Is Religion Still Relevant After Science
-
I can't believe I have stumbled upon this place
Just to ask the views of believers. Is religion still relevant in today society where science has became a medium. It seems to have corrode most accounts from more religion texts. Why have faith on something that cannot be proved ? -
It's not hard to see why faith still has a place in many people's lives, this is because science, as an all-emcompassing worldview died along with modernism, which is not surprising, though it took us a while to realize the full implications of it.
This is because science itself is a system a limited, finite approach that is itself caught in the very system it is trying to observe. Science can tell you the "how" and "what" about truth, but not the "why". For this reason, science supplements, rather then replaces faith, whatever faith you may hold, be it theistic or atheist.
What is science but a study of the physical nature of the universe, be it light photons or the particulate state, the organization of quanta and geometric quantum points we call matter?
For even for science itself requires faith to be revelant. You can create as many equations and theories as you like, but in the end you still have to step into the unknown and conduct the experiment yourself to see if it's really real. The very belief in various unproven theories by virtue of their arguments alone also requires faith. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to funtion without some measure of faith.
When science is our only way of looking at the world, then it is a sad day indeed, love would have no more meaning then a series of chemical reactions which we are enslaved to, the bond we share with our partners nothing more then just an illusion, our artistic nature no more then a freak of our overdeveloped brain, the things we call beautiful and good no more then just meaningless constructs which are no more important then just organizations of matter. Music is nothing more then a series of rarefractions and compression of air and in the end, we do the math and realize that in the end, the whole universe is gonna decay away anyway.
So much for soloscience as a worldview.
Indeed, it seems to me that to only embrace science closes off my world to a lot of other good things, for if I could only apperciate the things I can observe, understand and quantify, then I miss alot because I am hardly all-knowing with my pea-brain.
Science was never intended to replace faith, as it was, the modern scientific method itself was birthed from Christianity and Judasim, back then, in which the people of faith who saw their Creator as a rational and organized being and hence created the universe as so, and figured that there would be a rational and organized way in which to study His creation.
To lean heavily on science and discard faith, would be pretty pompus and arrogrant, not to mention foolish and unscientific. For a true scientist would never disregard the possibility that there is a place for faith and the things that we can never understand.
So is religon revelant after science? Very, if not more so. Having being exposed to the sheer complexity and wonder of the universe, the choice now stares us even more starkly in the face. To believe in someone who made it all start or dismiss it all as nothing more then a fantastic accident. -
Few questions..
Science can tell you the "how" and "what" about truth, but not the "why"
Why should there be a "why" about truth ? Why should there be a reason, lets say, gravity to exists or why should there be a reason why there is an apple ? First assumption is all these things around us r not built up by an intelligent being, thus all the physics thing around here is isn't there for a specific purpose.For even for science itself requires faith to be revelant. You can create as many equations and theories as you like, but in the end you still have to step into the unknown and conduct the experiment yourself to see if it's really real. The very belief in various unproven theories by virtue of their arguments alone also requires faith. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to funtion without some measure of faith.
However the faith dies off when it is found to be useless or a false equations. However for religion, when there is no proof or baseless, the faith still continue. That is the biggest problem for religion, it is not tested.
I beg to difffer. Does all the people that have no religion like me look at the world as such ? NO ! Only people to have tat view r people tat r pessimist or with sucide tendency. I still can appreciate beauty or music. I still believe in love freedom etc because I know wat it is like to be living. Music and art is by its own a science of its own. I know the importance of living with a community thus I will not be cruel or go about destroying things. In fact all these things doesn't have any relations with religion in the first place.
When science is our only way of looking at the world, then it is a sad day indeed, love would have no more meaning then a series of chemical reactions which we are enslaved to, the bond we share with our partners nothing more then just an illusion, our artistic nature no more then a freak of our overdeveloped brain, the things we call beautiful and good no more then just meaningless constructs which are no more important then just organizations of matter. Music is nothing more then a series of rarefractions and compression of air and in the end, we do the math and realize that in the end, the whole universe is gonna decay away anyway.Science was never intended to replace faith, as it was, the modern scientific method itself was birthed from Christianity and Judasim, back then, in which the people of faith who saw their Creator as a rational and organized being and hence created the universe as so, and figured that there would be a rational and organized way in which to study His creation.
