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 energy; where Kirlian photography has proven the existence of the energy fields of living things. Energy fields are also known as the aura in some spiritual paradigms and with some scientists.
One of the main differences between science and religion is that in order to be accepted by the (highly skeptical) scientific community a scientific claim/ tenet/ theory has to be *falsifiable* - in other words, there has to be some way of establishing whether the claim is true or false. Any scientific theory which claimed to be eternally and universally true would be slung out by the seat of its pants.
What measure of falsifiability do you think we could establish in order to test the question of God's existence?
It might be "nice" to ponder the eventual convergance of science and religion. But it just ain't gonna happen. It's only when words like "science" and "religion" are used in vague, nebulous, woolly, wishy-washy ways that such a convergance may seem possible - but then only inside certain people's heads.
But it sounds like you believe mans science and the truth of its measure of falsifiability. Many, many people are not there anymore. They have had too many experiences in life that can not be explained scientifically and have chosen to seek what some might call progressive revelation/revolution/evolution of mind, body and soul. As long as anyone gives "bodies of authority" like the scientific community, or the government, for instance, that kind of power, yes it will continue.
I am greatly appreciative of the reasoning and scientific mind and the organization and order with which it is based, and I use it as the important balancing counterforce, if you will, to my belief in the spirituality of the Universe. To me, you can't have a whole and balanced Universe without both. After all, scientific thinking has its benefits, but it is also limiting to expanding consciousness.
And may I apologise most humbly for my misspelling of the word "convergence".
Have to add my two pennys worth to this one
There is a HUGE difference between religion and spirituality.
Kirlian photography proves nothing - test have shown that images shot in a vacuum show no "aura" - the imaging picks up minute amounts electricity interacting with gases in the air surrounding an object. Any object - a stone has as much "aura" as a human being.
Mark, what kind of people do you hang around that don't have any more of an aura than a stone?!
I thought you were a martial artist? You have not experienced chi?
Just because the scientific human mind has not built a machine that "proves" the electromagnetic field, does not mean it does not exist. Scientists use the electromagnetic field concept all the time. Haven't they proved that? Where is our science forum that will draw people with the most updated research news?
I never said it didn't exist and yes, I have experienced many invisible forms of energy, including chi - which I have spent years cultivating and developing.
I also spend ten years as a massage therapist, working on a lot of chronically sick people and learning to manipulate their energy fields (which are different to Ki)
What I said was - Kirlian photography proves nothing - test have shown that images shot in a vacuum show no "aura" - the imaging picks up minute amounts electricity interacting with gases in the air surrounding an object. Any object - a stone has as much "aura" as a human being.
I'll chime in on this one as well.
Doesn't religion without the balance of science breed superstition? And, likewise, doesn't science without the balance of religion lead to unfettered materialism and selfishness. I think these 2 go together quite well.
Having been to the Vatican, I have a hard time accepting that religion is any sort of barrier to unfettered materialism.
Good point. But the here "religion" is defined as how the Vatican practices it. I mean "religion" as it is intended to be. And please don't make me explain religion as it is intended. THere are books on that.
I'm eagerly awaiting your next hub. Is it forthcoming???
Unlikely - I have recently been offered a job - setting up and running this blog:
Luxury Property Blog
So, most of my online time will be spend working on this from now on - I am actually very excited about this - It's a "proper" job with wages and everything I will be doing a few hubs - specifically one about how my exposure on hubpages helped me to get this job.
I only stopped in today to let everyone know about the blogger that is stealing hubs and then couldn't resist this discussion
Thom Carnes explained it beautifully.Many Upcoming scientific theories negate the oldones.And theories have their base in hypothesis.Thats why sometimes clash happens between the two.
K, my 2 cents
First I would distinguish between church and religion. And put church out of equation. At least this is what I meant in my original post that became the basis for this thread.
Now, I see those two as complementary methods of learning the World inside and around me. Science uses logic and half of my brain, religion uses intuition or "direct experience", and another half. I wanna have them in balance, and I believe this is how it works most efficiently, and this is how it meant to work
I tend to lump religion and spirituality together because some people are just beginning to start their search for greater definition between the two, and it will draw more involvement.
This is where I think having gotten a PhD did me more harm than good. My mind now wants to differentiate very clearly between things. This may not be so bad. I think a problem with communication between human beings is that we often think we are talking about the same thing, even using the same words, but in fact we are talking about two completely different things. This really makes meaningful conversation quite difficult
I think science and religion are definitely complimentary parts of our knowledge. But that's it. Meaning, I think any individual will benefit from both scientific and religious studies. Both provide necessary components for understanding our world. But as for the notion of combining the two, I think that keeping them in their own camps, comfortably communicating but not merging with each other, is best. Science is a way through which we observe and understand our world. Religion is a way through which we attempt to find meaning on a spiritual level. In religion, we may worship greater beings, beings who we find to be universally right. Mixing in scientific study with these religious principles can be ugly. Remember, at one time, science and religion were the same thing. It led to manipulation of the masses, sweeping new theories under the rug, and large scale murder, all in the name of protecting the "scientific" theories that supported the religion. Catholics in Europe, Protestants in America, and Pythagoreans in ancient Greece were all guilty of this.
...and so that is what needs to change in the minds of humanity...!? right? Learn from the past and not repeat it.
I enjoy reading your posts - although I'm not sure I quite grasp all you are trying to say....
How precisely does religion complement our knowledge of *anything* (apart, perhaps, from the machinations of our own psyche) - or, indeed, "provide necessary components for understanding our world"?
This is not a flippant question: I genuinely do not understand how religion fulfills this function.
Religion is based on faith (which for most people is simply a convenient excuse for not thinking); science is based on empirical evidence.
If I am seeking to understand the world, it seems a bit of a no-contest.
Have to put in my 2 cents. I am an advocate of science and religion. I have a very scientific mind but I am also devoutly religious. One thing that always bothers me when a debate between these two topics is started is that the scientific camp won't admit that faith is also a part of science.
Yes, science is based on empirical evidence, however, how that evidence is interpreted changes completely how you choose to view the world.
Example: Einsteins' theories contradict Newtons' theories. Quantum Physics contradicts Einstein. Niels Bohr who developed the Copenhagen theory states: "Furthermore, it is meaningless to ascribe any properties or even existence to anything that has not been measured. Bohr is basically saying that nothing is real unless it is observed."
Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to disprove the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
And these are just the heavy hitters of science. There are many, many more examples of scientists having opposing theories while working with the same "empirical evidence".
Each scientist continues their work why?? Because they have "faith" that their view is the correct one. It is only their "belief" that compels them to continue. This "belief" is no different to the "belief" that religious people have towards their theory of the universe.
So while scientific "belief" may have numbers and "empirical evidence" attached, given the radically different viewpoints that can be formed out of those numbers and evidence shows that science is not so far removed from religion than people think.
I mean, have you ever seen the heated debates between two scientists working in the same field with the same data and positing opposing theories?
Interpretation and belief in their personal view of the universe is what drives them. Isn't this also what drives religious people?
Congrats, Mark!!! I've bookmarked your blog and will following it.
You should read my hub on SEO
http://hubpages.com/hub/SEO-Optimizatio … d-Research
Very easy to follow step-by-step on how to target keywords that will get you in the top 10 of Google and the other engines for keywords important to luxury property.
my pleasure. I would be honored to offer you any SEO assistance in the future should you need it.
Thank you both. I won't be gone completely - hubpages has a great community and I will certainly be around.
Please excuse me if I'm not as articulate as I should be. I am still working on this term paper and my head is at the brink of exploding. I am of the opinion that objectivity and subjectivity are merely two ends of the same spectrum and that you cannot completely view the world from one or the other. Sunjectivity is a remarkably important thing that science has managed to overlook. Not completely, mind you, as the field of psychology studies subjectivity, but at the expense of the respect of much of the greater scientific community. To discount our ability to subjectively view the universe is absurd in my mind. It is a part of who we are.
Also, I did not intend to imply some kind of Marxist concept that religion serves a very worldly purpose even if there is not a God. "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and that sort of thing was not my intention. I meant, quite simply, that I believe in a God and religion is our way of relating to him, therefor making it a very important thing to practice. Sorry to give you the ol' God cop-out, but not being an atheist, I can't operate from an atheist worldview.
You are right on. I couldn't state this as near as eloquently and as clearly as you have. I have this same problem when I talk about evolution and creation.
I believe in evolution.
I believe in God.
I believe that God had and has his/her hand in creation.
I don't believe the earth was created in 7 days.
I do believe we evolved from fish, reptiles, etc.
You should see the evolutionists that just want to shove me into a box that says I don't believe in evolution.
The debate is polemic for most people. Either there is God and no evolution. Or, there is evolution and no God.
There is both in my mind and a lot of people I talk with just can't get around that. If i could state my thinking in one sentence, it would be:
Human beings have evolved over millions and millions of years changing their form and shape into finally how we look today. And, God has had his hand in this.
Pretty much agree I would set accents differently though. Something like: Evolution is a method God uses to create all living creatures, including humans...
Oh, and I don't think 7 days were meant to be earthly days. They might have been what we call eon today...
I like Lewis Black's 2 cents on this issue:
I have two problems with that. First, I don't like videos cause I can't skim through them, leaving boring places out. Second, I don't like the people swearing at other people, even if former ones are comics...
Different tastes in comedy. I always do like your straighforwardness Misha. We never have to second guess you.
Let us also address what exactly is meant by "faith." The Bible is unfortunately full of words. Seriously, you can't turn a page without encountering at least a couple hundred of the buggers. And each one of these words is open to interpretation. Faith, Grace, Love, and Joy, Hope are some of the most misunderstood and vague ones. I had a Bible teacher once, who believed that "faith" as it is understood in the Bible, is not a blind faith. It is more kin to faith in a friend. You are quite certain your friend exists and you are making no huge leap of trust by relying on him or her. Many Christians set out to prove God as best they can (and I am not talking about creationism here) and thus lessen the amount of blind faith all the while raising their amount of Biblical faith. Hope works this same way too, according to that same teacher. He argued that hope in the Bible is not synonimous with wishing. It isn't the same type of hope you get before Christmas about what presents you'll get. It is more like a light at the end of the tunnel type of hope. Since Christianity requires action on the part of man to attain salvation, then hope is likened to being trapped in a cave and finding a way out. You still might not get out, but there is hope for you. In this way, hope and faith work hand in hand to demonstrate that God is absolute and it is a matter of whether or not man will choose to take the very real and definite hand he has offered.
Uh, this isn't necessarily what I believe. But still, it is a valid argument.
Love Lewis Black, just watched the short vid. Personally only agree with parts of evolution, don't think it out of the realm of people coexistent with dinasaurs, they
have the fossil proof I have heard, but what do I care if he has own opinion. Lewis is funny,
Isn't what is being touted by many people on this forum simply a (rather perverse) form of cultural relativism: the notion that science is simply another form of "faith" and therefore has no more claim to "truth" than tribal myth and superstition.
Yes, this sounds great in principle. I just don't think it stands up to any sort of practical scrutiny.
As Richard Dawkins (God bless 'im) wrote in River Out Of Eden:
"Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite. Airplanes built according to scientific principles work. They stay aloft, they get you to a chosen destination .......If you are flying to an international conference ......the reason you will probably get there - the reason you don't plummet into a ploughed field - is because a lot of Western scientifically trained engineers have got their sums right."
Sure, scientific facts and evidence may be contradictory and open to all manner of interpretation and disagreement. They still seem (at least to me) a hell of a lot better than no facts and evidence whatsoever.
Again I say, it is important to not continue to think in absolutes, that it is either one way or the other...rather, to me anyway, that it is important to find the wholistic integration of , in this instance, religion and science. Yes, that is individually interpretive. But it is being done everywhere where people are accomplishing finding the balance/unity between their differences; between man and nature, between religions/spirituality philosophies, etc...
For instance, go to some basic building blocks of life...the cell and DNA. I am no big scientist, but I have the understanding of what I believe. The DNA was created by "God" the "Source" whatever...human mind did not create it, and has not been able to replicate it with 100% accuracy and efficiency within a human being, to manifest top working order over time. In short, we are not God so can't produce it, nor should we even try because "we mustn't mess with Mother Nature". The prana, the chi, the essence of the DNA/cell, the energy within it that gives it "Life" that makes it whole and perfectly functioning is not known, for good reason; because at this point in time, humanity cannot handle the ethics and morality of such knowledge.
