Faith is something to believe in not based on experiment but on experiences that cannot be explained in science. Science is the intrinsic, concrete, literal and obvious observation proven in various ways of explanation.
Are you skeptical about this?
No one can actually think that faith is based on experiences; no one has ever seen a verifiable miracle (event outside natural law), no one has ever seen a demon or a god.
Faith is instead based on imagination and desire. Don't want to die? Believe in an eternal god that made you eternal, too - no experience in being eternal necessary, just the desire it be so.
Want a father figure providing guidance and love? Believe in a god that made you and the priests that say it loves you. No experience necessary, just the desire it be so.
I partly agree with you but if you say no one can actually think that faith is not based on experience then I may say we have different views.
There are times when things happened just by my faith in a supreme being even in my best knowledge, I can't explain.
Then what is your purpose in life if you don't have a Creator? One may say we are nothing, just nothing in this existence.
If the alleged Faith based "experiences" are shown to be the delusions of believers, which they most likely and obviously are, then science has already explained them.
There is no battle between science and religion. Militant atheists simply attempt to acquire the realm of science in order to use it as a medium to debunk religion.
Similarly they use elitism and socialism to acquire economic power, they use unions to take control of schools and indoctrinate youth, they use media and television to revise history, and they use lawyers to remove religious traditions and icons from society.
Not sure how we went from atheism to socialism or unions, let alone using TV to revise history, but yes, atheists use science to debunk religion. They even, sometimes, use lawyers to enforce the constitution.
You mean to twist and abuse the constitution, to repress religion in our culture, and to create new laws that were never intended by the original drafters.
But as John Adams would say;
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I don't understand - you think religion is being repressed in your culture?
Tell us about it.
No, just to keep your religion, and all others. out of the public. To refrain from using religious beliefs to govern or control others, to keep the religious zealots from passing laws based on their antiquated belief system.
In that regard, "moral" and "religious" in the same sentence is an oxymoron as there ARE no "moral, religious" peoples. They all seem to demand that everyone else follow their "god given" guidelines even as they ignore the #1 rule from their holy scriptures.
Putting references to your god on our money, inserting religious observations into the pledge of allegiance spoken by school children everywhere, insisting that everyone pray to your god at all public functions; these are prohibited by the constitution yet the believers persist in pushing them into law. SOMETHING has to keep them in check else the country descend into the madness and persecution religion always brings with it when allowed unlimited power.
All laws are based on somebodys version of morality. It just so happens that America's bedrock religious beliefs paved the way to creating the most freedom and the largest middle class that the world had ever experienced. That is the unlimited power realized by a moral and religious people.
Little wonder that at the decline of our moral foundations, and Religious roots so goes our basic freedoms and our economy.
By the way the #1 Rule in the scriptures is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is nothing of morality in this law; it instead expresses and addresses the concerns of the people that a central government could over-rule their own religions and force something else onto them.
There is no "morality" in speed limit laws, either - just fear of being killed. No morality in gun control laws; just the same fear. In fact, most of our laws designed to protect us from violent harm have no basis in morality.
No, the religious beliefs of our forefathers did not "pave the way to creating the most freedom...the world had ever experienced". Their wisdom in excluding religion as much as possible from their government did; religion will always create and foment a highly repressive society in it's efforts to spread it's version of truth.
#1 rule - you got me. I intended to indicate the #1 moral rule, not the #1 rule from the priesthood. The #1 rule is indeed to love the god (and fill the collection plates), but the #1 moral rule, and the most widespread one in the world, is the Golden Rule; something Christians have forgotten they have been ordered to follow.
Eh, I still wouldn't say America has had "the most freedom the world had ever experienced," though. That distinction belongs to most of modern-day Scandinavia (Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, etc.). If you wanna talk personal freedom, that's where it's at.
Then, if that is the #1 Rule, why is it not in law, or the Constitution, or anywhere else other than the Bible?
Obviously, based on your logic, it was NOT somebody's "version of morality", the very same people who made our laws.
You can't legislate love! That would completely remove free will from the equation. Anybody who tries to do that based on their understanding of the Bible never actually read it.
This is why you shouldn't argue about something that you obviously have little understanding of.
Then why is it a commandment? Because a commandment is basically the same thing as legislation: a written law meant to be observed and enforced.
But, you just said it is the number #1 rule and that "All laws are based on somebodys version of morality."
Are you backpedaling now?
Then, any and all rules would remove free will from the bible.
Then, you should read the Bible some time.
I have a much better understanding than you, evidently.
From a certain person's Profile: "The mind is a terrible thing to taste!!"
True, there are only the religious denying and attacking science.