No then because everyone believe in religion too deeply to challenge it. However with new knowledge from science, we find several stories in the past to be... impossible. Some stories like the sun revolves around the world r found to be against the bibles. The reson why dinosaurs extinct can not be found in the books either. This is important as if religion is true, tis is gonna happened to us one day. People do nto know why things are aorund in the past like why s there thunder, why everybody speak different languages, why people die etc. Tat is why religion is created to explain all these stuffs. WIth science now, it offer a much clearer reason for certain phenomenon.To lean heavily on science and discard faith, would be pretty pompus and arrogrant, not to mention foolish and unscientific. For a true scientist would never disregard the possibility that there is a place for faith and the things that we can never understand.
For a true scientist, they would have realise there isn't anything such as omnipotent being etc. There isn't any important place for faith now. Its true tat we do not understand a lot of things now. Tat is why people should work on science more and be able to expalin more and more of these areas. Does believing in religion help us to understand the areas we do not know ? NO ! In fact they r a hindrance for people to continue the search for scientific knowledge. The attitude tat "Ahhh... There are a lot of things man do not know or will never be able to know... wat is the point of carrying reserch in science.." is like a parasite to future human development.So is religon revelant after science? Very, if not more so. Having being exposed to the sheer complexity and wonder of the universe, the choice now stares us even more starkly in the face. To believe in someone who made it all start or dismiss it all as nothing more then a fantastic accident.
After knowing the complexity of the universe, I feel it is more... ridiculous... to actually assume there is another being tat is MORE complex than it. WHy should there always be a creator for everything ? Wat is the creator of the creator ? In the end something like "fantastic accident" have to take place -
A few humble comments.
We all exist for some purpose. Hope drives us all. If POWs of the world wars had not given themself hope, they would have died in the prison camps. If we do not have things/hope to look forward to, we'll be crushed by disappointments.
So the 'whys' in life is important. If we do not see the reason(s) to why we exist then we'll be walking zombies, right? -
We all exist for some purpose. Hope drives us all. If POWs of the world wars had not given themself hope, they would have died in the prison camps. If we do not have things/hope to look forward to, we'll be crushed by disappointments.
Is your life like POW camps ? In POW camps they may need hope, but for u and I, we just need to be strong. There r always dissappointment in life, we just have to avoid being crushed by it. Just be strong, there r always things tat u can look forward to. However living in self delusion and believing in something tat may turn out to be a great lie is just... weak...
So the 'whys' in life is important. If we do not see the reason(s) to why we exist then we'll be walking zombies, right?
Is not whether "why" is important or not, it is whether it is there or not. Is not your choice or decision. U can say I believe in God, but will tat create a God out if there is none in the first place ? No such thing. If God really exists, then it is there. Whether u believe it or not it is not going to affect its existence.
Ask a question, even if u believe in religion, wat is the purpose of your existence ? I mean if u ask me, I feel tat the purpose seems to be we r just toys or dolls or entertainment to it. Without religion, u r yourself. If religion, u just belong to "something". Tat seems to me to be more reasons to live. -
Religion is just something for people to make themselves feel better when science fails to explain. -
there is this thread 'Meaningful conversation about atheism and faith'
and 'Are we mud or were we apes?' for references
and there is lunch... =] -
Life may not be a POW camp, but we're all trapped by troubles of life. You mentioned that when's there's troubles or disappointments, we just need to be strong. That's precisely my point, we need a reason or a hope to be strong. If there's no reason to be strong, then life does not go on.
We all have our personal 'gods'. Some seek refuge in material wealth, some seek physical pleasures, some seek to be trouble-free. These are their religions, these are the things they look forward to.
Yes, it may appear to be a sign of weakness to depend on something unseen. But that's how humans are, we all need to be satisified physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Religions in any other forms, feed us spiritually, emotionally. -
Hi stupidissmart
actually, many scientific facts have now been proven wrong. present science is relative only the present time, a few e.g.: scientist during the greek era proposed that the earth was flat.. we know how untrue that turned out to be. anyway in the bible in the chapter of genesis it stated that the earth is round. But that is besides the question. all these facts to me isn't an issue and is not important
Being a christian myself, i do not need any science to substantiate my faith. If you haven't realise.. science is continuously changing. Facts that we take for granted like light travelling in a straight line all these have been proven wrong in recent times.
instead of asking whether religion is still relavant after science. i would rather ask "how relavant is science to religion". i am not trying to evade yor question, what i am expressing is personal opinion.
anyway if you are still unsatisfied. Recently, a tyrannosaurus rex(dunno whether correct spelling- but the article can be found in evolutionary journal -last yr's either oct or november edition) bone was found with living blood cells in it's marrow. This means that the dinosaur could not have died for more than 4,000 years. But according to current science.. it's impossible b'coz dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years.
touching on this topic, what abt the evolution of man. Science is tryinng to tell us that we came from apes, but the most recent school of thought is now challenging all these facts.
sorry for the long thread, but my point is that, many people treats science as an absolute. but in truth it is so erronous and falible. To me only bible and the church holds true.
to end this off.. if you are really interested in seeing how fallable science is.. sbscribe to this magazine called creation magazine (pm if u want to borrow a few issues). it shows all the flaws that current science has.
