Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Can religion tell us more than science?
97 Answers
What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live.... The last paragraph from the link below.
A very well written article by the BBC that has not made my view even wobble about the validity of the differing philosophies of science and religion.
Although, correctly, it presents science as imperfect and therefore on a par with religion (which to be fair is also presented as imperfect), it only briefly touches on the fundamental difference - that science will change it's beliefs forever in the face of incontrovertible proof or evidence, something which religion will never do as it's tenets are revered as being solid and permanent. Religion regards challenging current beliefs as a sign of weakness and fights it with reinforcement, science reveres this as the way to future enlightenment.
I'm interested in your thoughts...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470
A very well written article by the BBC that has not made my view even wobble about the validity of the differing philosophies of science and religion.
Although, correctly, it presents science as imperfect and therefore on a par with religion (which to be fair is also presented as imperfect), it only briefly touches on the fundamental difference - that science will change it's beliefs forever in the face of incontrovertible proof or evidence, something which religion will never do as it's tenets are revered as being solid and permanent. Religion regards challenging current beliefs as a sign of weakness and fights it with reinforcement, science reveres this as the way to future enlightenment.
I'm interested in your thoughts...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ll_billym. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Answer to the Ultimate Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything is well known.
http://en.wikipedia.o...to_the_Galaxy_(novel)
The deep insight was that the real mystery is the actual question.
http://en.wikipedia.o...to_the_Galaxy_(novel)
The deep insight was that the real mystery is the actual question.
Religion equates to absolute arrogance, to claim to know all the answer when, given that we're tiny little specks in an incredibly vast universe, we surely couldn't know all the answer.
Science merely seeks to find out as much as possible without really ever claiming that something IS the case.
To blinker yourself with religion could leave you missing a hell of a lot! (pun not initially intended but adds to my point a little!) I'd rather do it my way!
Science merely seeks to find out as much as possible without really ever claiming that something IS the case.
To blinker yourself with religion could leave you missing a hell of a lot! (pun not initially intended but adds to my point a little!) I'd rather do it my way!
In view of its many accomplishments in medicine, engineering, communication, and other disciplines. Scientific discoveries have touched the lives of almost all people living today. Many scientists have devoted their entire lives to the cause of science, and honest scientific endeavours aimed at improving the quality of life should be applauded.
But what about those times when the Bible says something that clearly contradicts a modern scientific theory? Should we assume that the Bible is wrong? No. Remember, science at its best is a continuing process of learning. Theories that were widely held yesterday may be abandoned tomorrow.However, it is quite possible that a scientific belief that contradicts the Bible might itself be out of fashion in the future.
Perhaps the best-known difference between the Bible and modern science involves the theory of evolution. Evolution teaches that all living things developed gradually from a single biological source. This is different from the Bible’s version, that God created all living things separately, and each reproduces “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) simple.
But what about those times when the Bible says something that clearly contradicts a modern scientific theory? Should we assume that the Bible is wrong? No. Remember, science at its best is a continuing process of learning. Theories that were widely held yesterday may be abandoned tomorrow.However, it is quite possible that a scientific belief that contradicts the Bible might itself be out of fashion in the future.
Perhaps the best-known difference between the Bible and modern science involves the theory of evolution. Evolution teaches that all living things developed gradually from a single biological source. This is different from the Bible’s version, that God created all living things separately, and each reproduces “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) simple.
To answer the question at the head of the OP, this is my take on things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkLGMyYbz4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkLGMyYbz4I
So Elderman perhaps you'd like to give an example of a scientific theory that contradicted the bible and turned out to be wrong?
No?
It's pretty rare for generally accepted Scientific theories to be outright wrong.
More commonly there are areas where adaptations need to be made.
For example despite Newton's theory of Gravity being overtaken by Einstein that only affects extreme conditions and Newton was quite good enough to send men to the moon.
If you think Science is going to turn around and say - "guess what all that evolution stuff was rubbish" you're going to have a long wait!
No?
It's pretty rare for generally accepted Scientific theories to be outright wrong.
More commonly there are areas where adaptations need to be made.
For example despite Newton's theory of Gravity being overtaken by Einstein that only affects extreme conditions and Newton was quite good enough to send men to the moon.
If you think Science is going to turn around and say - "guess what all that evolution stuff was rubbish" you're going to have a long wait!
I'll take that challenge, Jake... as you know, at least until 1924 by way of the Belgian priest, Lemaître and more importantly via Hubble and later Amos Penzias and Robert Wilson's discovery that CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) was the left over signature of the Big Bang science and scientists believed the universe to be either static (steady state) or expanding and collapsing in an endless cycle.
