seems every major religion has a philosophical or mystical school of thought. Islam, for example has Sufism, Christianity has Gnostic, etc.
Second, the scientific method. You make a hypothesis, test it and review your findings. Then you submit it to the community at large and see if they can recreate your experiment. If they can the hypothesis is validated and if not, it is debunked. As a method for learning about Truth, it is a rather erratic way of doing so. If you imagine Truth as a straight line and the scientific method as another line, the scientific method will meander around the line, but never run concurrent with it. After all you never know when a different approach will debunk your theory.
Thirdly, I'm not sure you understand the evolution religion. It probably began as a way to describe the world. Genesis, in particular gives us clues about how some ancients described the world to their kids. Perhaps a child asked why snakes don't have legs. "Well once they did," spoke the elder and thus the story of the serpent in the Garden was born. Our ancestors didn't have a better way until people started using reason as a basis for knowledge. That started in fits and starts over the centuries beginning most probably in Greece. It is possible to backslide, however, just look at religion in Roman society as opposed to the society of the Dark Ages.
The scientific method is undoubtedly superior in telling us about the physical properties of the world, but faces some limitations when attempting to analyze things like society, morality, etc. The main reason for that is that you cannot recreate things like society in a lab and test your variables. You can attempt to use a "natural" laboratory, but you can never be sure if you've eliminated your bias or if your subjects are totally unaware of your presence which could skew your surroundings.
Religion and philosophy give us, in some cases, thousands of years of data to sift through and acts like a ready made laboratory. History has shown us, for example, that the divine right of kinds led to tyrants such as had not been seen for centuries. Likewise an atheistic society like the Soviet Union could be just as callous and uncaring of human life as the most hard line theocracy.
Finally I'd be careful about taking statistics at their face value like that. People have been shown to say one thing in public and privately believe another. If you really want to know what people think, watch their actions. You'll get a truer appreciation for their beliefs that way.
I understand most of what you are trying to say in the paragraphs previous to this one. I do have a few disagreements, but I feel those disagreements are opinion-based. Anyways, why would someone say one thing in public and privately believe something else? If you are right in this assumption, then why do more people conceal their faith then before? Personally, I don't think many people "say one thing in public and privately believe another," but I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. Thank you.
I could cite a lot of examples from poetry to prose. One of my marketing mentors talked about a focus group he ran once. He asked them if they were more likely to respond to a mailing that was fact-based or one that appealed more to emotion. To a person they said fact-based. Being new at this sort of thing, he took them seriously. So he did his mailing but the numbers he got were far less than they should have been. So he sent out letters for a focus group this time that appealed to emotion rather than facts. This time he handed the focus groups two letters one the letter they responded to and another that was fact based. He then asked them which letter they would most likely respond to and to a person they said the fact based letter. Even though they really responded to the emotionally laden letter.
Political correctness is another way in which people hide what they truly feel. Anyone who truly believes in that is either very naive or willfully malevolent.
You're still in high school. I'm sure you're surrounded by kids who say one thing and do something else. Kids haven changed that much from when I was a kid.
As to why people do that? Well a lot of is has to do with the need for a certain amount of the population to conform. To not be different. To maintain consensus. I'd say about 80% of the population feels that way, but that's just a WAG on my part. That's one of the reasons PC is so popular these days.
Yes - brilliant tech. A very astute observation. (don't mean to go off topic but I had to respond to that)
Anyone who has truly studied science, i.e. observed the world around them in a scientific way, I think (my opinion only) can not help but believe that there is a God.
Of course, I'm not talking about religion, but then God and religion don't always go together.
Like I said, if you think scientists aren't as dogmatic as fundamentalists, just look at the knife fighting going on over human induced global warming.