Also look out for this author called Ken Ham. He challenges current science with religion- really a good book to read. there is also another book that's quite interesting The Answers Book by Don Batten. -
Life may not be a POW camp, but we're all trapped by troubles of life. You mentioned that when's there's troubles or disappointments, we just need to be strong. That's precisely my point, we need a reason or a hope to be strong. If there's no reason to be strong, then life does not go on.
I do not think tat must exists a reason for us to be strong. Isn't just surviving a reason enough ? Why must there be the planting of other reason just to moltivate us to be strong ? I mean to be strong means we do not have to be babyfed with artificial reasons to go through the troubles.We all have our personal 'gods'. Some seek refuge in material wealth, some seek physical pleasures, some seek to be trouble-free. These are their religions, these are the things they look forward to.
I think your definition or "god" is rather wrong. The definition of religion for me is believing in something strongly yet it cannot be proved. The other "gods" u mentioned r moltivation. I seek to be rich, to be successful which is my moltivation, not "god". They r not religion.Yes, it may appear to be a sign of weakness to depend on something unseen. But that's how humans are, we all need to be satisified physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Religions in any other forms, feed us spiritually, emotionally.
True. However I do not see people with no religion deprive of emotional or spiritual susbstance. Maybe one can try to be free of religion and see if he can be satisfied in these terms. -
actually, many scientific facts have now been proven wrong. present science is relative only the present time, a few e.g.: scientist during the greek era proposed that the earth was flat.. we know how untrue that turned out to be. anyway in the bible in the chapter of genesis it stated that the earth is round. But that is besides the question. all these facts to me isn't an issue and is not important
The reason why science is better IS it always evolved with time. There is a wonderful system in place where new theories can always replace the old ones, if it can be proved. Wat about religion ? No one can challenge the things writeen in it. During Greek Era it is not considered "science: because it fails to follow certain guidelines as repeatability and by experiments. If science isn't true, then why is there a computer in front of u ? Why r we living in buildings or traveling in vehicles ? Aren't these good enough reasons to believe tat there must be some shred of truth in science ?Being a christian myself, i do not need any science to substantiate my faith. If you haven't realise.. science is continuously changing. Facts that we take for granted like light travelling in a straight line all these have been proven wrong in recent times.
Maybe so, but science is true to a great extent. I do not know about where u get the idea tat light do not travel in a straight line, but I do know tat it travels in a straight line for very great distance or tat the deflection is so so so little it is negligible. If this assumption is wrong, why can people invent the glasses most singaporean is wearing or building laser ?instead of asking whether religion is still relavant after science. i would rather ask "how relavant is science to religion". i am not trying to evade yor question, what i am expressing is personal opinion.
I think tat is out. Religion and science do not mix for a lot of area.anyway if you are still unsatisfied. Recently, a tyrannosaurus rex(dunno whether correct spelling- but the article can be found in evolutionary journal -last yr's either oct or november edition) bone was found with living blood cells in it's marrow. This means that the dinosaur could not have died for more than 4,000 years. But according to current science.. it's impossible b'coz dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years.
There are always some scientist tat try to gather fame by proposing ridiculous theories. It is whether his theories are accepted by a board of panel tat filed it into journals tat make it becomes relevant.touching on this topic, what abt the evolution of man. Science is tryinng to tell us that we came from apes, but the most recent school of thought is now challenging all these facts.
U do not believe in evolution ? then can u explain how does noah ark able to support all the species of animals tat time ? There r million of beetles species in the world, and having just a pair each will take up the size of 10 Noah's Ark. If u do not believe in evolution, how do u explain why Man has races ? I mean since we r all Noah's decendent, why does peopel became split into Negros, Orientals, Chinese and Caucasians ? Why does Australia have animals tat r so structurally different from the rest of the world if there is no evolution ? These animals can traced their roots to the animals on the mainland.sorry for the long thread, but my point is that, many people treats science as an absolute. but in truth it is so erronous and falible. To me only bible and the church holds true.