So we have looked for the balance of use of such knowledge as we have at this point in time, we have created strains of different crops...even though we still see problems with that and how those foods interact with the human body, or any of the number of DNA/cell experimenting that is going on human, animal or plant. It all has imperfection, so we have people concerned with doing anything with DNA/cells at all.
I won't eat (as far as I can know) genetically altered, or irradiated food, or microwaved food because of the DNA/cell disruption that has occurred in it. But some people could care less. I have respect and great devotion to the original design of creation and try to have more as I learn more. But some people could care less or don't know of it, only know that they may be starving and will eat what ever they are given.
It is hard to stay on subject...but get my drift, which is, as individuals with different knowledge and experiences in life, we think, feel and act differently, so what we "see" as truth is different...but who is to say it is wrong or Perverse...it is where we are...but we can change and learn as long as we share knowledge, ideas, and acceptance of each other where we are.
Science, logic and reasoning are important components of our spiritual part of self and how we live in the world in a balance with all life, and I believe we cannot change as completely for the better until we accept that we were created with spiritual, mental, emotional and physical levels of consciousness that interact with the environment and other souls.
I see the duality of Truth...but as various philosophies, spiritualities and religions are trying to purvey...there is an Ultimate Truth in the Universe, that means to me that as we are human and have our sense of imperfections as separate from this Ultimate Truth of the Universe, we are moving back toward it and that is the intention of Life (moving toward that Ultimate Truth, God, Divine Plan, Universal Order/Structure, Oneness, etc...what ever a person needs to call it).
Is it not true that when you fly in an airplane, you have faith in the principles that keep it aloft based on the fact that you have seen planes fly again and again? All you know is that you have seen planes repeatedly demonstrate the ability to fly. You don't actually know for certain what keeps them up. You can't see the gravity pulling on the plane, and the air molecules bombarding the bottom of the wings. The lift and drag and all that stuff are invisible to you and yet you believe in them because of repeated demonstrations that they are there.
In this same way, theists believe in a God because of repeated instances when his morals were followed and good came of it. Just as there is clear and demonstratable evidence of the invisible properties that keep an airplane in the sky, there is clear and demonstratable evidence that there is a God.
Or so the theory goes...
Yeah, but (as I said in a previous post somewhere) would you step on board an airplane that had been built using nothing but the word of God and Biblical prophesy and was going to rely on faith and the power of prayer to get you to your destination? I think not, somehow.
But I think the crux of our disagreement on this issue comes down to the fact that the original question failed to distinguish between cognitive knowledge and noncognitive knowledge. Despite all you (and others) have said I cannot see how religion can provide us with any cognitive knowledge of any description whatsoever for the simple reason that none of its propositions can be tested, verified or demonstrated.
And if there is "clear and demonstrable evidence that there is a God", why are we having this debate?
Well, there is clear and demonstrable evidence that dinosaurs existed, but.......
To me it was a paradigm shift. Seeing clear and demonstrable evidence that "God" existed, I mean. Of course I couldn't prove it in the scientific way you mean with material facts and figures, but I accepted it and now just try to expound upon it...it is feeling and sharing with others...this sense of energy and knowing...some could parallel it with loving another person...it is a totally subjective and personally unique awareness of sense of self being a part of something bigger than self, yet feeling connection and One with that Big energy !!!
Why are people so stuck in not accepting that this "Love" exists? For me, it has been a gradual process of acceptance. I was very scientifically oriented in the beginning as well. I wanted proof and I kept getting it...not all of course in material facts, but in experiences that I can not refute as my crazy imagination. Believe me, I did my damndest to not accept these awarenesses, I was quite stubborn and still am about some things...we all know people like that !!??
There are so many factors that contribute to the block to "believing" ...spiritual, mental, emotional/psychological and physical as well as material. But we got to start somewhere and just keep plugging away at it...well I do anyway...for my own reasons...as others have their own.
Speaking of Mark .....I thought of a funny (I think anyway) blessing for you yesterday, about your leaving hubpages, or away more anyway. Here goes...
May you always get the Vulcan Mind meld as needed, and may all your Tribbles be sterile.
(remember that episode of the Tribbles)....talk about decades ago...!!?? I got quite a chuckle anyway when the thought crossed my mind.
Some people are stuck on not accepting that this "Love" exists by the evidence they see that proves it doesn't - The Holocaust ? Slavery ? Pedophilia ? Cancer ?
And the usual cop-outs won't work on me I'm afraid.
And some are just plain going to hold out for some actual evidence rather than hearsay and believers saying things like - "I believe God exists, therefore God exists."
I have seen and experienced things that have taught me the complete opposite to what you have "learned."
I can appreciate that...it is hard to believe any goodness exists when we read the news. For me, accepting that goodness does exist in most people and is vaguely evident in others, or completely not at all in some, was and is a constant challenge. But no one is perfect otherwise we wouldn't be here. For me, learning that we all have the potential for best or worst, at least gave me direction, and accepting that others make mistakes and forgiveness, etc...
But when it comes to the really big stuff like economic manipulation, government control, torture and abuse of others and the like...I fight it where I can. The more I see that upsets me the more harmonious I try to become, and then pray for the "judgment" of the levels of consciousness in others that have "fallen so far" from the "Love".
I can hear you now...piddly hogwash , right??? But, you don't comprehend the degree of "prayer" that is available that I practice. This form of "prayer" is based on all the science we know of and are learning of...the power of consciousness, united...based in harmony with others...not getting stuck in the "illusion", but also not seeing the illusion as unimportant, but rather as something that needs to be dealt with and "undone".
Let me know if you are interested, in the least.
Delusion is a terrible thing!! LOL
On the other hand, I was raised as RC and sometimes I think that if it were all true, then I'm well and truly shafted,
I am always interested in learning new stuff. BUT - I a have great faith in the non-existence of a God.
And I know your prayer cannot work - if it did, there would be no torture, suffering etc.
I have great respect for what others choose to believe - If they don't try and get me to believe it too.
And that's the crux for me - if you are secure in your beliefs, you will not see the need to inflict them on all around.
It's a bit like politicians - my belief is that anyone who WANTS to be President/Prime Minister etc - should be automatically disbarred from entering the race in the first place.
That should be litmus test right there, if you want the job, you are automatically disqualified.
P.S. Mark, I will be praying for you.