That sounds like a twisted plot from Lord of the Rings.
Yes, and we can't wait to lightly bread and deep fry your first born, too.
Empiricism aka "Science is the intrinsic, concrete, literal and obvious observation proven in various ways of explanation."
Thus, we are indeed all lab rats. And we all know what eventually happens to lab rats. Oh, well.
Come to think of it, I'm in the mood for some macaroni and cheese. I shall get right on that.
Science in the end will support matters of faith. The question will arise if a higher being supported by science ever claims our creation do we have the faith to believe more than scientific discoveries. We seem to only believe present day facts when new discoveries are found daily.
Science will in the end demonstrate whatever is knowable about the universe, Whether it shows the subjective experience of God is valid or not remains to be seen. That is the whole point of science. You follow the evidence.
Proponents of Science use faith every day. They just won't admit it.
Not one single atheist on the planet can ever possibly claim to be a true scientist and know every scientific law.
Why do I say that?
There is not enough time in a lifetime to do every experiment to observe every law and process of nature and the physical world.
Instead, the BELIVE what someone else has done, said or revealed.
Believe = faith. It really is that simple.
And you don't find that just a trifle different from the believe of the theist, who believes whatever he wants to without any supporting evidence whatsoever, including the experiments and reports of others?
There is a massive difference between believing the word of someone else that they found a specific thing and believing in something no one has ever seen or experienced.
That is YOUR claim.
Not the first time you deny both evidence and other peoples experiences.
If you saw your god you could describe it. If you experienced it your experience would be similar to the other millions that make the same claim. Neither is true, though, is it?
There is also the problem of distinguishing your claim of experiencing a god from your own internal mind. Although I've asked many times no one has ever given an answer to that one; there is no distinction that can be made.
If your "faith" is the evidence of things unseen, then it does not apply to science because the scientific method is all about observing things that are seen.
Not true, all physicists are supposed to know every single scientific law.
That is a fallacy.
Peer reviewed journals reveal the results of experiments, that everyone can see.
Sorry, it does no appear you understand much about the scientific method or any of the processes involved with science.
Proponents of Faith use Science every day. They just won't admit it.
I don't think that the concept of a God and science are in a war at all. If they are supposedly in a war, then I think we either have a wrong view about science or a wrong view about God. The terms are loosely used, so I'm going to try to be specific. If God created the world and it is the way it is, then nothing science discovers is going to change that fact. You may have to alter some aspects of what you believe (is the earth 6000 or 1 billion years old, etc.). Science is the study of nature. If studies in nature show me that the earth is a billion years old to our best knowledge, then why argue it? Maybe God made the earth a billion years ago, who knows? If God is real, then wouldn't all findings be true? If we find out through stellar emissions how old the universe probably is, why argue it? Why not just accept that God made the world like that, and be done with it?
The only objection to this that I can think of is the highly dubious idea that scientists' goal is to debunk religion.I really think scientists have better things to do than sit around and try to destroy religion, so I highly doubt that that is the case.
Science is simply study of nature and how our natural world works. Science presents no threat to one's belief or faith in God, because science (unless you get into philosophy of science or metaphysics or something like that [highly controversial]) is not meant to deal with things we can't see or touch or taste or smell. If one is threatened by it, then maybe one's perceptions of God are wrong.
For what I've seen, scientists don't give a damn if you believe in God as long as you don't completely ignore the scientific truth in front of you. I believe in a God but I believe everything science says, as well. They do not and have not ever contradicted each other.
My understanding is that many scientists have looked in awe upon wonders which just don't seem to have an explanation. This can happen even after exhaustive research, applying all the known laws, trying to understand things to the nth degree.
As I have said several times before, it is the use/abuse of any belief in a judgmental god, to be used against other members of our species, that I am absolutely against....not the idea of some kind of entity that is responsible for our existence.
Each to their own beliefs. I also have a right to mine, you also to yours. Let's look to the wonders, the beauty, the marvels of this world and our privilege in being able to comprehend, instead of wasting time trying to pin anything onto arguments.
by paarsurrey7 years ago
~There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion: philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued.~ Religion if correctly understood is based on the Word revealed from the Creator-God Allah YHWH...
by lizzieBoo6 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is...
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
So I borrowed this idea from Misha to start a new thread.For me, I can give one particular instance where I think science and religion/spirituality are complementary, as crossing each other's boundaries. When I think of...
by Phocas Vincent2 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by marinealways247 years ago
Do they create a perfect balance? If there was no science with religion, what would hold religion in check to make up whatever they wanted? The same with science, if there was no religion, who would keep science from...
by emdi8 years ago
Please post your views, can science and religion go together?
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.