I think tat is wrong. I ask again, if science is erronous, how can we use it to build up all the technologies in the world ? We r using the knowledge to built up things, if it is wrong it will not work the way we design it for. Bible and church cannot prove their theories r true. Can anyone prove Noah's Ark exist before ? Can anyone prove Job is in existence in this world ? Can anyone prove tat Jesus actually come to the world before ? With these knowledge wat help can it gives us ?to end this off.. if you are really interested in seeing how fallable science is.. sbscribe to this magazine called creation magazine (pm if u want to borrow a few issues). it shows all the flaws that current science has.
There are also a lot of magazine tat can prove your religion is yours. For example u can take the magazine for Buddhist or Hindu and they too have many issues on how fallible bible is. In the web there r also tons of material on how laughable religion is. U can check it out below.
http://freethought.freeservers.com/Also look out for this author called Ken Ham. He challenges current science with religion- really a good book to read. there is also another book that's quite interesting The Answers Book by Don Batten.
Okie. Point taken. I am not going to touch it. -
If you are not going to touch it, then why on earth are you bothering with science anyway? After all, science is the taking in of all possibilities and considering them.
If you intend to shut down anythign that seems to threaten your paradigm, then you are a very poor person indeed, and certainly not one to ask a question if religion is still relevant after science, for you seem to ignore the most basic ideas about science.
And of course it seems to me, that your worldview is virtually a religon of your own, so to speak, for from your treatment of science, it appears that you are the very person you accuse others of, those who believe in something irregardless of the facts. -
Of course, I'm not asking anybody to have a religon, and as you can see it, plenty of people have no trouble with living their lives whatever way they see fit at all. If they think friends and money are their meaning is life, I'm completely okay with that.
All I'm saying is, before you shoot your mouth off, maybe we need to unplug from The Matrix before we make any big statements about reality, much less our meaning. I certainly feel faith has a big thing going for it, and it is all the more relevant in our times when we hardle have any compass and at the end of the road, see Smith asking us "why" we do it.
As somebody who was once in the matrix, and a staunch believer of using science to justify my way of life, I can tell you that things on the other side aren't as bad as they seem.
In fact, if you think people of faith are deluded, and at certain times they can be. I can tell you for sure, having being on both sides, that people who have no religon are certainly no less deluded, if not more so. -
Well, for the same reason when we, assuming we are a primitive tribesman finds a laptop in the desert, and having no knowledge of modern technology whatsoever, concludes that the watch must be a natural accident because nobody can be that complex to create it.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Few questions..
After knowing the complexity of the universe, I feel it is more... ridiculous... to actually assume there is another being tat is MORE complex than it. WHy should there always be a creator for everything ? Wat is the creator of the creator ? In the end something like "fantastic accident" have to take place
I remember a quote from a scientist who studied the big bang:
"If one second after the Big Bang, the ratio of the density of the universe to its expansion rate had differed from its assumed value by only one part in 10 followed by 15 zeros, the universe would have either quickly collasped upon itself or balloned so rapidly that stars and galasies could not have condenses from the primal matter... The coin was flipped 10,000,000,000,000,000 times and it came down on its edge but once. If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes-- that is, universes consistent with the laws of physics as we know them-- and only one of those grains of sand were a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit."For a true scientist, they would have realise there isn't anything such as omnipotent being etc. There isn't any important place for faith now. Its true tat we do not understand a lot of things now. Tat is why people should work on science more and be able to expalin more and more of these areas. Does believing in religion help us to understand the areas we do not know ? NO ! In fact they r a hindrance for people to continue the search for scientific knowledge. The attitude tat "Ahhh... There are a lot of things man do not know or will never be able to know... wat is the point of carrying reserch in science.." is like a parasite to future human development.
From my understanding of science, I beg to differ, Science is as much knowing your limits as well as trying to find out stuff beyond what we are. Because all science is based on paradigms in order to launch their theories. We must have, and know certain limits in order to make things work.
Simple things like knowing the constant speed limit of light, or the value of pi. are basic values and limits. Without finding and admitting these limits, much of what we know today would not exist.
Another very good example on the illusiveness of reality is that Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics, which states that is it impossible for us to know everything about a particle's quantum position and velocity at any one time. Basically, the harder we try to graspe reality, the more of it it slips from our fingers.