In my understanding of things, it's not that prayer doesn't work, it is that there are just as many people that aren't working on changing their consiousness to one of "Love" as there are those that perpetuate "not-'Love'". Even terrorist believe they are perpetuating God's will, because of the way they have interpreted God. We all interpret God different, and some choose to unite with others and believe a similar human way about things, hence creating, or in some instances mis-creating with God's energy. One of my favorite sayings is from Kuan Yin, a Divine Mother of Buddhism, "Evil is not real, and its appearance has no power". My addition to that is..."except what power we give it by perpetuating it". Can you agree with that?
this is not believing what I am saying, you haven't heard all of what I am saying yet
so, as more and more people uncover what is in their subconscious and unconscious and heal their psychology and bring greater balance to their total being, their prayers will eventually have greater wholistic effect on what they pray for. Hence as a group, the power is multiplied. And so it goes for those whether praying for "Love" or "non-Love". The important point is taking responsibility for ones own consciousness and the healing there of. That is why working and sharing, debating and discussing with others is so important. We all give some degree of input to each other that another might be in need of.
I have the need to communicate these aspects of my path and processing with others in an anonymous manner because physical confrontation is too physically disruptive !
I just want to jump in quickly and mention that there is scientific evidence that prayer does work! Whether you believe it is the result of divine intervention or something else, you can't deny the data.
Check out the work of Larry Dossey at http://www.dosseydossey.com/larry/default.html
Are we one mind???? That is my sentiment exactly. Anyone who 'wants' to be president has already demonstrated their lack of competency for the job.
I think both science and religion sprout from man's thirst for answers. Thinking members of the human species have never been that good at just going about our business like animals and not wondering what governs the universe and existence, and guessing at our purpose here. Our frontal lobe is too large.
Religion has filled the void that science hasn't been able to answer, to give comfort to people scared of the unknown. The problem is when religion becomes too powerful and stultifies science's work.
To the notion that belief in God is noncognitive, I would point out that the very presence of an ability to think noncognitively may imply that there is some value in such a method of thinking. In fact, I've noticed recently that logic is rather flawed. One can have a completely sound logical argument that is entirely wrong. If I build a box with absolutely no gaps in it--an all around perfect box--and claim that it is the only box I will ever need, I am fooling myself. Likewise, logical, cognitive, scientific principles can be completely enclosed leaving no questions to be asked but be completely wrong. I think that our ability to "think outside the box" is what allows us to move on to new findings. It is necessary to science that we sometimes think unscientifically, using intuition and gut feeling. Let us not forget Aritotle's geo-centric theory of the universe. People always associate this with the medieval church, but it originated from Aristotle, who was a very logical, and possibly atheistic man. His theories had no gaps in them, and therefore had no room to adjust where they were wrong.
We are having this argument, despite "clear and demonstrable evidence," because of the epistemic distance. This theory states that because God wanted man to have free will and therefore be truly seperate from him, he had to give them the option to deny him. Therefore, though his presence is evident in the universe, it is not overwhelming. Should God descend from Heaven and say, "Hey, Atheists, I do exist," then they would have no option but to believe. Free will would be compromised. Or so the theory goes...
I would like to take this time to ask that people please forgive what I'm sure are some ridiculous spelling mistakes. I'm traumatized from this paper, and the notion of opening Word to check my posts is revolting to me.
Agreed. Atheists say that all the time - "give me proof". The problem is deciding what's considered "proof". As a strong agnostic myself, I would say there is no "clear and demonstrable evidence" that God exists. We're still waiting.
and so some wait, all the while deeper things are going on in their being and the same with others around the planet and the deep stuff builds up until it has to acquire balance, and it blows up in our face as disease, or mental illness or insanity or war between the consciousnesses that are imbalanced and can't learn to get along with others. OR telling others they are wrong and you are right, and if you don't believe me you will die because I will blow you up for not believing, etc...
So instead, we seek by free will and learn to do the work of healing to bring balance to our being and live harmoniously with others, hence we learn to pray with more correct use of the power of the Universe for "Love".
I feel compelled once again to turn to my principle source of inspiration in matters of a spiritual/ theological nature:
"If only God would give me some clear sign - like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank!" (Woody Allen)
I don't think anyone (least of all me!) is trying to maintain that there is no value in noncognitive thinking. Of course there is. Isn't it the means by which we learn to breathe, to talk, to ride a bike, to grasp sensory experiences etc...?
But the process itself cannot be communicated - which is probably why (most) philosophy and science concern themselves with cognitive knowledge, and leave the rest to the mystics and others of that ilk.
Let me run a theory by you. Computers, not being sentient beings, have no way of reflecting on the programs they're running. They simply do it. I personally believe that to focus too much in understanding things cognitively is to get caught in a loop of philosophy. We start thinking about our thinking and take up precious brainspace that could be better used to run the "programs" that are ingrained in us. I believe that at the very base of these programs, there is God. we have a devine revelation within us. In fact, he would be less likened to software than to hardware. He is the very fabric of the universe, and the ground with which we are supported. And now this analogy has officially gone to far. But my point is, I believe we may waste our time trying to understand things cognitively.
C. S. Lewis, in his book, Surprised By Joy, touched down on this topic briefly. The whole book is about how we have certain things that fill the concept of how we are, and other things that fill the concept of how we're thinking. As soon as we focus on a "being" concept, it becomes a "thinking" concept, and we become something else. Example: I think about a mental disorder, I am being psychological. But as soon as I realize I'm being psychological and begin thinking about psychology, I become something else: philosophical, introspective. Humans have the unique ability to turn subjective things into objective things. We can view ourselves, and this has proven to help our species out considerably. But I feel we sometimes cut ourselves off from simple being. We are so focused on objectifying our views that we fail to see that we are clearly subjective creatures. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Uh...let me know if that made any sense.
my simple take on God (religion I guess if you will) and science, is God did it all. Every time I see something new I think, God dang how cool. Every time I see a crazy looking plant like a venus fly trap, I think, why would God make that, and when it comes down to science and knowledge, I think they work hand and hand, cause what could you know about Gods things if you didn't have the mind to concieve of them in the first place. As for art of religion and science as well, I read in a previous reply that science use to be the religion before religion, or that it was based on the stars, I second that, but today I think they dont mingle too well, my opinion, because evolutionist can't concieve of creation, while I view creation as an act of evolution.
Anyways, I was watching about how modern human bones (homosapien) were found to co-exist with Homoerectus and Homoa***something or other, 1.6 million years ago I think.
