jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (9 posts)

"Science Without Religion is Lame. Religion without Science is Blind"-Albert Ein

  1. threekeys profile image80
    threekeysposted 20 months ago

    "Science Without Religion is Lame. Religion without Science is Blind"-Albert Einstein

    Why cannot both co-exist? Why does it have to be one or the other? Both want to control both one's circumstances or another person's behaviour/action. Both want to predict the future. Both crave to be sources of certainty in an uncertain World. Both attempt to make the invisible the visible. What are your thoughts?

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13078443_f260.jpg

  2. CYong74 profile image96
    CYong74posted 20 months ago

    I am not sure I'd agree with you that religion aims to make the invisible the visible. A good part of religion, at least to me, insists on the invisible remaining unseen. That aside, I believe both religion and science are forms of sensibility. Religion emphasizes on sensibility towards mankind. Science emphasizes on sensibility towards the natural world. Since humans and the world can never exist independent of each other, anybody who insists otherwise is just heading for tragedy. What I'm saying, religion and science already complement each other. It's individuals who insist on them not to.

  3. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
    bradmasterOCcalposted 20 months ago

    Religion if following a true God would have no need for science as the God would control the science. Religion and Science would be one.

    That is not the case, and that brings us to Religion Versus Science.
    God is not the subject of Science, and Religion doesn't revolve around Science.

    The Science found in Genesis is primitive and contains no evidence of divine knowledge. It is vague and ambiguous and not written contemporaneous with the events depicted in it.

    Science is looking for the truths of the universe, while Religion asserts that God is the universe. The paths of Science and Religion have not found a meaningful intersect to bear any correlation to each other.

    Once again I must question the logic of one of the world's most exception geniuses. His statement while colorful doesn't bring any fruit. Science is about proof, while Religion is about faith, faith that God is the proof.

    Science is a container and it have many theories on the road to finding the truth. Religion is the end of the road, as truth is imputed by merely following religion and its God.

    Even at the end of time, Science finds the truths of the universe, and the existence of a God, Religion never offered any details, only a conclusion.

    It is like giving you the answer the a very complex and long equation. Say the answer is 42, what was the question.
    Science would give the equation and detail its every step to conclude with the answer being 42.

    There is also the case where both Science and Religion come up with the same answer 42, but the question was not the same.

    Religion is a finished book, and the ending has been determined. Science is a book in progress and the ending has not been determined. As we learn more the book progresses, and sometimes previous truths have been found to be wrong. They are then rewritten with the current knowledge.

    Religion never changes the book, although people have different interpretations of the meanings of the book's content.

    1. Ericdierker profile image58
      Ericdierkerposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Interesting view of both science and religion as being sort of monolithic concepts.

    2. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Eric
      I hope I wasn't that cerebral.

  4. Dr CHE Sadaphal profile image79
    Dr CHE Sadaphalposted 20 months ago

    Why cannot both co-exist?

    But they can both co-exist. The Biblical view is that human beings were created "very good" and as a part of this goodness they can use their reason, intellect and creativity which can manifest in the sciences. This is why I, as a Christian scientist, can sleep peacefully at night knowing that my faith and my esteem for science need not be opposed. Hence in my medical practice, I never consult the Bible to discern what the best antibiotic is to use. Nor do I pray and ask how I should fix a broken bone. The Creator has gifted intellect which has already solved these problems.

    Why does it have to be one or the other?

    This question first assumes a conflict and they asks the one questioned to respond, but the question is based on a false assumption. In Francis Schaeffer's book, "No Final Conflict" the idea is put forth that ultimately there will not be a irresolvable struggle between science and the Bible. Many people will look to the Bible in search of scientific truth and while it does have some scientific insights (like pi) the Bible is not a scientific textbook nor does it claims to be. Why? Because it's primary aim is to reveal God and to reveal the plan for salvation. If you ask the Bible a scientific question and it remains silent this doesn't mean its inadequate. It's simply focusing its attention what you'll be doing for eternity, not the scientific dilemma that you may have now.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      No one has ever seen God, and that includes the biblical Adam and Eve. Pi was known before the bibles were written. It has been known for over 4000 yrs. That is a 1000 years before the bible.

    2. Dr CHE Sadaphal profile image79
      Dr CHE Sadaphalposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      To say "no one has ever seen God" is a declaration (not a proof) that contradicts the reliable historicity of the Bible, Talmud, letters of Pliny the Younger (a Roman) & Josephus. You may disagree w/ Christ being God but He has been seen my many.

  5. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 19 months ago

    Without moral absolutes set by a higher power, there are no moral boundaries.
    If you base morality on majority rule, the 10% held as slaves are irrelevant if the majority agrees - and a lynch mob is right over the victim.
    If you base morality on current social norms, you run the risk that the exact opposite becomes acceptable in a generation.

    Then you end up with ethical human experimentation to the point of murder, because what is one life in the face of those it might help.
    Then you get medical torture and mind-alteration to fit authoritarian desires for conformity, because the greater good exceeds that of the individual's harm.
    Then you get atrocities made OK because enough people said so today.

 
working