And for one thing, I do know that though our knowledge of our universe has grown massively over previous generations, what has happened is that the questions that we have, have instead grown by leaps and bounds. The more we know, as it seems, the more we know about how little we know.
In the end, I realize it was my pursuit of science that threw me into belief in a God. The more I understood about the universe, the more it drew me towards the conclusion that He existed. Is my journey an example of bad science? Must all science start off with the forgone conclusion that we have no purpose beyond our physical matter?
What I, and all scientists who study the universe knows: Despite it's vast size and complexity, our universe is ultimately a limited and finite system that will ultimately wind down. Sooner or later all the stars in all the galaxies in our universe will die out, and blackholes will consume all the matter in our universe until they themselves merge into one large singularity. Even they are not eternal, for they will decay on the quantum level until about google years from now, where they will themselves dissolve. What then?
Gravity, magnetism and all the forces and matter of our universe didn't just come into being by themselves, it was a finite system that required a cause, and as a finite system it will wind down sooner or later.
What is that cause? That cause cannot be bound or discovered by natural laws or science, because these laws had to be caused in the first place. We cannot keep cashing a bad check forever, in the end the buck has to stop somewhere, at the uncaused cause. And what is that concept of an uncaused cause? Science cannot measure or give you that answer. -
I gonna compare religion in general to science. In consistence to all major religions in this world, is that there is a 'space' - a spiritual realm, a spiritual space, outside this materialistic world, the world of PHYSICAL nature. How can science disprove that, when its way of knowing only works within the physical world?
Religion has survived the test of time for a reason. It is something inbuilt in humans. It would not be still here if it had not done more right than wrong.
Again, i am only using religion in general. Comparing christianity to science would be another issue. -
If you are not going to touch it, then why on earth are you bothering with science anyway? After all, science is the taking in of all possibilities and considering them.
The problem is this, I had read a lot of these books or website. The problem is, I have my doubts about them. Too bad I cannot go and ask them about my doubts. Second They select the question they wanna defend, not wat my doubts is about. Thus I do not want to touch them as it seems pointless to me.
If you intend to shut down anythign that seems to threaten your paradigm, then you are a very poor person indeed, and certainly not one to ask a question if religion is still relevant after science, for you seem to ignore the most basic ideas about science.
And of course it seems to me, that your worldview is virtually a religon of your own, so to speak, for from your treatment of science, it appears that you are the very person you accuse others of, those who believe in something irregardless of the facts.Of course, I'm not asking anybody to have a religon, and as you can see it, plenty of people have no trouble with living their lives whatever way they see fit at all. If they think friends and money are their meaning is life, I'm completely okay with that.
If u have been to both sides and u feel tat having a religion is better for u, then good for u.
All I'm saying is, before you shoot your mouth off, maybe we need to unplug from The Matrix before we make any big statements about reality, much less our meaning. I certainly feel faith has a big thing going for it, and it is all the more relevant in our times when we hardle have any compass and at the end of the road, see Smith asking us "why" we do it.
As somebody who was once in the matrix, and a staunch believer of using science to justify my way of life, I can tell you that things on the other side aren't as bad as they seem.
In fact, if you think people of faith are deluded, and at certain times they can be. I can tell you for sure, having being on both sides, that people who have no religon are certainly no less deluded, if not more so.
However there r many people tat was not offered tis choise when they r born. SOme parents, just because they r catholics or muslim or christians, force their children to be of the same religion as them. To me, tis is not healthy as they never have a chance to choose. SO my purpose is for these people to actually leave their faith for a while and question. Why do they believe in religion in the first place ?Well, for the same reason when we, assuming we are a primitive tribesman finds a laptop in the desert, and having no knowledge of modern technology whatsoever, concludes that the watch must be a natural accident because nobody can be that complex to create it.
Well for natural, when have we ever seen it being "built" up by someone else. Maybe tat is a bad example, however can u answer tis question who create the creator ? Since u say something so wonderful cannot be "derive" on its own, then something as wonderful as the creator cannot do it on its own too. This chain must end u see. Wat sort of ending do u believe u will see ? -
From my understanding of science, I beg to differ, Science is as much knowing your limits as well as trying to find out stuff beyond what we are. Because all science is based on paradigms in order to launch their theories. We must have, and know certain limits in order to make things work.