Ironically, Robert Wilson had been trained in steady state theory which suggested the universe was without beginning or end, unlike big bang theory, and he felt uncomfortable with the big bang explanation of their radio noise. He and Penzias, therefore published only their data.
Additionally, Einstein introduced a bogus cosmological constant to avoid the implication of a beginning. He said it was the "biggest mistake of his career"... but his mistake was not a mathematical one but rather a philosophical one made many times over in the history of thought. Einstein held too strongly to the belief that the universe was static and thus was unable to appreciate the power of his theory's predictions of a universe with a history.
So, what does the Bible have to say? בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
"In the beginning God Created the heavens and the Earth"...
Additionally, we now have a pretty good idea that in the nano-seconds following the creation event, the near-infinitely small universe expanded... inflated... to unimaginable size in a time frame to small to be thoroughly understood...
What does the Bible have to say?
1) " He that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22
2) "...I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even I] my hands, have stretched out the heavens...
Isaiah 45:12
3) "He stretches out the north over the empty place, [and] hangs the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:7
4) Who coveres Himself with light as [with] a garment: who stretches out the heavens like a curtain..."
Psalms 104:2
Plus 15 other like verses in Psalms and other Old Covenant books...
The Hebrew is clearly referencing an initial stretching and a continuing to stretch out the "heavens"...
In Job, Ecclisiastes, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Pslams, the complete water cycle is accurately described.
I could go on, but you get my drift, no?
Ironically, Robert Wilson had been trained in steady state theory which suggested the universe was without beginning or end, unlike big bang theory, and he felt uncomfortable with the big bang explanation of their radio noise. He and Penzias, therefore published only their data.
Additionally, Einstein introduced a bogus cosmological constant to avoid the implication of a beginning. He said it was the "biggest mistake of his career"... but his mistake was not a mathematical one but rather a philosophical one made many times over in the history of thought. Einstein held too strongly to the belief that the universe was static and thus was unable to appreciate the power of his theory's predictions of a universe with a history.
So, what does the Bible have to say? בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
"In the beginning God Created the heavens and the Earth"...
Additionally, we now have a pretty good idea that in the nano-seconds following the creation event, the near-infinitely small universe expanded... inflated... to unimaginable size in a time frame to small to be thoroughly understood...
What does the Bible have to say?
1) " He that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22
2) "...I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even I] my hands, have stretched out the heavens...
Isaiah 45:12
3) "He stretches out the north over the empty place, [and] hangs the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:7
4) Who coveres Himself with light as [with] a garment: who stretches out the heavens like a curtain..."
Psalms 104:2
Plus 15 other like verses in Psalms and other Old Covenant books...
The Hebrew is clearly referencing an initial stretching and a continuing to stretch out the "heavens"...
In Job, Ecclisiastes, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Pslams, the complete water cycle is accurately described.
I could go on, but you get my drift, no?
Clanard chooses Biblical passages that he imagines are parallel to the scientific explanation and of course avoids the obvious coflicts, such as where the Bible has the Earth existing before the Heavens.
The "stretching as curtains" is also stretching the analogy. Curtains unfold and I have never yet encountered curtains that actually stretch.
BTW. Inflationary Theory has Inflation ending with the Universe somewhere between the size of a football and a football field rather than "unimagineably large".
Like Einstein's Cosmological Constant, Inflation was invented to make the mathematics fit the observations. To some extent the CC has made a comeback in the guise of Dark Energy which is suggested as a driving force behind the still accelerating expansion of the Universe and the initial Inflation.
All these hypotheses are the result of maths being made to fit the observation and until one of them can predict an observation not previously noted then all are really just hypotheses, work in progress.
There may well be a completely different explanation and science will move on if something emerges as it has done before. That is the strength of science.
Comparing the highly detailed quantative explanations of science with the esoteric dogma of the Holy Books is ridiculous.
The "stretching as curtains" is also stretching the analogy. Curtains unfold and I have never yet encountered curtains that actually stretch.
BTW. Inflationary Theory has Inflation ending with the Universe somewhere between the size of a football and a football field rather than "unimagineably large".
Like Einstein's Cosmological Constant, Inflation was invented to make the mathematics fit the observations. To some extent the CC has made a comeback in the guise of Dark Energy which is suggested as a driving force behind the still accelerating expansion of the Universe and the initial Inflation.
All these hypotheses are the result of maths being made to fit the observation and until one of them can predict an observation not previously noted then all are really just hypotheses, work in progress.
There may well be a completely different explanation and science will move on if something emerges as it has done before. That is the strength of science.
Comparing the highly detailed quantative explanations of science with the esoteric dogma of the Holy Books is ridiculous.
I don't think there was a scientific consensus at that time clanad there certainly wasn't any evidence for steady state.