Oh, I agree with you. Forgive me for jumping in at the end without having read the whole discussion. Some scientists? (I use the word lightly) can be just as dogmatic as religious fanatics. Neither one, it seems to me, is actually interested in the truth. Because that's what the original forum question is really asking. A genuine seeker, and a genuine scientist are looking for the truth. It is my belief that it can be found and that the two are merely different venues.
One sad fact about both religion and philosophy is that they ignore one of the most important facts about being human. People do things for their own self-interest. If more people thought about that fact and understood the implications, we would have much less strife and tyranny in our lives.
Philosophy hasn't entirely "ignored" that. There is, of course, Objectivism.
Personally, I find it a loathsome philosophy and not entirely true. People who do things only for their own self-interest create a lot of strife and tyranny.
Just because I act in my own self-interest doesn't mean that I necessarily screw people over to get what I want. Every time we make one decision over another, we're doing something in our own self-interest. You get something back even from altruistic decisions, otherwise people wouldn't be so willing to help those in need.
If people only helped because they'd get something out of it, it wouldn't be altruism, and it's a terrible investment with absolutely no guarantee of any good return. I lean more toward Kant's moral deontology here. People don't do good because it makes them feel good. Oftentimes, helping others doesn't. They help because they feel it is a duty.
You do make an excellent point on humanism. I feel I must add to that, however, that not all humanism is secular humanism, and is therefore not at odds with religion.
Your knowledge of science, religion and philosophy are a bit weak. First, Scinence tries to answer the 3 major questions on any topic, what why how, Each topic is dealt under these 3 major questions whether the answers are being found or not. In most cases the answers become available in contrast to others.
Regarding philosophy, it also revolves around the 3 basic questions, what is life why it is created who created it, and the answers to these questions are totally opposite to what Religion's point of view is. Pick any philosophical book and you will find different interpretations from that of religion.
Now, religion is the thing which ultimately guides you in the above mentioned philosophical questions and also the major scientific facts without consuming so much time and money spoiled so far and at the end what we found is science reconciliating itself with religion and philosophy being the worst nightmares of mankind which turned the humans into monsters.
You totally lost me on that. The scientific method is a way of looking at the world. It uses a logical method of thought to deduce certain facts about the world around us. Those facts are gathered into theories to explain why things are.
Religion has, for most of human history, been a way to explain why things are the way they are. It usually invokes some sort of supernatural being or beings, but not always.
Philosophy attempts to explain the human condition, the why if you will.
These divisions are a bit arbitrary as you can find religious philosophies and philosophical sciences, etc. All three are tools for understanding the world, nothing more and nothing less.
You are right at some things but wrong at others. It will be preferable if you do not give your own definitions to Science, Philosophy and Religion on the basis of your thoughts. Science totally works on established facts and facts are not the product of mere thoughts. These thoughts + other related facts give rise to theories which when combined with successful related experiments giving some +ve results which can further open up some new doors are called as SCIENTIFIC FACTS on which science relies and works. That's the reason strict and blind followers of the theory of evolution are called as Evolutionists and not as Scientists. They are subtracted from Scientists to be called as Evolutionists which they also proud of being called the same.
Now Philosophy is totally based on inferences and thoughts which also sometimes include scientific facts or theories only for justifing the ideas like Humanism. It's a total philosophical dogma adding the theory of evolution for justifying itself.
Lastly, as you will infere my inclination towards religion is just due to the fact that it covers all the aspects of life, some in the form of guidlines others in the form of details. It also covers almost all the philosophical and scientific questions, the major ones as i presented earlier. And religion almost all bears the fact of The One Super Being, The Ultimate One by the name of God, Elohim or Allah, for instance, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. Even Non Religious esoteric organisations like Skulls and Bones and Freemasonry include One Super Being as on Top but in their case this Super Being is called as Anti God or Anti Christ which most of the times misleadingly called as Nature or Mother Nature in front of mobs. Therefore, to have a One Super Being is an inner instict of humans which can not be denied.
