Posts Tagged ‘science and religion’

Science gets incapacitated in revealed religions

October 25, 2017

Thread:” Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? ”
Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 23: 

D—–the-D—-n wrote:
[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]

This is the science and religion sub forum. In the sticky posting the rules for debate one is required to substantiate claims. Perhaps, random ramblings, apologetics , or faith,doctine & dogma would be a better fit for someone who does not wish to support said claims.

That being said I would be willing to consider why I should believe in your proposed creator given you could substantiate the idea.

Paarsurrey1 wrote:

OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so “evidence” here means that could be “observed” physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science:

The University of California, Berkeley
snapshot 

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

misconceptions 
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn’t make moral judgments
Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So, it is meaningless to ask for “evidence”, “proof” based on “observation” in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please? 


Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please?

Regards

*science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers.

Science without religion is lame

October 23, 2017

Thread:”Scientific search for what is God.”
Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 84: 

[Replying to post 79 by J——-k]

 

Quote:

The words are true regardless of your sensitivities.

Science is lame without religion = because that is the way it is – not because Einstein said so.
Religion is blind without science = because that is the way it is – not because Einstein said so.

Paarsurrey wrote:

Even if it had not been said by Einstein and even if it would have been from an anonymous writer, the sentence is valuable and priceless, I agree.

Regards

“The letter will go on sale at Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair on Thursday and is expected to fetch up to £8,000. ”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

No founder of a revealed religion ever opposed science or scientific endeavors

March 24, 2014

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/life/science-on-religion-looks-at-science-vs-religion/#comment-8873

paarsurrey
MAR 24, 2014 @ 14:37:36

I think science and religion work in different realm; so there is no contradiction in science and religion if correctly interpreted.

No founder of a revealed religion like Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad ever opposed science or scientific endeavors.

Religious people have served science very much; this fact cannot be denied.

Religion is a path that leads to God; this path is not physical or material; so science has nothing to do with it.

I think everybody reasonable must have to agree with it.

Thanks and regards

paarsurrey writes

May 26, 2012

I am these day writing on<http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/>; I have contributed my posts in the following threads:

  1. Blind faith equally deplorable both in science and religion
  2. Buddha believed in purdah
  3. There is no contradiction in Religion and Science
  4. Buddha spoke vehemently against Skepticism agnosticism
  5. There is nothing in Kalama Sutta that supports Atheists
  6. Buddha believed in the Creator God
  7. The Gospel of Buddha
  8. Christopher Hitchens is wrong to say “There is no Eastern solution”
  9. Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made
  10. Buddha talked of purification of self
  11. How did Buddha meet his dead mother in heaven?
  12. Buddha favors religion and shuns having no-religion 
  13. Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God? 

The viewers of my blog may like to read my posts on these topics.

The viewers could make their comments there or here in this blog. I value their comments,

Influence of the one true God on the physical world

May 22, 2012

Question: Even if the one true God is not physical then he must have some influence on the physical world, or else he would not be much of a god.

If This Creator God interacts with the universe on a regular basis it is possible that you could detect that and work out that God’s existence is plausible.

But if the Creator God’s only action was to create the universe, and then leave it alone then it would leave no evidence for God’s existence.

Paarsurrey comments: One true God- an attributive being, has influence on the physical realm on regular basis with his attributes. But He has maintained a balance; a believer sees Him in everything and the non-believer does not see any influence of Him in anything. One can find Him only in the ways He has told; not otherwise; hence there will always be a divide in the issue; neither side winning while claiming superiority that they have won.

Reason of itself is blind; it always needs a conjugal partner to ascertain things. For things happened in the past reason needs history or archaeology etc., for the present one needs radio, television, newspaper and for future just a conjecture.

Human eyes cannot see things without light; human ear needs a medium to hear.

Religion is not against science or knowledge; Quote just one founder of the revealed religions like Buddha, Krishna, Moses, and Zoroaster, Jesus who spoke against science or knowledge.

In the moral and the spiritual realm; instead of experiments there are experiences, vision, and revelation.

I don’t think that the values of a piece of art could be assessed accurately by any physical experiments in the lab; one assesses it with one’s aesthetic sense developed over a period of time.

Humans need both science and religion; like one naturally and comfortably moves with both the legs; the same way humans travel the journey of life with sciences and religion; while there could be people having blind faith in science or religion; common on both sides.