How would the relationship between science and religion be different today...?

Question

ATTENTION: Please read my other question before answering this one:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvTp6FlkTdReyAfG2kURt33sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071125115033AA2kDKA

So how would the relationship between science and religion today be if the early church did not ostracize its members who first thought of the universe? Do you think that the current concept of God would be different? For example, not to think of God as a person, but as a state or a term to describe the collective acceptance to what the universe is and lifes roles in it. I think, there would still be religion, but I can't really say what type of religion there would be. Perhaps everyone would be Wiccan. Perhaps everyone would think of nature as being in control, and not humans being in control of nature. Perhaps if the church of the past didn't shun those early religious scientist there would be only one religion and no atheists.

Please elaborate.

Pardon me, well I am glad you took the time to post your comment on my question, instead of just ignoring it. The ability to walk away and be objective is a sign of maturity. An ability that you obviously lack. So you just keep on giving your comments on how you don't have time to comment on something, and yet you still do. Pathetic.

Skepsis:

I'll buy that, but what of the man who first thought of the an "primeval atom" and who thought that the universe had a begining. He was a devout catholic, and even though he was was correct people in the scientific field rejected his ideas because he was religious.

Oh yeah, "maybe" wasn't a good choice of words. I had to think of something.

Edit:

I still think that you are wrong to say that there was never any harmony between the two. Perhaps each new discovery could of lead to dividing views. One leading to the truth and one leading to a spiritual belief. I just think that science and religion came from one idea or concept and just eventually seperated.

Edit:

I still think that you are wrong to say that there was never any harmony between the two. Perhaps each new discovery could of lead to dividing views. One leading to the truth and one leading to a spiritual belief. I just think that science and religion came from one idea or concept and just eventually seperated.

Answer 1

Actually, I think that true science supports the idea that there's a God; if there had been no "theory of evolution", we may have had better discoveries in medicine and science because we wouldn't have wasted 150 years and billions of dollars digging pointlessly for skeletons that can't help us in the here and now.
The first scientists of the Renaissance were all Creationists. They were looking for signs of order in Nature, because they believed that God created everything, and that's all we ever find, from the microscopic level to the macroscopic level. Evidence of His existence is all around us; it is impossible to deny, except by fools.

Answer 2

Mathematical Miracles in Lexical Concordance

1 ONE DAY2 DAYS4 YEAR5 THAT DAY AND THE RESURRECTION DAY6 THE MOON7 THE MONTH8 THE DATE OF THE LANDING ON THE MOON9 RATIO OF THE SEA AND LAND SURFACE10 THE 309th WORD11 SEVEN HEAVENS12 ATOMIC NUMBER OF IRON13 IRON’S ISOTOPES14 THE HIGHEST DEGREE15 THE SURA ON THE HONEYBEES16 THE WORLD AND THE HEREAFTER17 ANGELS AND THE DEVIL18 BENEFIT AND CORRUPTION19 SEXUAL CRIME, TRANSGRESSION AND WRATH20 DIRTINESS AND NASTINESS21 OPENLY AND PUBLICLY22 SATAN AND SEEKING REFUGE23 SORCERY AND DISCORD24 LANGUAGE AND ADVICE25 SAY AND THEY SAID26 MERCY AND GUIDANCE27 MERCY, MERCIFUL AND GRACIOUS28 RIGHTEOUSNESS AND REWARD29 HOPE AND FEAR30 COLD AND HOT31 SOW, GROW, AND FRUIT32 TREE AND PLANT33 SIN AND SEXUAL CRIME,TRANSGRESSION, WRATH34 THE RICH AND THE POOR35 THAMUD AND THE NOISE36 THE PEOPLE OF LOT AND THE SHOWER OF ROCKS37 FORGIVE AND PAY38 DESTINATION AND FOREVER39 ACT AND RESPONSE40 SUN AND LIGHT41 ANNOYANCE AND REJOICE42 JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE43 A FEW AND APPRECIATE44 MESSENGER AND PEOPLE45 HARM AND BENEFIT46 SABBATH47 THE FIRST BLOW OF THE HORN AND THE SECOND BLOW OF THE HORN48 THE STAGES OF CREATION AND THE HUMAN BEING49 INTOXICANTS, GAMBLING, IDOLS, FORTUNE ARROWS: DIRTINESS AND THE DEVIL’S LABOR50 ADAM AND JESUS Mathematics and 19