And i agree that all three are the tools for understanding the world, life, death and so many other things but all are not equal. There are limitations in atleast 2 of the 3 (Science, Philosophy and Religion) and the two are Science and Philosophy.
Um, if you don't give definitions, how can you be sure we're talking about the same thing. You're making ha huge assumption that you know the "correct" definition of science, religion and philosophy. How you do know you're right? By defining it, I've made my position clearer.
You probably need to read more history. Humanism was developed long before Darwin published his work on natural selection. It's a Renaissance philosophy. You've decided to associate humanism with evolution. Since it seems that evolution is anathema to your worldview, you're deprecating both the theory of evolution and philosophy of humanism.
Religion does not need a Higher Deity in order to work. Explain Taoism.
Your assumption is that religion covers all aspects of life, but by your very words you've shown that there are blind spots in your beliefs. I'm not sure you have all the answers you think you do.
Where did i say there are blind spots in religion ??? And the business of evolution and humanism is not started from Darwin, i agree. What i was pointing to you is that today's cries about humnism, evolution and all the other ISM based doctrines are based and propagated with the help of theory of evolution as a support despite the fact the evolutionists are considered as evolutionists not as scientists because they blindly follow it with no such evidences or fruitfull outcomes by which it can be considered as a SCIENTIFIC FACT in the established scientific circle.
The evolution as i discussed above was just as an example to clarify Science, Philosophy and Religion issues under discussion. You turned it totally towards evolution and darwin, why ???
And if i am wrong at giving you the definition of Theory, Science, Scientific Fact then you can pick up any authentic science book / article / journal regarding these topics for clarifiying your misconceptions about that.
And i think Forums must not be misused by giving ones own definitions to certain things on the basis of just thoughts and ideas. I will be grateful if you abide by the correct definitions. Try to do a little bit of research before commenting on such things on the basis of your own interpretations and thoughts.
How do you know the definition you supply for religion, science and philosophy are fact? You're accusing me of doing the exact thing you've done. At least I gave a definition and stated unequivocally where I stand in regards to science, religion and philosophy. Just because you disagree with my definitions, doesn't mean that either of us is wrong. What it means is that I'm a bit more open minded than you and less dogmatic. Please see my first post.
As i said, open up the related authentic books for the proper definitions and compare it with that of mine and yours and realize which one is correct or more close to the authenticity. Open mindedness does not work all the time.
You say the words but don't provide any examples. How do I know what you consider authentic or not. For all you know I might be getting books that aren't authentic by your definition. What makes on author authentic over another? You probably shouldn't put your faith in so-called authority and start developing your reasoning skills. Here let me help you: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
Humanism, as per laymen's interpretations is an idea which brings the notions of love, peace and brotherhood. Philosophically, Humanism revolves around the concept of humanity as its only focus and goal is to call human beings to turn away from Allah (God) their Creator. In short, Humanism is a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behavior that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority (Allah - God)
Moreover, humanists maintain that modern science supports these claims. However, they are totally off the beam and irreverent.
Absolutely not. Science proves that religion is faulty and not true. Keep in mind that religion is NOT spirituality. There is no way to know if there is a God and the whatnot, but to think that he takes an interest in our lives is selfish and narrowminded. If you back up for a second and view the world, you'd realize that all religions are false, and in fact they do a lot more harm than good. I think the best religion would be one that gave people freedom to interact with the Divine in their own way, but I personally believe that there is no direct interaction between us and a higher power.
Yes i think that science and religon can go together.people just have to be a bit tolerant and respect both science and religion.they both are important.religion satisfy our spiritual needs and science helps with our material needs and develops rationale so that we dont become blind follower of anything.
I think not. The more discoveries science makes, the further we move away from religions.
The amount of effort required to keep coming up with stories to "cover" their religions is already massive. The truth is that religiosity is hardwired at this time, but mankind will move beyond all that as he learns to think with love more than hate.
We already have the science to solve the human condition but we are still a long way from becoming conscious enough to use it! The time will come.