Also in Austrailia at the one rock quary where the oldest known organisms thus far had been discovered, had also found a tool, some stone that had ridges cut out of its side for a sling shot, I forget the name of it, but it was found to co-exist with the dinosaures.
Of couse even though there was an excavation and everything was done the same way they do everything else that is considered fact, it was thrown out because the guy who examined it wasn't the one who actually found it, so he called it a possibiblity of a hoax.
So scientist are shady people too, in the same way as some religions, if I didn't find it or experience it myself, then it is not true. It has to come from a person with a phd or something before it can be considered reliable evidence. Same thing with religions, you have to have a phd before God will speak to you. lol
Okay so I also do not believe in God as a figurehead. Most of you know that by now. But on the question of science and religion, they are closer than people want to acknowledge. This is my opinion and what I was trying to convey, as this thread was about religion and science being complementary.
Both scientists and religious people have 'faith' in their separate theories of the universe.
Scientists work to prove their theory.
Many religious people simply accept their theory.
Other religious people work to prove their theory, however, the evidence is purely anecdotal.
Many Doctors use anecdotal evidence all the time to treat patients. Not all medicine has been double blind tested.
We have 'faith' in our Doctors and scientists even when they have been proven wrong on many occasions.
Look at the history of science. Sound scientific theory has been refuted time and again as our knowledge changes.
No-one can prove or know exactly how the universe was created. It is all circumspect. At this point it is all belief. While evolution may have been proven by DNA, science still can't say what sparked life.
It is unknown.
Scientists and Religious people both have a burning desire to know the mechanics of the universe.
For Thom: Your argument is that proof is needed. Hard, cold numbers. However, in the history of science those hard, cold numbers have been proven wrong time and time again as new theories and new scientific minds come together.
However, even though those numbers have been proven wrong you continue to have unshakable faith in science and the human minds' capacity to provide evidence.
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference when it comes to the faith side of things.
Religious people believe in things that so far can't be proven or disproven.
All scientific people at one point have believed in something that has been proven to be wrong.
The definition of faith is: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Science contains faith just as religion does. That's all I'm saying. In this there is similarity.
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your post - I've been off doing other trivial and insignificant things - like living!
Actually, I don't have "ushakeable faith in science" - mostly because most of it goes right over my head. I just believe (and have seen nothing so far to make me change my mind) that when it comes to studying and seeking to understand the world we live in, science is a pretty good place to start.
I would agree that science contains an element of faith. But there is a significant difference, I think. Scientific faith isn't *blind* faith: it is faith based on observation and empirical evidence. It is *justifiable* faith: faith which one has *because* something has been demonstrated to be true.
With religious faith, it seems to me, you are placing faith *before* truth - you are, if you like, putting the metaphysical cart before the empirical horse.
Aren't there, in fact, two sorts of faith? Faith can mean "belief", but can also mean "reason to believe". It's when we confuse the two that problems occur.
This is a little difficult to understand, so I am going to break it up and answer each point as I go
You can change your consciousness all you like - it is not going to make anything outside your existence change. And I am not perpetuating "not-Love" when I say prayer doesn't work - which was a different discussion thread by the way
So some people, who believe in God, pray for destructive, negative things? If there was a God, I would be hard pushed to be arrogant enough to suggest I had any idea what was the right or wrong way to go about creating God's Energy.
Agree with which part? Evil is real, and it's appearance does have power. Just think back to films you have seen of the liberation of concentration camps after the second world war, or when the mass graves were dug up in Rwanda.
I am not sure I can reply to this without being offensive, but I will try Praying in groups does not multiply the effect - 1,000000000000 times zero still equals zero.
This is a complete cop-out and makes absolutely zero difference to anyone any where. I am reminded of a saying - "Prayer - It makes doing nothing look like you are doing something." Healing your own damaged consciousness help no one but yourself. And you have to ask why it is broken in the first place?
I agree - it's an extremely valuable way of learning.
I have no problem with that and completely understand. Even discussing anonymously can be disruptive - especially when you are arguing with some one as obstinate as I am
I see what you are trying to say - but you are getting things a little mixed up as far as I am concerned. But this is a good place to test and refine your arguments
A few issues I will take up:
Prayer and Religion are not the same thing.
Religions are responsible for most wars, miscarriages of justice, deaths, murders, mayhem and pollution of the collective psyche than almost any other organization.
And throughout the ages, people have prayed - in one form or another - how much difference has it made? - ZERO.
Religion has never taught us anything - It's not quantifiable and relies solely on faith. Nothing else. Faith in something that patently doesn't exist. How can that make sense?
I never said a vacuum puts out an energy field. You misquoted me.
I was poo poo ing Kirlian photography as proving anything, not saying vacuums put out an energy field.
You don't see a difference?
Perhaps I wasn't clear - Kirlian photography does not work if the subject is in a vacuum and show no aura.
Can you explain a little more, I guess I don't see the difference. My reply isn't for arguement sake, it's for understanding sake. Cause I don't think I said that the vaccuum itself puts out energy, I said that it comes from another source, a collective source, if you will, being the power source that comes from plugging it in, then the human source which turns it on to make something happen. I guess in short, I was trying to say that whether or not an aura is an accurate description of the energy of a prayer, it takes an outer source to make it work.
So then what happens in the world has everything to do with energy and people being the conductor or vessel in which all things happen.
Sorry for misquoting, I just remembered back on it from a few day ago.
ok, let me see if I can respond to each ( I will not be able to do all the nice separating of quotes as you have...my desire to answer outweighs my desire to learn to get better at computer skills!!! or maybe it is just the impatience to answer and not be distracted from my answers?!)
The way I interpret your answers is this:
...you don't believe you are a part of anything or that you have an affect on circumstances around you...
...you think I am arrogant because I believe there is a correct and incorrect way of using energy...
...yes, evil is real and its appearance is apparent....but i added the two parts together meaning that people create evil by their free will choices and that as we heal all levels of our consciousness and learn to chose better there would not be evil...all of the power of our consciousness would be focused on good and resistant to doing evil... I have great belief/faith in the vision of humanity being full of "Love"
...and you have PROOF that the multiplication factor of prayer is not so?...you are so omnipotent that you can see that prayer has not had an impact on any part of life or any degree of world situations?...
...actually religions have taught us a lot...about how not to be...but only if people are looking for change and more understanding...
was that all of the points?
I would have to say yes, absolutely they do, and they do it all the time. The more organised the religion, the more likely its adherents are to be (without realising it) praying for destructive, negative things.
