There took place an interesting discussion on the above topic, initiated by me, on my favorite discussion forum, the hubpages. I have omitted some of the posts which were not directly related to the issue of the topic and which don’t add any meaning to the discussion at hand; the conversation is given hereunder for the viewers of this blog with courtesy of hubpages. I, however, respect and love all the posters on the hubpages.
One may access the following link to see the whole of it.
OP from paarsurrey
Science by definition does not cover the whole of human life; it only deals in the things physical. Religion covers the whole life and provides guidance and goes beyond the physical to ethical, moral and spiritual. So there is no, necessarily, any contradiction in the truthful religion and the truthful science.
No messenger prophet of the Creator God ever opposed science; they always supported science and the scientists if they were correct on an issue. Science searches reality with experiments while religion with experiences.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah of the era, supported science and exhorted to gains its knowledge.
For many years the Catholic Church refused to accept many scientific truths in the UK for fear it would detract from religion
The Church does not represent Jesus; Church follows Paul- the seed of anti-Christ.
Jesus did not oppose any scientific truth; he supported knowledge, revelation and reason; revelation enhances reason; they both are good friends.
3. A Troubled Man
That is not true. Science does not support your twisted definition.
Yet, we can see by your posts that your religion has not taught you to be moral or ethical, so your point is moot.
Yet, in the reality of which you have not joined, religion and science are contradictory.
Science is not mutually exclusive with religion. If science proved the existence of God, would that somehow detract from religion?
5. Jesus was a hippy
Science only deals with the physical and since you cannot demonstrate that life is anything more than physical then it remains just that; Physical.
Science covers everything about life because life is physical.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise?
6. Mikel G Roberts
Science is not just the physical.
Logic is the science of inference and rational thought.
Psychology is the science of behavior and mental processes.
Those are just two examples of non physical sciences.
The topic of what is truly a science and what isn’t is debated greatly among those who are on these forums… some think that logic trumps science, some think vice versa. Some think only physical sciences where the scientific method can be applied are true sciences.
Science doesn’t detract from spiritual believe however how science is interpreted by some people does.
Take the event of Jesus walking on water there is no way some people will ever accept that idea because they can only accept what seems logical to them.
I was thinking about these super heroes we see at the movies like Superman for example and I decided we cannot have a superhero because we would very quickly make him/her our God because what they do we can see them doing and so that’s logical thus making it acceptable.
We as mankind have proven we can accept and worship stone statutes but never an invisible God.
Science doesn’t detract from spiritual belief however how science is interpreted by some people does; and that is their error; after all they are human beings and it is in their nature to doubt and err.
A Troubled Man
That’s magic, are you saying we should accept magic?
We have accepted hundreds of invisible gods throughout history, yours included.
Surely the fact that there has never been a scientific explanation of having a God that many people remain skeptical of religion?
No more so than the reality of anything else science hasn’t discovered yet.
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of people. Those who think that things that science hasn’t discovered yet (invisible things) are ridiculous and those who think things that science hasn’t discovered yet are possible.
I guess there are also people who just don’t care…
12. A Troubled Man
By not considering the crank and the crackpot from the scientist, the rational from the irrational and the insane from the sane, your generalization lacks relevancy and foresight.
It is certainly relevant. Some people think that, for instance, proving abiogenesis would prove that God doesn’t exist. Others think that it would only prove that abiogenesis exists.
[Definition of ABIOGENESIS
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
— abi•og•e•nist \ˌā-(ˌ)bī-ˈä-jə-nist\ noun ]
Some people believe that things we can’t see are ridiculous. Others believe that there are things which we can’t yet see.
Science bolsters the beliefs of those who believe, and bolsters those who don’t believe in a similar manner.
14. A Troubled Man
Really? Some people think that?
Funny how you think repeating yourself without making the very same considerations between the rational and irrational somehow makes it valid.
And yet, what we’ve found throughout history is those who believe have been forced to change their beliefs in light of science. Bolster?
Yes. As irrational as it seems, some people think that.
What’s irrational and what’s rational, to you?
Like people who thought the earth was flat, or the center of the universe. Belief isn’t necessarily religious.
None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science.
And your point is… ?
17. A Troubled Man
I want to able to quote this from time to time as it sums up your position in a nutshell while stretching across the vast expanse of fallacy.
“None of my religious beliefs have ever been challenged by science.”
Care to try and show me anything fallacious about it? Or do you still deny what the logical burden of proof is?
Show me one scientific discovery that challenges my beliefs.
19. A Troubled Man
That’s what I thought.
21. Paddington Green
It depends which field of science you are talking about. Old Newtonian physics was used by science to explain the universe without a need for a god. The belief in a steady universe, which had always existed seemed to show that a moment of creation had not happened, and so therefore there was no creator.
However, the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe did have a beginning and therefore has allowed the religious believer the possibility of pointing to science as supporting their belief. And some of the ideas of quantum physics seem almost like magic and supernatural, even though quantum physics has been proven to actually work.
some people have closed minds (not open) and they find ways in which Science can justify what they believed in
I sadly have no belief because i’ve not been shown proof in a god.
24. Mikel G Roberts
I’ve got proof, haven’t you heard?
For me, it has increased my faith.
Hubpages is a good discussion site; one could comment there or here in this blog; comments are most welcome.