Can religion be scientificallty proved.?

Question

What are the facts or how can we prove any religion scietificallly.
Various meracles are there in every religion, like the birth of Jesus.
Hundred sons of Dhritrashtra, 8000 marriges of Lord Krishna,
Fire test of Sita Mata

Answer 1

nope. all there is to go on are books that are thousands of years old. stupid?

Answer 2

Science is concerned with the true nature of the Universe. So is religion, but the difference is that science relies on a strict set of guidlines that must be followed before a fact is accepted as truth, and even when it is accepted, it can be overturned if new, stronger evidence appears to overturn it. Religion is there so people can explain that which science cannot or does not. Looking at the night sky, some stars move really fast (for stars). Unless you have reason to believe you know scientifically that they are planets, and that there are planets for that matter, there is a gap in your knowledge, and then you have a choice: leave the gap as it is, possibly pending a better scientific understanding of the phenomenon in question, or fill it with something else. The something else is religion. Whether the particular belief as to the explanation of the "moving stars" is divinely inspired or something you or someone you follow pulled out of their behind is entirely irrelevent.

It has been said that science is not in the business of proving(or disproving) the supernatural. This is not true. If truely irrefutable scientific evidence appeared that proved the existence of something which is currently the "domain" of religion, then the scientific community must accept it, and what was previously classified as "religious" would become the domain of science. If the organization devoted to the particular fact that was scientifically proven (God exists, and he is the one in ______), such as a church, wished to remain in operation, then there is nothing wrong with that. In this event, there would be a true overlap between religion and science.

The clash that people see arises from the simple fact that while science admits its wrong if its wrong, religion usually does not. The "smart" religion, in that it can avoid this clash, is the one which only answers questions that science alone can never touch; science won't try, because that means it doesn't have falsifiability; it doesn't have even the potential of being proven wrong.

Science is partly to blame as well. Those with scientific minds have been known to aquire a sort of megolomania by proxy; they believe science is the end-all be-all. If science cannot prove or disprove it, it is irrelevent and has no place in a non-deluded mind. This is not actually a bad stance, but most scientists also implicitly believe they will find all the answers their way. They believe that this is all there is, with nothing to back up that claim. One only needs to watch the Matrix to see what I mean. If Neo had gone to science to say what he thought, or perhaps what Morpheus told him, while in the matrix, these same scientists would have Baker-acted him, all the while not realizing that the world they lived in was carefully constructed so that they (the scientists that Neo has confronted) would BELIEVE that the matrix was the sum-total of existence. If he had simply said that this was his religion, he would only have gotton at most a raised eyebrow (kindof a weird religion).

So we have the other side of the coin. In summary, religion and science, in their ideals, are after the same thing - knowledge of the true nature of the Universe. They differ in their methods. One last point to keep in mind, which may shed a little more light on why scientists have such disdain for religion: to my knowledge at least, the above scenario where a religios truth is scientifically proven and so is subsequently accepted as science fact has never, in the history of Mankind, occurred. However, this does not mean that it will never happen. There are many things we don't know.

Answer 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Explanation of Hell



The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington

chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the

professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of

course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.



Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic

(absorbs heat)?



Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law

(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some

variant.



One student, however, wrote the following:



First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we

need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at



which they are leaving.



I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will

not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.



As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different

Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state

that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since

there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong

to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.



With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls

in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of

the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the

temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has

to expand proportionately as souls are added.



This gives two possibilities:



1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls

enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until

all Hell breaks loose.



2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls

enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell

freezes over.



So which is it?



If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa, (Cheerleader Captain and

Class Valedictorian) during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day

in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I

slept with her last night and again this morning, then number 2 must be

true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen

over.



The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it

follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,

extinct...leaving only Heaven, and thereby proving the existence of a

divine being which explains why, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God!!!"



THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A."

Answer 4

I don't think religion can be "scientifically" proved per se as miracles are not things that you can replicate in a laboratory -- a requirement for proving things scientifically.

However, religious events are supposed events in history so I think they should be verified according to the standards used to verify the authenticity of other historical events. For example, if you say you went to class, how could you prove it later? Well, with witnesses of course! You can't replicate it, but you have classmates who can testify you were there and a teacher who should have noticed your prescence.

Answer 5

If you are really interested, read this book:

"Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel C. Dennett (2006 Penguin Group, New York) - ISBN 0-760-03472-X.

Answer 6

Science is not now, has never been, and never will be in the business of proving the supernatural, so the answer is no. Science can sometimes prove or disprove religious history using archaeology, but that is not the same thing.

Answer 7

No it can't be prove scientifically, because religion go far beyond our science it's beyond our understanding.:) but we cound wonder about it:). But the teachings could be prove scientifically somehow. Like the Buddhas law of "Cause and Effect"=what you is what you get. And you could prove this scientifically...Like you're planning a tree, and orange tree let say then you will get oranges and make you some juice:) but if you grow potatoes then you could make you french frieds:) but you can not get one for the other. This means that if you do bad thing and have sin not even Buddha could wash away your sin because you have done bad things but what he could do is teaching you the good things and make you good people again and you save yourself. You can never ask Buddha for orange if you grow potatoes. Potatoe plants will give you potatoes...

Answer 8

Religion is about faith, not scientific fact. There are many historical "proofs" with eyewitness accounts and the like, but scientific proof is hard to come by when it's sometimes centuries after the fact. If you need science to prove religious text, will you also require it to tell you if you are in love or if someone loves you? Some things just defy science. Just be careful what (or who) you put your faith in.

Answer 9

Since there is no such thing as God, religion can be proved only to be a folly. Our decsendants 2000 years from now will laugh at us for buying such nonsense.

Answer 10

Can you scientifically prove the Boy Scouts, the Red Sox, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, or any other human organization? Nope.

Answer 11

you wont be able to prove your existence after some million years.
universe exists from infinite time and will always exist.
space is infite.
nothing gets destroyed, EVERYTHING CHANGES. RELIGIONS ARE MERE PATHS TO HELP SOULS TO SALVATE. THERE IS NOTHING TO BE PROVEN IN THIS REGARD.
CHRRISTIANITY, ISLAM ETC ARE VERY RECENT RELIGIONS.
THEY ARE QUITE MANIPULATED SINCE THEY WERE ESTABLISHED.
REFER TO RELIGI0NS LIKE JAINISM THAT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING SCIENTIFICALLY.
AND THEN ALL DEPENDS HOW MUCH FAITH YOU THAT IS YOUR SOUL CAN PUT DISREGARDING THE WORLDLY PLEASURES.