The obsession with projecting "evil" as being "other", and then fearing it and praying to be delivered from it is the greatest perpetuator of unpleasantness in the cosmos.
You manifest whatever your thoughts dwell upon, "good" or "evil", and the more emotion there is behind it, the more rapidly and powerfully it manifests.
Love/gratitude/desire is a powerful emotion.
So is fear.
You create that which you love, AND that which you fear.
All those pentecostal congregations whipping each other into a frenzy of terror over the predations of "the devil" and "evil spirits" are actually the ones doing the Devil's work.
All that fear is a powerful creative impetus.
Dwelling in fear is praying for what you don't want.
God is love, and perfect love casteth out fear.
When you think about the ratio of fear thoughts to gratitude thoughts in the average human being, there is absolutely no surprise that the world is full of things we don't want.
Probably not a great idea to re-quote everything like this
I do believe that I am a part of something, but I am as significant as a grain of sand on the beach.
Yes, I think people who say they know the correct way of using God's energy are arrogant.
Faith/belief changes nothing except your own perceptions.
Yes - I have PROOF that 1000000000 times zero is still zero. Show me a for instance of prayer making a difference that is measurable.
We agree - religions have taught us a negative. How not to do something.
Yes, I think that was all of them.
Are you significant enough to take responsibility for your own actions and not make the same mistake twice? Do you believe that not making the same mistake again is a good thing? And that makes you arrogant, to know better the next time?
And isn't perception the name of the game when it comes to prayer...of course our powers of perception accumulate in energy as consciousness...that is faith/belief.
Prayer that is measurable by who's standards? Science again? Are we talking about the same prayer definition here...when I use the word "prayer" in this instance, I mean any form thereof; Contemplation, meditation, affirmation, fiat, decree, spoken, silent, command or supplication.
And I understand prayer as a unifying force that I merge with to add more power to the prayer, by connecting with the great antakarana of life, that we are all a part of.
I can see the automobile in front of me that my prayer of faith energy, power of consciousness energy, physical excertion of energy, constancy of action energy, precipitated. Do you propel yourself daily with no interaction with the Source that belief provides? Just choosing to breathe each breath, get out of bed and do your thing is a belief and a measurable quantity, is it not?
I think as we progress in our change of consciousness, the definitions of science will change too as well as the definitions of religions/spirituality...hopefully into a more unifying concept.
Taking responsibility for my own actions and saying I know the correct way to use "God's energy" are not the same thing.
Exactly - means nothing to anyone but you.
Any standards other than someone saying, "I believe - therefore it is so."
I never said I didn't interact with the source if by that you mean the environment I exsist in. And I do not need your belief - I am sure of myself and my part in the whole picture. A grain of sand on the beach.
Don't kid yourself. Why do you think the creationist are so dead set against science. There can be only one....
OK - what you have just seaid is on a different tack.
Kirlian photography is supposed to "prove" that people have a visible "aura" by showing it on a photograph.
But - when you take a Kirlian photograph with the subject in a vacuum, the "aura" is not there.
Therefore Kirlian proves nothing.
For the most part in the ancient time I would put Science in the same ground as religion.
But based on today's terms of "science" I think it seems that the agenda of science is to denounce the existence of God. More of a God vs. Science debate. In the Bible, Genesis Chapter 1- The whole creation is questioned in science. Scriptures do talk about not following false science. Now I'm not saying that everything that is taught in science is wrong, but if there purpose is to attack the word of God, then I would avoid the debate and confusion.
well just like religion, all are pushing for conformity, so science wants to prove either way that there is or is not a God with evidence. So we can clear up the whole debate.
The purpose of science is to explain the way things work.
Obviously, this is going to clash with the whole idea of a supreme being making the world.
That's not science's primary goal though - but it's the reason scientists, witches and heretics were burned at the stake in the past.
I guess I get hung up on the term "religion". If you guys mean religion as form, then I agree. Otherwise, I see both as quests for truth, and I'm not sure there is much distinction other than methodology.
I don't think most religious people get this idea, but there is no conflict between the two; or, rather, there shouldn't be.
That's what I was trying to tell them a couple of pages before They prefer to fight, though
No, it is not a fight, yes a discussion...I mean who knows what it could turn into if we were talking face to face...but over the net it is easy to sit back and ponder and not feel as if one has to defend one's self and position...at least I would hope that for everyone. This way, more people get to share where they are at this point in time about the subject...and who knows...maybe change or add something, or take away something in their current position. I do believe that communication helps us to refine who we are once we let down any major sense of needing to defend our positions and not be afraid of change or interaction
I agree, Not all scientific studies are aimed towards Religion or rather God. But the vibe at times of these studies seems to question the Bible. Not in the sense to prove what the scriptures is saying is right.
In respect to the original question, I think that religion is always linked to science, in all aspect of being, astronomy, biology, etc.
I think a good scientist also stays open to the possibility of God, a good scientist just puts out the facts, and then someone with a onesided opinion comes along and calls it proof for or againts, when either path is never completely factual. It changes all the time, but God (The Spirit that is) has been forever consistant.
That would be because the scientific method involves questioning everything.
When you do any experiment, you take a hypothesis, based on a theory, and then you do your damnedest to prove your hypothesis is wrong.
If you can't prove the hypothesis wrong, then you effectively say 'All right, just for now, we will accept this theory, until I think of another hypothesis based on it and I can try again to prove it's wrong."
Scientists have been doing experiments trying to DISPROVE evolution for a hundred years now. The reason it is still taught in schools and universities is that nobody has managed to set up an experiment which disproves it yet.
But that experiment could show up tomorrow, in which case scientists would turn their minds to developing a theory which explains all the stuff that evolution explains AND also explains the new evidence that disproves evolution.
In other words, scientists are always, if they follow scientific method, poised to throw out the current theory and come up with a new one whenever the evidence warrants it. They are always in a state of questioning and trying to disprove everything.
Including the theory that God created everything.
Their skepticism is not personal to any particular theory - it is universal.
P.S. Individual human beings, of course, are prone to emotions and bias, and don't always follow scientific method. I am talking about Science As She Is Supposed To Be Done.
I just read pretty much all of this thread (whew!), and I just want to say that all of my scientific knowledge only confirms my belief that there is a God. (See: sync theory.)
Misha - No fighting, just discussion.