Tat is very simple. We define the constant ouselves. In fact the value of "metre" and "second" is based on the speed of light. However the knowledge of Men r expanding. The things we do not know r getting lesser and lesser. However it is up to people to believe them or not. Just like Big Bang and evolution. There r people tat believe in it and people who don't. IMO, the people tat r religious tend to be the one tat reject new breakthrough in science or knwoledge.
Simple things like knowing the constant speed limit of light, or the value of pi. are basic values and limits. Without finding and admitting these limits, much of what we know today would not exist.
Another very good example on the illusiveness of reality is that Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics, which states that is it impossible for us to know everything about a particle's quantum position and velocity at any one time. Basically, the harder we try to graspe reality, the more of it it slips from our fingers.
So wat do u suggest, we give up trying to find the answer ?
Tat is good. Because Men can never know everything. Wat Man can achieve is one step at a time to fulfill tis truth. The more we know how little we know ? It is better than we thought we know everything just by refering to some holy text...
And for one thing, I do know that though our knowledge of our universe has grown massively over previous generations, what has happened is that the questions that we have, have instead grown by leaps and bounds. The more we know, as it seems, the more we know about how little we know.In the end, I realize it was my pursuit of science that threw me into belief in a God. The more I understood about the universe, the more it drew me towards the conclusion that He existed. Is my journey an example of bad science? Must all science start off with the forgone conclusion that we have no purpose beyond our physical matter?
Wat other purpose will u serve when u believe in religion ? Can someone tell me about it ? I mean after believing in religon, one will feel mroe hopeless and despair as THEIR lives r controlled by someone they DON'T really know. Everything we do, is all planned by him and we r just following his written srcipt. Is tat purpose any meaningful ?What I, and all scientists who study the universe knows: Despite it's vast size and complexity, our universe is ultimately a limited and finite system that will ultimately wind down. Sooner or later all the stars in all the galaxies in our universe will die out, and blackholes will consume all the matter in our universe until they themselves merge into one large singularity. Even they are not eternal, for they will decay on the quantum level until about google years from now, where they will themselves dissolve. What then?
True, after google years everything will be gone. However, I got to emphasise again. WE DO NOT CHOOSE FACTS. We only DISCOVER them. It may seems to be sad and full of despair but tat is TOO BAD we do not have a choice. Whether we believe in God or not, the same thing will still happen. Why do u think u can choose to believe in wat, then tat will turn out to be the truth ?
Gravity, magnetism and all the forces and matter of our universe didn't just come into being by themselves, it was a finite system that required a cause, and as a finite system it will wind down sooner or later.
What is that cause? That cause cannot be bound or discovered by natural laws or science, because these laws had to be caused in the first place. We cannot keep cashing a bad check forever, in the end the buck has to stop somewhere, at the uncaused cause. And what is that concept of an uncaused cause? Science cannot measure or give you that answer. -
I gonna compare religion in general to science. In consistence to all major religions in this world, is that there is a 'space' - a spiritual realm, a spiritual space, outside this materialistic world, the world of PHYSICAL nature. How can science disprove that, when its way of knowing only works within the physical world?
Disproving ? Okie I say God look like a purple hippotamus. Can any religion disproves me ? If u want to claim something exist or something had happened, the proving should done by U. If u want to say there is a spiritual world, u should be the one proving it, not saying anything u want and asking other to prove u wrong.
Religion has survived the test of time for a reason. It is something inbuilt in humans. It would not be still here if it had not done more right than wrong.
Again, i am only using religion in general. Comparing christianity to science would be another issue.
The reason is religion is design to be with man for a long time... they force their decendents to be the same religion as they parents, discourage marriage with people of other religion and wat the religion says is law, u have to believe in it due to blind faith. -
Here comes a NEW challenger...
-
ok stupdissmart..
lets continue somepts u rebutted me.
During Greek Era it is not considered "science: because it fails to follow certain guidelines as repeatability and by experiments.
you should do some reading up (no sacarsm intended). That was the era where most scientist agree science started. Through metodical testing.
Maybe so, but science is true to a great extent. I do not know about where u get the idea tat light do not travel in a straight line, but I do know tat it travels in a straight line for very great distance or tat the deflection is so so so little it is negligible. If this assumption is wrong, why can people invent the glasses most singaporean is wearing or building laser ?
there's some fallacy in your arguement here. You said that you agree that there is a negligible error for light travelling in a straight line. I take it that u agree that there is an error then? bear in mind, about 20 years back, it was absolute that light travelled in a straight line. But it has been proven wrong. That is the main point. it's wrong.
