Will science and religion...
...ever become one?
...maybee....eventually....now ain't dat deep.....;p
2 months ago
They are just not macroevolution and religion!
2 months ago
Which religion?
Evolution has already outlived 95% of the gods and religions that have ever been worshipped.
Evolution has already outlived 95% of the gods and religions that have ever been worshipped.
2 months ago
They already have. We worship at the altar of technology and consumerism. It is technology that has been the engine for consumerism by providing the means for the goods to be invented and mass produced.
Excuse me, I must leave right now. I have a church service to attend at Wal-Mart.
Excuse me, I must leave right now. I have a church service to attend at Wal-Mart.
2 months ago
They already are one.....God exists (the one God) and we can only learn as much as HE allows. Its all there for us and is revealed as we "evolve" He guides us through and teaches us. Mankind in his arrogance thinks that he is discovering the unknown. There is nothing unknown to God. There is much yet to be revealed and explored, many wonders yet to behold in His good time.
2 months ago
Like Marti and Espirit has said, " We already have ". When the first question was asked, religion became a scientific study.
2 months ago
Excellent, Charles.
2 months ago
I wonder, though, if asking questions actually makes religion one with science, when the burden of science is proof and the burden of religion is faith?
2 months ago
It already has been tried; it’s called Creationism. Religion calls it science. Science calls it cretinism.
True, the scientific method can start when you ask a question. But in science the question must be about something that you can observe, not just imagine. The question must be about something that you can measure, preferably with a number.
Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. Faith is about making up a story and insisting you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe it.
Is religion perceptible by the senses? No; only in your imagination.
Religion is more like philosophy -- thinking games for the soul; not science. They’ll never be one.
True, the scientific method can start when you ask a question. But in science the question must be about something that you can observe, not just imagine. The question must be about something that you can measure, preferably with a number.
Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. Faith is about making up a story and insisting you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe it.
Is religion perceptible by the senses? No; only in your imagination.
Religion is more like philosophy -- thinking games for the soul; not science. They’ll never be one.
2 months ago
No. The attitudes of each torwads "truth" are fundamentally opposed.
It seems to me that there is one similarity between religion and science. Each start with phenomena—either in the world experienced “as external” or the in the interior world of the mind/self. Each then asks, how do we explain these phenomena, and each generates theories that are supposed to organize and make intelligible what we experience. It is at this point they diverge. Once “religion” has “hit upon” a theory that (for the time being) satisfies our longing for understanding, that theory becomes “sacred”: one cannot question it, any phenomena that the theory doesn’t seem to make intelligible are said to be “mysteries”. Suggested changes in the theory or alternatives to the theory are said to be “blasphemy”. Scientific theories, however, are always open to further testing, to the possibility of “falsification”. Scientific theories are viewed as “this is the best explanation that we have up to now; better explanations may be developed in the future.”. However, religion seems to encourage the attitude that “this is the eternal, unchanging truth—believe or be lost”.
Here is a test, Veggiebubble, for you to try at home. Ask yourself "What, if it were to happen, would show me that my belief in X is false?" Now for X, put your religious belief--that there is a God, or there is reincarnation, or whatever. If you answer "nothing", then you have answered you own question about the possibility of a merger between science and religion.
It seems to me that there is one similarity between religion and science. Each start with phenomena—either in the world experienced “as external” or the in the interior world of the mind/self. Each then asks, how do we explain these phenomena, and each generates theories that are supposed to organize and make intelligible what we experience. It is at this point they diverge. Once “religion” has “hit upon” a theory that (for the time being) satisfies our longing for understanding, that theory becomes “sacred”: one cannot question it, any phenomena that the theory doesn’t seem to make intelligible are said to be “mysteries”. Suggested changes in the theory or alternatives to the theory are said to be “blasphemy”. Scientific theories, however, are always open to further testing, to the possibility of “falsification”. Scientific theories are viewed as “this is the best explanation that we have up to now; better explanations may be developed in the future.”. However, religion seems to encourage the attitude that “this is the eternal, unchanging truth—believe or be lost”.
Here is a test, Veggiebubble, for you to try at home. Ask yourself "What, if it were to happen, would show me that my belief in X is false?" Now for X, put your religious belief--that there is a God, or there is reincarnation, or whatever. If you answer "nothing", then you have answered you own question about the possibility of a merger between science and religion.
2 months ago