I agree with you earnest hub but dont you think that what you refer as love is equivalent to religion,thats my personal view.And you are also right that religion is hard wired but it is made by us only.If we take religion in it's pure form then it teaches only love and service to mankind.
That's not exactly correct. You can reconcile religion and science, but you must be willing to test your beliefs according to the crucible of science. You have to discard those beliefs which do not hold up in the real world. Science, in it's own way, is just as susceptible to dogma as any religion. Look at the current flap over anthropocentric global warming if you don't believe me. There is something about people that crave a rock solid foundation of beliefs from which to view the world. Science and religion both offer those things, which is why the adherents vie with one another.
If your heading was Science and Spirituality I'd say yes they can. But when religion becomes matter of fact and closed to exploring what science has to offer, we have a problem.
Science is intended to compliment and reveal knowledge, and assist the human experience. Same with religion. It was supposed to guide but not through dogmatic rules from teachings taken out of context, and then manipulated to dissempower.
I agree with Ernest. Every increase in scientific knowledge is attacked by the religionists of the day as being false. This is because leaders of those political parties can see that every time we learn more, we move away from this ridiculous idea that we are "special" and god created us to abuse each other and the rest of the planet. This stems from fear and produces hatred.
The more we understand, the more people discard religion - and it's built-in hindrances to personal advancement of the mind. Eventually we will have discarded it, and then perhaps we can move on as a species and fulfill our potential.
You are absolutely right mark.I totally agree with what earnest and you say.But the point is the religion does not cause hatred it is caused by the so called fanatic religionists,who manipulates religion for their own benefit and uses people lack of knowledge about religion to their own benefit.But yea with the recent advancements in science people would discard the traditional religion and follow global religion of love based on trust and service to mankind.
That is where you are wrong. Religion does cause hatred. Possibly - that was not the intention, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Just read any history book and see the current conflicts that are religion based.
I have lost count of the amount of times some one tells me they love me, and then goes on to explain how close-minded I am and god knows what is best for me, but I am too weak-minded to understand what that is or why.
hmmm....I would definitely check the facts of the matter.And thanks for making me look at this in a different perspective.I think as a 20year old i need to gain more knowledge rather than blurting out things i feel is right.
Religionists self exclude. Does not fit my religion, must be the devil's work so I wont read it!
If you study any of the ancient cultures you'll notice that science and religion were inseparable.
I think what you meant to ask was if science and nonsense could go together. In this case, the answer would be no.
That is so true Haunty, I know for example before missionaries arrived in NZ, the indigenous recognised a higher power and science
Says the woman who argues that evolution is a lie and the dinosaurs were around at the same time we were.
What about all the advances in science that were opposed by the churches?
earnesthub thanks for the appreciation.But really communicating with knowledgeable and experienced persons like you,mark and all the others is a good learning process for me.
By religion, I meant the believe in a power above the human power,religious people call that power God.
I have been working in science, core research and development for the last 3-4 years. One thing that I observed among my colleagues,infact still troubling me is, when people solve a mathematical/biological problem, or derive an equation or see a biological molecule moving, most of the people feel they can create the whole universe.
If you sit down with one of them and ask they view about GOD, they will start with evolution. If we ask more about evolution and go deeper, we will reach at a point when they reply ,science has not yet been able to explain how a single cell can be formed from no where.
In my view, science and religion can go together only when we have a little bit intellectual humility to understand that there could be a brain above human brain.(There is no proof that there couldnot be) In science we ask, do you have proof? can you show me? Well, in life we believe not because we see everything, but somethings we believe because we feel and experience it. I cannot show anybody why I believe that my wife love me. I believe it because I experience it :-)
That's interesting. So in religion we worship a God, because he or she is a brain above human brain?