I am quite prepared to accept the bible as metaphorical - In which case, I am all over it - I think it's one of the best books ever written,
But there are those who take the bible as a LITERAL TRUTH.
And science is always going to be a threat to those people - see Spanish Inquisition.
There can be only one.
Mark, sorry for leaving so abruptly earlier...I looked up and it was past noon and I had to get some work done for the day. I would like to say thank you for sharing your views with me, it was a pleasure to converse on what can be a difficult subject for a lot of people. The problem is there is no end ...!!! One question brings up another and on and on it could go...for me anyway.
So I have an interesting observation to make on the science and religion discussion.
People seem to equate the word religion to Christian religion only.
Every time a comment is put forth about 'religion' it is followed by a statement either 'for the existence of God' or 'against the existence of God'.
However there are literally millions of us who are devoutly religious who do not follow God.
Estimates just of Buddhists alone are about 310-350 million people worldwide. Some even estimate up to 500 million followers worldwide.
And for the record we embrace science. We embrace the scientific philosophies of experiment and logical probing. We have done proper scientific experiments on the effects of meditation. It is true that a lot of our core beliefs are based on anecdotal evidence only but some of our philosophies are mirrored by experiments in physics particularly quantum physics. The Dalai Lama in fact is involved in the Emory-Tibet Science Initiative. To bring science and religion together in studies BECAUSE they are so complementary in Buddhist philosophies.
So if we're going to talk about science and religion then shouldn't we encompass the whole thing.
Because to be brutally honest it is Christians and Scientists that seem to argue about the universe and to stubbornly refuse to listen to one another.
So saying that all religious people feel that way is not accurate at all. I say this with no hard feelings or wish to argue. I know it's tough to gauge emotion in written statements.
It's just an observation from reading the religion forum threads.
I agree whole heartedly on the full scope of people on the planet...but isn't it just that right now on this thread it (was..) is mostly Christian based people interacting? Thank you for speaking up. But isn't it harder for someone to speak about a position of religion they know next to nothing about and so only speak from their own experience.
I have tried for years to consider as many other religions, spiritualities, philosophies, belief systems, etc...to try and be able to discuss matters with others of any belief.
I grew up in a very low key Christian American home where religion and psychology where big no no subjects...I find it now, a great privilege to be able to discuss the subjects with others as they have become such a big part of my life through the years. Bringing science and religion together has been the greatest door opener for me in discussions. I finally feel as if I have something I can relate to and share with others.
I completely agree everyone can only speak from personal knowledge. However, just about everyone is aware of the diversity of religion out there, yet just about everyone seems to use the word 'religion' to imply Christian religion. My personal opinion is that this is not a good
thing to do. Blanket statements about what religious people think or believe aren't helpful. That is why I mentioned it. To bring awareness to this fact.
I understand that the majority of Hubbers here seem to be either Christian, Agnostic or Atheist, but I don't believe that statements such as:
"I don't think most religious people get this idea, but there is no conflict between the two; or, rather, there shouldn't be."
is helpful or accurate. Because I don't see a conflict between religion and science. And neither do a lot of other religious people. As I said it's just an observation.
RFox...and speaking of Dalai Lama and that project...could you give us the web address, it has been quite a while since I first began to read about it...I would like to read more. Do you have any recent updates on the projects that you could expound upon for this forum, of how science and "religions" are complementary?
Yes, I will get that for you. Gotta run now though.
Here are some links for the Science Initiative SparklingJewel:
A quote from the Dalai Lama on science and religion:
“I deeply appreciate that Emory University has made a commitment to collaborate with the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives to develop and implement a comprehensive and sustainable science education program. I have long believed in and advocated a dialogue and cross-fertilization between science and spirituality, as both are essential for enriching human life and alleviating suffering on both individual and global levels. The Emory-Tibet Science Initiative has a unique opportunity to fulfill this need, and thus make a contribution not only to the Emory and Tibetan communities, but to the world at large, by expanding the horizons of human knowledge and wisdom.”
I have had some profound personal "revelations' through the years studying different religions, philosophies, spiritualities, etc... The ideas that have come up in my readings about the differences between eastern and western religions/spiritual ideas and the need to understand what the similarities or complementary ideas are, seems truly profound. When I consider that I believe that "God" speaks to everyone saying the same thing, but that we just only understand from the position we are in (all the cultural, family, societal influences, etc) and interpret accordingly. Anyway my point being:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if westerners could understand the easterners concepts of "God/Source/One, etc" It has got to do with psychology, a humans internal sense of self and ones position in the Universe of Creation and how we learn that differently east and west.
I have to admit I truly feel blessed to feel ok with what I know about both. I just want to be able to relay to others, so others can feel as good as I do about understanding and getting along and working things out.
Anyway, so I think and I feel that this Emory University-Tibetian Science project will truly bear some good fruit.
This is a "touchy" subject.
I know why I am so offended by people insisting that I need to believe what they believe regarding religion. I have personal reasons. In fact my grandparents switched from high church protestantism to catholicism because the protestants were allowing female priests to be ordained.
What I don't understand is why they get upset back? If you truly believe that God created the world in 7 days and there is no such thing as evolution - why on earth would it upset you if some one chooses to believe otherwise? They are surely going to hell (depending on which denomination you are.)
The only answer I can come up with is that they do not truly believe and any argument against the idea sows seeds of doubt in their mind and this is what is hard to accept?
A bit off topic, but what do you all think?
If you believe the bible as a literal truth - why does it bother you that someone else chooses to believe otherwise?
Well said, Mark (as always).
I'm off to Paris for a few days for some highly-anticipated (but not, I must confess, entirely spiritual) nourishment. I look forward to rejoining the debate when I return - I'm sure it will still be raging!
Keep the rational flag flying! A bientot!
This is an excellent point.
I have always wondered why people become defensive and antagonistic in regards to religious discussions if they truly believe in their doctrine.
It is fun and interesting to debate from different viewpoints in an intellectual fashion.
So I have to agree. I feel if someone is desperately trying to convert everyone around them and becomes upset if someone challenges this belief then it is because they are insecure in their faith. If you truly believe in your path then it doesn't matter what other people think.
One path is not right for everyone. People are diverse and so religions need to be diverse. What speaks to one person will not necessarily speak to someone else. And taking the scientific path is just as valid as a religious path. And if you believe that a non-believer is going to hell why should that matter to you?
