A question about Science and religion?

Question

Isnt science full of "theories"??? arent they like suggestions??? coz then why do people tend to think that theism is wrong??? That people believe in Ancient books that "has no proof"(I mean isnt the books existence enough proof???) there are ALOT of things that Science could not explain,

and didnt Enoch mentioned something about Angels called Grigories teaching mankind Science, Math and other things that is from God???

OK so my quesion is: isnt science supposed to be at least "beside" religion, not against it??? I mean the angel Azazel taught Humans how to make weapons and cosmetics which IS Science, isnt Science and religion in the same page???

I know but didnt you notice ALL of the Ancient books are somehow "linked" in one point or another???

Yes I know about the books and stuff but can't Science books be written by someone for some reasons too??? Same as Religion so does that make Science a "fraud"???

Answer 1

Listen dear one - God created science. He believes in it. But listen - a lot of head knowledge is not the way to salvation. There is only salvation in One - Jesus Christ - and no other.

I pray you find Truth dear one. Don't get hung up on science and knowledge - let go and let God - believe and receive. God is SO good!

Answer 2

A "theory" in science is a possible answer to a question. It's been tested by experiment, and you have actual evidence to help answer your question. A suggestion would be a hypothesis, a possible answer for which there is no data yet.

"The Lord of The Rings" is a book. The fact that the book exists provides absolutely no proof that there was a wizard named Gandalf. It only provides evidence that there was a person who called himself J.R.R. Tolkien who was a very good writer. Same goes for Enoch, and Grigories.

And while there are many things that science hasn't explained yet, that doesn't mean that science can't explain them. It's possible that the technology to answer the question hasn't yet been developed. Think of atomic theory. It took literally thousands of years from the development of the idea of atoms until technology had advanced to the point where direct evidence of the existence of atoms could be gathered.

There are some questions for which science doesn't apply - "what is the meaning of life", for example. That's up to the individual.

Answer 3

"isnt science supposed to be at least "beside" religion, not against it???"

What do you mean 'supposed'?
Some things just 'are'.

It is a human trait that projects it's own ego onto the cosmos, believing everything is 'supposed' or 'should'.

One would have to redefine science in order to even meet Muslims or Christians 'halfway.'

Religious people again and again prove that they do not understand the core principles behind scientific discovery, yet they continue (like 'punter' here) to misrepresent science in order to 'fit' with their 'holy' books. It is remarkably dishonest.

Mountains do not stabilise the earth's crust, and neither do they protect from earthquakes. 'Punter's' voluminous cut and paste 'Quran = science' claims are debunked here:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6713

If you fall from a building onto your head, the 'theory' of gravity will be a certain factor. Your subsequent going to be with Daddy In The Sky or going to a fiery eternity with nasty dead people is just a belief. Not a theory. Not a hypothesis. A belief.

You really want science to be fraudulent ( I guess) because you have a sneaky suspicion that religion is. Am I right?

I expect you then to deny all the benefits that this 'fraudulent' thing called science discovers?

OK I read your updates. You really skipped science class didn't you? Either that or you are very young.

You say you 'know about books'? Well, that's a good start. I suggest now you graduate to reading. Then you can make your own mind up.

Answer 4

If the book's existence was proof, then what about the other holy books like the Koran, the Torah or The Book of Mormon? Are they just as true?

A scientific theory is not the same as a regular theory. A scientific theory has to be based on facts and evidence and studied for a long time. Then it has to be subject to peer review. Which means that fellow scientists have to agree that it is indeed valid.

Religion is not science since it has no evidence, no facts and no basis in fact.

atheist

Answer 5

I think you need to go back to science class. Here's a quick primer on the scientific method. A scientist observes something and then forms a hypothesis (asks a question). He or she constructs an experiment to test that hypothesis. The experiment either proves the scientist right or proves them wrong. Other scientists will attempt to reconstruct the experiment to get the same result. When the results are consistent, scientists can confidently accept something as fact.

Theism is not testable under the scientific method. We cannot prove it as fact. The ancient books are not acceptable proof because anyone could have written them for any reason. This is why we must have faith. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. And I believe that that is the point. We don't need to prove the existence of God. It's not our job. We need only to share our stories about what God has done in our lives and leave it to the listener to believe or not to believe. Remember that Jesus told Thomas that he believed because he saw but blessed will be those who believe but do not see.

Answer 6

Science bases everything on evidence. What science has is a collection of models that fit the best available evidence.

The basic problem between the two is that science keeps finding large problems with things that were written in the holy books. For instance fossil succession describes how fossils lay in the geology, and it is inconsistent with creationism. Also there is no geological signature that matches a world wide flood.