Feeling is seeing in my world Naz, just because there is currently not a mathematical formula fathomed to explain it, does not mean it doesn't exist. However, when a person's beliefs are not based on anything remotely logical or explainable, but based on word knowledge, then that is knowledge without basis. Higher states of consciousness, or higher mind is possible. Problem is that to bring the experiences 'down' so that all can see them requires that people try to open to those experiences. And then have a language for which to give structure to those experiences so they are indeed real. This is where science can be applied to current non-physical experiences. But it's not through maths that they will be proven, not yet anyway.
I do not seperate creation from Science
One is a fact ,the other supports it
( By the way Jesus Christ condemned Religion too )
Where there is no answer from science, we surrender ourselves to religion.
hum... when there is no answer, there isn't. If when you don't find solutions in science then you go look for them in religion this has an implication - religion is a 2nd way to go.
For those who accept religious explanations, they should be coherent in having it as a 1st choise, not the 2nd.
This is not a critic, but is a consequence of your setence.
Okay, I really debated jumping in here, but I will at least give my opinion. I expect most of you can guess my slant based on my avatar anyway. First, let me say that I have no problem with science. I am educated in the field and have worked there for nearly 10 years. I view science as the what and how of our world. All aspects are interesting to me as it just goes to show more and more detail of this world and universe God has created.
I also have no problem with religion. Although man has warped it and twisted it for his own purposes more times than Paris Hilton has be seen on MTV. This is just a simple fact. People will always use religion to try and control others. It just works well for that. I would venture to be careful relating disagreement with hate though. I don't hate anyone on this site, but I expect were would disagree sharply. I am okay with that, are you?
The true problem comes in when science becomes your religion. You heard me right, people start looking to science for the why. With our current knowledge science is missing many answers that are rather important for our "purpose" and "existence." These wholes are completed with religion, regardless if your religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Science. It is still a religion.
Some day science my prove me wrong and I am willing to accept that. However, my belief says that science will continue to do what science does and shed more light on the what and how; not branch over to the why, or even when for that matter. After all, there is a long way to go before science can create and not simply manipulate our natural world.
Unfortunately, people tend to take religious attacks personally. This hinders many good debates which could broaden everyone's understanding. I am always willing to debate, and disagree. I know what I believe, and yes, I may even try to convince you. In the end though, your belief is your choice. To your question though, science and religion when viewed properly can easily coincide. They do quite nicely in fact. Read a few history books you will learn most of the early scientific advancement was done with religious motivation. Unfortunately, much was also discouraged.
Sorry for the book. Hopefully accurately reflects my opinion and thoughts. Humm... maybe I should put it in a hub.
Yes! they can depending upon your view of them. The connection/s are not spontaneously seen/visible, but someday, somewhere when you are in the middle of something, suddenly the link seems obvious (to you). There are too many steps from believing in science and realizing it is far too many steps yet away from realizing God, which imho is the true objective of any religion.
I'm not sure what you mean by the question; I suppose it really depends on what you mean by science and what you mean by religion. But minus complicated definitions of each, yes, both can co-exist in harmony. By that, I mean that one can hold to the tenants of science and still be religious.
Yes I believe they can. I accept both. I do see the polarizing effect they have on each other which is understandable. Most scientists say they cannot prove God, measure Him, take his temperature, weigh him, observe him then he does not exist. I have a personal relationship with God. I cannot prove he exists but I know I have had prayers answered (specific ones) and I see his influence on my life.
So I guess it is up to each individual whether they can live with both.
To close your mind to either is ignorant and dangerous.
No, they can't.
Religion pretty much stands by at the sideline, watching science solve actual problems that prayers never could.
Science and religion go together very well actually, and do not truly contradict each other because they don't even address the same questions.
Science asks primarily how things happen. Religion asks why and what it all should mean to us.
As for love? The requirement to love is a religious one.
why people always use the word religion as if all religions are the same thing or you just mean christianity ?