I think tat is out. Religion and science do not mix for a lot of area.
i agree! i have and will never base my religion on science. religion is not a theory and it never will be.
There are always some scientist tat try to gather fame by proposing ridiculous theories. It is whether his theories are accepted by a board of panel tat filed it into journals tat make it becomes relevant.
pls note: the fact that it is in a scientific journal means that it has been approve by a board of panels. A journal is not a story book or an article in the newspaper. For a paper to be aprroved by the journal, it has to be a proper study with findings and references.
U do not believe in evolution ? then can u explain how does noah ark able to support all the species of animals tat time ? There r million of beetles species in the world, and having just a pair each will take up the size of 10 Noah's Ark. If u do not believe in evolution, how do u explain why Man has races ? I mean since we r all Noah's decendent, why does peopel became split into Negros, Orientals, Chinese and Caucasians ? Why does Australia have animals tat r so structurally different from the rest of the world if there is no evolution ? These animals can traced their roots to the animals on the mainland.
i challenge you to read the book i recommended. the author is a scientist and he has his group of reseachers. it's more of a scientific study than a book. If you are such an avid fan of science.. then why r u so closed up? give it a try maybe? the explanations are all there. anyway, read up on more science journals (go to NUS library), u will see how the current thought of evolution is being prove falser each year.
I think tat is wrong. I ask again, if science is erronous, how can we use it to build up all the technologies in the world ? We r using the knowledge to built up things, if it is wrong it will not work the way we design it for. Bible and church cannot prove their theories r true. Can anyone prove Noah's Ark exist before ? Can anyone prove Job is in existence in this world ? Can anyone prove tat Jesus actually come to the world before ? With these knowledge wat help can it gives us ?
i have already shown on top how errorous science sometimes can be through the "light travels in a straight line example" recent archeologist have proposed (bare in mind .. some of them are not christians) 3 mountains that noah's ark lay. it is imbedded in it. I have to read more to tell you about this.
Can anyone prove tat Jesus actually come to the world before ?
Can you prove that hitler or aristotle was here? of course! it is a method used in science called historical evidence. Jesus did roam the earth. ask any scientist.. this is non-debatable. he was tried in court, etc.. al evidence showed he did roam the earth.
There are also a lot of magazine tat can prove your religion is yours. For example u can take the magazine for Buddhist or Hindu and they too have many issues on how fallible bible is. In the web there r also tons of material on how laughable religion is. U can check it out below.
i agree. to each his own. take note that i am not forcing my beliefs on you. we are debating on the issue of sience n religion. so lets not attack religious beliefs. That goes against the teachings of the bible.
Okie. Point taken. I am not going to touch it.
y? u seem to have such a narrow opinion of religion? being a christian myself.. i have also read up on budhism, islam and hinduism myself. i love scientific journals too!
u seem to go against the basic principles of science. You've got to read up more... it's not like when u touch the book u r accepting it. Read it and lets have a fairer debate.
-
btw stupidissmart.. we are not saying that Science is bad. and if you think "real" scientist dun believe in God or the omnipotent presence, you got to think again. i know many scientist that believe in Christ.
they are not using science to disapprove a religion. they are using science to make our lives better.
from what i gather.. u treat relgion like a stumbling block to science. Something llike ... if i am a christian .. i can't make computers or if i am a christian .. i can't make a new discovery in science? isn't such a correlation faulty?
Christians are not anti-science -
there's some fallacy in your arguement here. You said that you agree that there is a negligible error for light travelling in a straight line. I take it that u agree that there is an error then? bear in mind, about 20 years back, it was absolute that light travelled in a straight line. But it has been proven wrong. That is the main point. it's wrong.
I do not know where u get tis idea tat light travels not in a straight line. Can u show me some proofs on it ?
And secondly, even if it is true, the fact is it is negligible. It is nevertheless still accurate. Wat does religion says about light ? nothing and it will always be nothing.pls note: the fact that it is in a scientific journal means that it has been approve by a board of panels. A journal is not a story book or an article in the newspaper. For a paper to be aprroved by the journal, it has to be a proper study with findings and references.
Please note tat my previous reply is to challenge u to show me proof of some theories u had said had been confirmed in journals. Are the things u had said in journals yet ? I do not believe so till u show it to me. Read carefullyi challenge you to read the book i recommended. the author is a scientist and he has his group of reseachers. it's more of a scientific study than a book. If you are such an avid fan of science.. then why r u so closed up? give it a try maybe? the explanations are all there. anyway, read up on more science journals (go to NUS library), u will see how the current thought of evolution is being prove falser each year.