It really doesn't matter rather science can explain everything. Not knowing something does not provide evidence of anything other than we don't know. There is NO positive evidence for any god.

Answer 7

Here we go again...



When scientists talk about a "theory", they don't use the word the way you and I might -- as one might to describe an "educated guess". That falls more under the category of what a scientist would call a "hypothesis", or maybe just "conjecture". A SCIENTIFIC theory basically means "the best explanation we have for all the facts we observe, and that can be verified by repeatable experiments".

Evolution is a "theory" in that, it's the best explanation we can offer for explaining the diversity of life we find on our planet. it is also a FACT -- backed up by millions of pieces of scientific data, gathered in multiple discplines (biology, geology, paleontology, morphology, etc.)

Theism has sketchy evidence at best to back up its claims to historicity (there's no direct documentation to support the existence of a historical jesus, for example); and absolutely ZERO evidence to back up its claims to the supernatural. And every time something that was thought to have a supernatural explanation turns out to have a natural one, the theists backpedal and change the conditions of proof to cover their backsides -- "Oh, God exists OUTSIDE of time and space"..."Oh, the Bible SAYS you can't put God to the test"...."Oh, God won't answer prayers to help the sick and injured if it's part of a double-blind scientific experiment -- he's not going to prove himself; he wants you to have FAITH."

Science, on the other hand, freely admits to imperfect knowledge, and even to the possibility that the best minds in the world could be dead wrong -- and they will revise or even throw out the old theories when new and better explanations come along.

Now -- which sounds like a better path to knowledge and understanding to YOU?

Answer 8

Science and religion are two completely different ways of looking at the world.

In science the world is understandable (even if we haven't figured it out yet) even if it may be counter intuitive and predictable while in religion the world is mysterious and not understandable with gods interfering constantly making it impossible to predict what will actually happen.

There is also what happens to heretics in the two. In science if you bring up a view contrary to what is currently accepted you'll be allowed to present it, people will discuss it and if you are right you'll be vindicated pretty quickly (and have your career made for you) while in religion if you go against the religion you could get burnt (or in modern times merely ignored) without any regard for whether you were right or wrong.

Religion tends to change very slowly to the point at which it lags behind the rest of our species while science tends to be at the forefront of change (look at the Catholic Church's position on contraception and how far behind the times it is).

Answer 9

Religion is blamed for wars, inquisitions, burnings at the stake.

Science is blamed for Thalidamide babies, lobotomies, electroshock therapy, LSD and it's distant cousin Ritilan which is spoon fed to hyperactive 5 year olds, the IUD, the Silicon implant.

There was a time in the 1950s and 1960s when, if you went a little skitzo, they strapped you to a table, put electrodes to your head and zapped you with 1,000 volts because some Scientist said it would do you good. And all it took with a recomendation from 3 Scientists to a court to get this done against your will.

Ken Kesey wrote a book, based on his work at a Psychiatric hospital, called "One Flew Over the Cu-cuoos Nest" in which the subject got a Lobotomy forced upon him due to his actions and the powers that be. This, also happened against your will if enough Scientists agreed it would do you good.

The reason you pay $50 for 20 Penicillin pills in the U.S. vs $5 for them in Canada or Mexico or England is Scientific Malpractice lawsuits.

I'm surprised some Lawyer hasn't gotten up a class action lawsuit for the psychological harm done to teaching tens of millions of people that Pluto was a Planet in the public schools.

Answer 10

no, a suggestion in science is called a hypothesis, and no religion even qualifies as a hypothesis since its not even logical.

when you have enough proof for a hypothesis its called a theory, and when a theory withstands all opposition for a long period of time it becomes a scientific law.

and its discarded as soon as new evidence disproves it, a religious believer would believe fervently whatever new evidence available.

f.ex virgin birth is a mistranslation.. and evolution is definitely proven but extremists choose still not to believe it.


the basic rule of science says everything physical have physical causes, thereby no supernatural gods, souls, spirits etc etc

the bible is written by people as nothing could change the laws of nature and transmit knowledge directly into the writers brains.

Answer 11

Your mistake is in assuming that the only two options are "things that are proven" and "raw speculation".

Science occupies the extremely valuable territory between those two extremes: the realm of things for which we have evidence. ALL of our knowledge of the universe is based in evidence: "proof" is only obtained in logic and mathematics, and cannot on its own tell us anything about the world that we live in.

Falling short of proof does not by any means reduce science to the level of religion. In fact science has been spectacularly successful in producing useful knowledge.