I think so. I love science and I believe in one God. This is a topic generally filled with dogmatic belief on both sides. I believe God created every scientific thing we find. For example, I believe in evolution. The Christian bible shouldn't be taken so literally imo. 7 days to God may not be 7 days to man. Therefore, it is not difficult for me to believe that God created all living things through evolution. We have never found the so called missing link, the ancient being which would prove that man somewhere, at sometime, split from other primates. What if that link doesn't exist, because that is where God came in to play in our exsistence?
Hello Mellie, thats a very nice name . Glad to hear that you love science, and I can also see that you have the remarkable ability to count gods :S. I woudn't of guessed arithmatic had value outside the creation of god, but then again you probably mean to say that god should only be given one banner. Anywho I wanted to ask you if the bible should not be taken literaly and that we should discard it as we please what good is it having it anyway? Oh and also if possiable I wanted to let you know that you seem to know little to nothing about evolution, without trying to seem arogant. You see every offspring of every creation is in turn a transitional piece, it is the next step from it's predecessor. Now if you take the evolution of a particular speices for millions of years you will have hundreds of thousands of transitional pieces. Lets say we plot these peices down, by the hundreds we would write 100, 200, 300 ... lets say this patern follows until 60100 but then we are unable to obtain the nextnumber (60200) but we manage to retreive the rest of the parttern (60300-100000) could you use that (missing link) objectively to coutner the claim that there is a pattern in that sequence?
I never said anything about discarding the bible. As old as the texts are, they have gone through many translations. While the core message may still be the same, it's not a far stretch to theorize that some of the writings may have ended up lost in translation. Plus, the higher authorities in the different churches have weeded through the texts, deciding what to omit and change to fit thier own agendas. This is why I believe some things should not be taken so literally. If your opinion is different, fine. I'm not here trying to convert anyone to the way I think.
I may not have thought my answer through and I may have typed my post poorly, but yes, I do understand evolution. I do understand sequencing. If the missing link for us is found, I do not believe it disproves that God created through evolution. If it is never found, or does not exist because maybe we began seperately or differently from the rest of life on Earth due to God's decision, I do not believe that it disproves science. If your opinion is different and you want to type and point out where you believe I have err'd, that's fine. I'll read it and think about it, my mind isn't closed, but I don't want to get into a long debate, because with these topics they can be never ending, so please don't be offended if I don't post back.
JUST MY TWO CENTS WORTH I do not believe that science and religion can go together because religion is an interpretation of a fact. Religion is not constant enough to coincide with science. Faith in a higher being some of us call God and science are like father and son. They do go together I think
Science isn't consistent either. Good scientists are always questioning their hypothesis and the methods they use. How is that consistent?
Religion can not even agree on a name, rules , or time lines. Science and religion probably need each other. Science seems to have better rules
Ya don't have to be a scientist to watch 45 trains coming to one intersection to know that there is going to be a wreck. Don't need to know how far the pieces are goina fly.
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
What makes some religionists want to convert others to their particular ideology and beliefsystem, even going to more extreme length, believing that they are saving others?
by Will Apse2 years ago
Quote:Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.They do the opposite when thinking about the physical...
by fierycj8 years ago
Its just like the topic says. I'm kind of a rookie in this whole Hub thing. So far, I like the Religion forum, but there's a lot of people you just wanna smack in the head. If you're non-religious, then what in the hell...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
To Blacks atheists &non-religionists, what are the 10 ways that organized religions have negativelyimpacted, demoralized, and otherwise created a passive culture in many Black American communities?Growing up in...
by Alan2 years ago
Why are some christians so afraid of addressing other possibilities?Does the truth of your beliefs depend upon having the beliefs? Or do they stand true whether your believe or not?
by David Livermore2 years ago
Are you afraid of going to Hell?I'm afraid. I'm worried I should be religious to avoid Hell, but I don't believe God would send me to Hell because I don't know what to believe.So are you afraid of going to Hell...
Copyright © 2018 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.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.