Sorry I am not in NUS. Why don't u read it up and says why it is false ?i have already shown on top how errorous science sometimes can be through the "light travels in a straight line example" recent archeologist have proposed (bare in mind .. some of them are not christians) 3 mountains that noah's ark lay. it is imbedded in it. I have to read more to tell you about this.
No, I do not think your light theory shows anything. If it shows anything it shows tat the system of science allow modification to take place if proved to be correct. I am asking u, if science is wrong, why is there a computer in front of u ? The model for some science may change, or there may discover new facts which is negligible. However it is certain tat some theories r correct or at least 99.99999% correct in oder to make up the technologies we have. R u going to say the theories r COMPLETELY wrong, the readings r TOTALLY off the expected ? If not, then it shows science is still relevant.Can anyone prove tat Jesus actually come to the world before ?
Hitler and aristotle is here. Why ? because there r real human, real papers, real work he had doen to prove they exists. But Jesus ? Wat evidence r there to show he is here before ? Tried in court ? Where do u find the court record ?
Can you prove that hitler or aristotle was here? of course! it is a method used in science called historical evidence. Jesus did roam the earth. ask any scientist.. this is non-debatable. he was tried in court, etc.. al evidence showed he did roam the earth.y? u seem to have such a narrow opinion of religion? being a christian myself.. i have also read up on budhism, islam and hinduism myself. i love scientific journals too!
I have stated my stand in the previos post. Please feel free to read it.
u seem to go against the basic principles of science. You've got to read up more... it's not like when u touch the book u r accepting it. Read it and lets have a fairer debate. -
btw stupidissmart.. we are not saying that Science is bad. and if you think "real" scientist dun believe in God or the omnipotent presence, you got to think again. i know many scientist that believe in Christ.
Well, studies show tat most scientists r not religious in nature. We can debate on this point till the cow comes home and its still meaningless.
they are not using science to disapprove a religion. they are using science to make our lives better.
from what i gather.. u treat relgion like a stumbling block to science. Something llike ... if i am a christian .. i can't make computers or if i am a christian .. i can't make a new discovery in science? isn't such a correlation faulty?
Christians are not anti-science
I didn't say christian r not science friendly or anything... I just feel tat they aren't... free... Tat is why I am here, hoping to make people actually question why they get themselves involved in religion.
Let me ask u... why do u believe in religion in the first place ? -
if you think "real" scientist dun believe in God or the omnipotent presence, you got to think again. i know many scientist that believe in Christ.
The argument can go both ways. You have to agree that some of the most renowed scientists are ... atheists.
Christians are not anti-science
This is a sweeping statement. It is a fact that some christians are the most anti-science people around. -
If u have been to both sides and u feel tat having a religion is better for u, then good for u.
However there r many people tat was not offered tis choise when they r born. SOme parents, just because they r catholics or muslim or christians, force their children to be of the same religion as them. To me, tis is not healthy as they never have a chance to choose. SO my purpose is for these people to actually leave their faith for a while and question. Why do they believe in religion in the first place ?
Actually I feel while it is unfortunate, there is nothing wrong with people leaving their faith, after all, faith should be a matter of free will and not something you are forced to swallow like the party line.
I encourage people to exercise their freedom of choice in such matters, I mean if you believe in God because your parents force you to do so, what kind of faith is that?
In the end, it's really everybody's choice and onus to figure out the truth for themselves, and make that choice. After all, I was supposedly "born" into my faith, I did leave to question, but ultimately returned through no external pressure.[b[Well for natural, when have we ever seen it being "built" up by someone else. Maybe tat is a bad example, however can u answer tis question who create the creator ? Since u say something so wonderful cannot be "derive" on its own, then something as wonderful as the creator cannot do it on its own too. This chain must end u see. Wat sort of ending do u believe u will see ?
[/b]
Well, in the end, we can't keep cashing a bad check forever. Our universe while wonderful and vast, is a finite system that is bound to the law of cause and effect by it's finite nature. No matter how things started, in the end we are forced to conclude that there will be a supernatural cause for our natural world. A infinite first cause that did not require itself to be caused.
I believe that the creator did not need to be created, after all, he was the very one who wrote the law of cause and effect itself, if He was any less, is there any need to worship Him?