And bib bang certainly doesn't support the bibles view after all where there is no time there can be no creator
Yes I know that you like to trot out the plank time in response to that but that really is to miss the point
And bib bang certainly doesn't support the bibles view after all where there is no time there can be no creator
Yes I know that you like to trot out the plank time in response to that but that really is to miss the point
Well... actually it's "Planck" distance and time; but what's a misplaced consonant among the intelligensia?
So, jake, where did the training for "steady state theory" come from? As I pointed out, Mr. Wilson was certainly steeped in it... are you suggesting he was involved in non-science and just happened to stumble on the most important cosmological evidence by accident. You should know, of course, that it was the eminent British astronomer, Sir Freddy Hoyle that was one of the more famous proponents of the Steady State Theory.
While we're at it, could you explain a little further why you state "And bib (sic) bang certainly doesn't support the bibles view after all where there is no time there can be no creator"? My lightning fast brain misses your point... help me out here.
The scalar fields predicted by quantum explain that "in 10^32 of a second there were 100 doublings of "size" at the inflationary epoch. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 10^20 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 10^33 seconds"... regardless of the size comparison... it's unimagineable.
Once even a basic understanding of Herbrew is achieved, the comparison of curtains "stretching" is accurate. All of the verses offered for consideration have been commented on by cosmologists and philosophers as possibly being parallel... but I'll generously let you argue with them.
Chakka... seems to me you were asked for texts you would accept as valid... having seen no reply I assumed the exchange was complete.
Additionally, I think quoting a lot of ancient texts has value... what is the source of your belief system or did you do all the original experiments?
Finallly... bondgirl, would you care to explain the basis for your statement just a little further?
So, jake, where did the training for "steady state theory" come from? As I pointed out, Mr. Wilson was certainly steeped in it... are you suggesting he was involved in non-science and just happened to stumble on the most important cosmological evidence by accident. You should know, of course, that it was the eminent British astronomer, Sir Freddy Hoyle that was one of the more famous proponents of the Steady State Theory.
While we're at it, could you explain a little further why you state "And bib (sic) bang certainly doesn't support the bibles view after all where there is no time there can be no creator"? My lightning fast brain misses your point... help me out here.
The scalar fields predicted by quantum explain that "in 10^32 of a second there were 100 doublings of "size" at the inflationary epoch. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 10^20 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 10^33 seconds"... regardless of the size comparison... it's unimagineable.
Once even a basic understanding of Herbrew is achieved, the comparison of curtains "stretching" is accurate. All of the verses offered for consideration have been commented on by cosmologists and philosophers as possibly being parallel... but I'll generously let you argue with them.
Chakka... seems to me you were asked for texts you would accept as valid... having seen no reply I assumed the exchange was complete.
Additionally, I think quoting a lot of ancient texts has value... what is the source of your belief system or did you do all the original experiments?
Finallly... bondgirl, would you care to explain the basis for your statement just a little further?
I can't think of anything off hand that has informed me more on the pitfalls of fallacious thinking than religion. That said, science is no more a philosophy for how to live than religion is an instrument for obtaining knowledge. Science only informs us on what we're dealing with. Philosophy is the means by which we consider how best to deal with it.
Religion tells us a lot about the fears and insecurities of the humans that create it....the need for power and domination....the need to explain away things that are poorly understood.... it seems to tell us that some people still need the validation of (usually) a patriarchal system..... It tells us how people managed to solve problems by creating rules.... e.g food laws from an era pre refrigeration....and before the discovery of harmful bacteria...
History with a touch of mystery....
History with a touch of mystery....
I'm not religious, I would call myself an agnostic, BUT something happened a few years ago that I simply can't explain. An elderly woman who lived across the road from me was seriously ill in hospital and I hadn't seen her for a while, then one Sunday morning I got up, pulled back the curtains and there she was, standing at the edge of the pavement looking over at my house smiling. I thought how well she looked with her hair freshly done and a smart dress on and her handbag over her arm, but I didn't pull back the curtain to wave because I only had my nightie on and my hair was all mussed up. I walked away from the window smiling, glad that she was OK. I saw her daughter a few days later and went out to her to say how glad I was that her Mum was better, and she looked at me as if I was mad. Apparently, she had died in hospital and in fact had never left hospital. I had to back track quickly and say I must have seen someone else. I came in, sat on the couch and shook. I KNOW I saw her and I often wonder what would have happened if I had waved at her, now I'll never know. I don't tell many people cos I know they wouldn't believe me and I'm only posting it here now because nobody knows me. Why did she pick me, does it prove life after death and why after I know I saw her am I still an agnostic?? Has anybody else experienced anything like this?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.