My Catholic friends laugh about the fact that I can't go to heaven according to their faith because I'm not baptized. But because they have true faith they could less if I'm a "heathen".
And I have read and studied the Bible and I don't remember anything about actively converting people being a mandate to getting into heaven. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember it. I feel that this pushing of religion onto people who aren't interested is what gives religion a bad name. I feel that this is what causes dialogue between faiths and between the scientific community to break down.
Imagine what we could accomplish if we worked together.
This is my personal opinion.
I have ticked off a lot people with my remarks too, and they hate me for it because evidentaly I have a different God then them. And some hate it and even call me the devil because, My God, the way I know God, eveyone goes to Heaven whether you believe in the Bible or Jesus or something else.
I get upset because they say I will go to Hell, or I have to believe in Hell, and they call me blasphemous because I say, I believe in God, therefore I do not believe in Hell.
You see, I don't push my ideas on people and expect that they are just going to accept it, I just want to say what I think and not have anyone say something disrespectful and ill to me for saying, I do not need faith, I know God.
Plus what really, really makes me mad is that most haven't read the Bible, have not taken any meaning other than the literal word, or given any thought about it. They listen to someone elses opinion or view of what is right, adopt it, and say you have to do it. And that is not right and completely contrary to what Jesus said.
But they must know because they know me or they know God, or they have met Jesus or because they have a PHd in Bible study, but a phd doesn't prove anything more than an ability to manipulate people into believing they will go to Hell or conforming (or converting) people (Jesus was not a conformist) and it's messed up.
I am glad you asked that question, even though my problem seems to aimed at people who do believe in God. Go figure.
I agree, Mark. I think the people who tend to get most offended are offended by the challenge to their own faith. The whole "comfortable in their own skin" thing.
I guess it is because of my migration from agnosticism to faith that I can relate to all sides of the question.
It is somewhat narrow minded to insist on a 7-day creation. I'm not even sure the original Hebrew supports that. As best I can tell from reading the English, there is no "day" as we know it until day 4 anyway. But, that's a discussion for another day.
The only thing I insist on is that people come to faith on their own terms. I wasn't argued into belief. That whole argument drove me away, in fact. I do not understand the "Christian" belief that people have to be converted by force. That idea is not even supported in scripture.
I am a Christian, by most definitions, but most Christians forget the whole point of the gospel they preach, that there is now no condemnation in Christ Jesus. Conversion by guilt doesn't work either.
SparklingJewel: And this is the curriculum for the Buddhist monks/nuns thanks to Emory University:
Our pedagogical approach is grounded in the principles of problem based learning, collaborative learning, active learning, and experiential learning. Our science curriculum will include many opportunities for dialogue and discussion, demonstrations, experiments, and field work. Each year, a four week session led initially by Emory science faculty will be augmented throughout the remainder of the year with an onsite science educator, thereby ensuring continuity.
The Science Curriculum for Tibetan Monastics is integrated across all of the scientific disciplines and will focus on building foundational skills and conceptual understanding as well as introducing advanced level concepts and discoveries of modern science. In accordance with His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s recommendations, the three overarching topics are: Cosmology, Life Sciences, and Neuro/Cognitive Science. Each topic will be initiated through compelling questions and problems or discoveries that will be of direct interest to the students. This strategy will anchor subsequent discussions and maintain interest levels. In all the topics, mathematics will be introduced when needed and in an appropriate scientific contexts. Historical accounts will provide a developmental perspective when appropriate.
ETSI’s goals are aligned with The Dalai Lama’s articulation of two levels of competency. A novice level graduate of the program would have a general conceptual understanding of science and an expert level graduate would be able to participate and contribute to scientific experimentation and discourse.
Emory-Tibet Science Initiative’s comprehensive science curriculum will officially commence in 2008. A brief outline of the first year curriculum is presented below.
A: Philosophy of Science
We will explore the similarities and differences between Ancient Greek philosophy and Buddhism that are relevant to science..
Rules of logical inference
We will introduce ideas of probability and reasoning about probabilistic phenomena. To build mathematical skills, we will discuss mathematical formalization, representation of values by variables, quantitative relationships, and measurements. Early sessions will demonstrate the scientific method and the rules of scientific debate.
Logic of hypothesis generation and theory testing
Here we will consider the nature of Experimentation and how the best explanation is chosen.
The Cosmology unit will begin with a description of the Universe, visit the development of ancient astronomy, the solar system and talk about the formation of the earth. Leading into the laws of electromagnetism and the contributions of Coulomb-Ampére-Faraday-Maxwell electromagnetism, we will explore astrospectroscopy and lead into the current century. Quantum physics, polarization, Einstein’s contributions will be some of the topics that we will visit towards the end of the unit. The unit will most likely conclude with a discussion of the Big Bang Theory and a debate about Buddhist and scientific world views.
C: Life Sciences
Biology faculty will initiate this unit with the notion of time to lead into Darwin, Lyell and a discussion of geological time. The unit will include a discussion Darwin’s contributions, adaptation, survival of the fittest, natural selection, diversity and conservation. A closer look at the evolution of humans will consider social tension, Leakey’s contributions, discovery of human ancestors, the evolution of the bran, the nature of behaviors and lead into a discussion of genes and genetics. Darwin's Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals
D: Neuro/Cognitive Sciences
The neuro/cognitive sciences unit will introduce the brain as the locus of the mind, as the center of mental life, its architecture, the functional specificity of the cortex and subcortical areas, and discuss the cooperative brain and its relation to complex mental functions. In the next section, this unit will discuss affective and social neuroscience and memory. Topics will include fear, aggression, addiction, memory etc. In the last section of this unit, faculty will introduce concepts of perception and action and mind-body interactions, sensory transduction, volitional movements and reflexes, brain maps, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and stress.
Religion can embrace science.
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say,...
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
until it is accepted as fact or theory.It is important to remember that the theories of science were once unheard of and not a part of the current accepted knowledge base. Every discovery was developed by someone...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
Learning facts from Science as well as from Word of RevelationHi friendsPlease excuse me.I rephrase the contents of a post by our friend” Q”:http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/43956?page=2“The true believers of Word...
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 paarsurrey6 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 EmVeeT5 years ago
I came to the HubPages Forum several months ago posting a "challenge" that must have seemed presumptuous (though I didn't intend it) or (perhaps) arrogant of me... By the end of it though, I considered my...
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.