1 - GOD IS ONE: 192 - HOW IS 19 MENTIONED IN THE QURAN?3 - THE FUNCTIONS OF 19 ACOORDİNG TO THE QURAN4 - THE SURA "HIDDEN" AND THE DATE OF DISCOVERY OF NUMBER 195 - ONE OF THE GREATEST6 - OTHER MIRACLES IN THE SURA "THE HIDDEN"7 - EVERYTHING IS COUNTED8 - THE NUMBERS IN THE QURAN9 - BASMALAH AND THE SURAS10 - WHAT DID THE DISCOVERY OF THE MISSING BASMALAH TEACH US?11 - THE NUMBER OF THE LETTERS IN THE BASMALAH12 - DIAMONDS and GLASSES13 - THE WORDS IN THE BASMALAH14 - THE WORD "NAME" and NUMBER 1915 - THE WORD "GOD" and 1916 - GRACIOUS, MERCIFUL, THE TOTAL OF THE COEFFICIENTS 1917 - THE NUMBER OF THE VERSES WITH THE WORDS OF BASMALAH18 - THE NAMES OF GOD19 - THE MAGNIFICENT TABLE20 - WHY IS THE BASMALAH LIKE THIS?21 - The Aspects Which The Probability Calculations Show22 - WHAT KIND OF LOGIC DO YOU HAVE?23 - ENDLESS MIRACLES IN THE BASMALAH24 - SURA THE PROLOGUE and 1925 - THE PROBLEMS THAT SHOULD BE SOLVED ABOUT 1926 - SURAS THAT HAVE INITIAL LETTERS AND 1927 - THE SURA YASIN SURA AND 1928 - THE SURA “MARY” and NUMBER 1929 - THE BEGINNING LETTERS AYN-SEEN-QAF30 - THE INTRODUCTORY LETTER “SAD” and THE MISTAKE THAT IS CORRECTED31 - THE INTRODUCTORY LETTER “QAF”, THE QURAN and 1932 - ENDLESS MIRACLES IN ONE LETTER33 - THE 19th LETTER34 - THE WORD “QURAN” and NUMBER 1935 - THE INITIAL LETTER “HA-MEEM” and 1936 - THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION OF THE INITIALS “HA” “MEEM”37 - THE 19TH SURA FROM THE END:THE HANGING38 - EVEN and ODD NUMBERS39 - SIGN, EVIDENCE, WORD and 1940 - 19, Relationship Between God and the Humanbeings41 - Frightened Asses42 - WHAT HAVE WE GAINED SO FAR FROM THE MIRACLE OF 1943 - The Last Words44 - THE PATHS IN FRONT OF US45 - THE BIGGEST CLAIM-THE BIGGEST MIRACLE



Quranic Research Group

THE QUR’AN
AND
MODERN SCIENCE

by

Dr. Maurice Bucaille

Edited by Dr. A. A. B. Philips



Table of Contents

THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE

Table of Contents

EDITOR’S FOREWORD

INTRODUCTION

RELIGION AND SCIENCE

The Qur’an And Science

AUTHENTICITY OF QUR’AN

CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

ASTRONOMY

The Sun and Moon.

Stars and Planets

Orbits

The Day and Night

The Solar Apex

Expansion of the Universe

Conquest of Space

GEOLOGY

Water Cycle

Mountains

BIOLOGY

Botany

Physiology

EMBRYOLOGY

Fertilization

Implantation

Embryo

BIBLE, QUR’AN AND SCIENCE

Creation

Age of the Earth

The Flood

The Pharaoh

Answer 3

I think you have things a bit backwards. In your other question you say, "do you think that the early discrimination and unfair criticism of science by the church is the result of the debate between religion and science today?" "Result?"

The modern idea of "science" (investigation without mythologization) is over a thousand years younger than the "Early Church". There never was any harmony between them. The discoveries of Galileo and Newton were part of a movement that sought to understand reality without filtering it through the common superstitions of their world. But those superstitions were the accumulated "knowledge" of centuries past.

The principle purpose of religion is not doctrine but behavior. Myths are heroic stories meant to exemplify admirable and deplorable behavior against a background of the contemporary understanding of how the world works. But people find it easier to believe in the myths than emulate the behavior, so the focus of religion changes, from meaningful action to conformity of belief. The earliest Christian intellectuals had adopted the Platonic understanding of "science". Later, Aristotelian principles took over. The new scientists, with their ideas of gravity and heleocentricity, were ruining the current world view, and the mythology. (not intentionally, of course.) And indirectly, that affected morals, because people were wondering what to believe.

Science ignores God, because God is scientifically undetectable. But religion has become all about God. God is the authority behind all moral standards. Conflict is unavoidable under those conditions.

The difference between "morals" and "instinct" is that morals are uncomfortable and inhibiting. They override the natural inclination toward self-preservation and pleasure, usually toward altruistic ends. Now, science might be able to detect sociological benefits in altruistic behavior, but it can't attribute that to "God". It is simply a species survival tactic. This robs God of his legislative purpose, which is not desireable to religious institutions. Until such time as theologians are able to successfully integrate today's scientific theories with the purported purposes of God, enmity will continue.

Answer 4

I'm sorry, you're just not that interesting. I don't find the need to go back and read anything you may have composed in the past.

While you may have a unique take on things, I personally prefer to debate more mature thinkers.