• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Religion VS Science?

nota bene said:
I have never experienced conflict between science and my faith. In fact, I think scientific discovery is in service to the glory of God, a Creator of infinite imagination.
Click to expand...


I was reading Esther this morning, and the bible study explanation about her role was that of Providence (Providence of God), which means, "foreseeing"...... that suggests of providing for the future. He makes all events work out to His purpose.

I seriously believe that science is but another tool of God. It serves a purpose.
 
Hard Truth said:
If evidence points to an unknown or unexplained phenomena, a good scientist will label it as such, and continue investigating, rather than assume that magic happened.
Click to expand...

What is magic? I mean, real magic. It does something to do with supernatural....

Anyway, your statement can go either way again. A good scientist will continue to investigate rather than assume.....he'll not jump to conclusions based merely on suppositions.
 
Last edited:
Luftwaffe said:
"A scientist unwilling to do that should not be a scientist IN THAT FIELD"

Should not be a scientist at all.

Science is a systematic search for truth. If you find a truth and reject it, no matter what your reasoning is, you're the opposite of a scientist.
Click to expand...

Well-said.
 
tosca1 said:
I was reading Esther this morning, and the bible study explanation about her role was that of Providence (Providence of God), which means, "foreseeing"...... that suggests of providing for the future. He makes all events work out to His purpose.

I seriously believe that science is but another tool of God. It serves a purpose.
Click to expand...

I believe God want us to learn about the universe we live in also and have for years. A line of an Oath the young men at my church said and mesmerized was "obtain as much education as possible" I have forgotten the rest of the oath but that line has stuck with me for many years. The oath does not specify what kind of education, just to seek it and get it.

Their are probably other religions that directly encouraged seeking out knowledge as well.
 
tosca1 said:
Also, Christian scientists were mostly responsible for establishing some disciplnes of science.

TABLE I
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)

TABLE II
NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

(More)
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
Click to expand...


I am trying to see how that is relevant to modern knowledge and modern religious belief? Yes, people from over 100 years ago tended to at least outwardly be more religious, since not to be had really strong social consequences for not believing.. As such, that list is not relevant.
 
tosca1 said:
That goes the other way too.

If evidences point to the supernatural - or metaphysical - then a scientist must choose to rely on the evidence rather than his disbelief of the supernatural.

A scientist must be willing to speak out about it.

After all, what is the purpose of science?
Click to expand...
Please go to the :32 point of this video. We always need critical thinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8

Positive claims require positive evidence
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
 
The General said:
I believe God want us to learn about the universe we live in also and have for years.
Click to expand...

And I believe that as we learn more about the universe, God is glorified.

Who knows....perhaps, that is the sole purpose of science.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am trying to see how that is relevant to modern knowledge and modern religious belief? Yes, people from over 100 years ago tended to at least outwardly be more religious, since not to be had really strong social consequences for not believing.. As such, that list is not relevant.
Click to expand...

It is part of history, no?
 
Tuatara said:
Please go to the :32 point of this video. We always need critical thinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8

Positive claims require positive evidence
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Click to expand...

Oh puhleez.....I stopped watching after the first two statements.
"The idea that really, really believing something is the same as knowing it."

Who thinks that way? Ignorant people. :lol:


But I saw you stated to watch .32 of that video. So I watched.


EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.


Apply that to the theory of evolution, starting at .50 of that video and all the way through the dinosaur analogy. :lol:



Yes, let's apply critical thinking....

Why do evolutionists see that as a fact when their statements are littered with:

maybe
could be
probably
may have been
could have been
likely


All these years, not a single conclusive transitional fossil found!

Especially when evidences being discovered throws a wrench on macro-evolution (ex, common ancestry). What more, when evolutionist scientists keep changing the parameters with their continuous assumptions and suppositions.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Oh puhleez.....I stopped watching after the first two statements.
"The idea that really, really believing something is the same as knowing it."

Who thinks that way? Ignorant people. :lol:


But I saw you stated to watch .32 of that video. So I watched.


EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.


Apply that to the theory of evolution, starting at .50 of that video and all the way through the dinosaur analogy. :lol:

It seems that video was done as a project by some high school students.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me that you would see it that way, not at all but then, your posts have demonstrated an aversion to enquiry and evidence.
 
Tuatara said:
Please go to the :32 point of this video. We always need critical thinking.
Click to expand...

I'm sure prominent scientists who questions evolution, and supports intelligent design, had done more than just
critical thinking for them to come out publicly.

We hardly understand in details what scientists talk about - but one thing I know:
some scientists convert from atheism to deism, theism, Christianity.....due to what they deemed as
scientific evidence(s).
 
Tuatara said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Click to expand...




Wait a minute! Wait a minute!


It just occurred to me.....that logic is wrong!

Extraordinary claims require evidence! Period.



What is "extraordinary" evidence, anyway?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:



Wait a minute! Wait a minute!


It just occurred to me.....that logic is wrong!

Extraordinary claims require evidence! Period.



What is "extraordinary" evidence, anyway?
Click to expand...
You are of course very bright. HEH HEH
 
tosca1 said:



Wait a minute! Wait a minute!


It just occurred to me.....that logic is wrong!

Extraordinary claims require evidence! Period.



What is "extraordinary" evidence, anyway?
Click to expand...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just a slogan propounded by internet scientists. In the real world, ordinary evidence works just fine if it gets you closer to finding out what you want to know. Everybody who has done scientific work knows that discovery is usually a series of small steps, each one leading to the next.
 
Crovax said:
Some Christians are scientists but the difference between scientists and the general public is staggering and leads to a lot of friction between science and religion

Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif


Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
Click to expand...

It really shouldn't make any difference whether you are a scientist or a plebian. Science cannot disprove the God hypothesis so it remains as it always was.
What might make more of a difference might be the circumstances under which one lives. If you live in a bohemian collective with free love, songs and wild living you might be less willing to subjugate yourself to the pastor's fumingout back in the country.
 
Here is the latest on Francis Collins.



Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He previously led the Human Genome Project, and he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007.

In this conversation, Collins speaks about the unique challenge of leading scientists, how science strengthened his spirituality and what he's learned about motivating people.

For me as a scientist, my leadership started out in a very modest way by trying to encourage a few graduate students to believe in themselves and to believe that science could be a valuable approach to making discoveries. And that expanded to having the challenge of leading the entire Human Genome Project—about 2,500 scientists.


Science is an interesting area to try to develop leadership. Science has a currency, and the currency is facts, evidence, data. You can’t lead other scientists just by telling them what you hope to be true. And you can’t just say, “Well this is true because I said so”—because that isn’t going to hold up.

I think people involved in a team effort, whether it’s science or business, want to be considered not just as one-dimensional cogs in the wheel but as fully formed human beings. Whatever environment we find ourselves in, we should encourage that kind of multi-dimensionality of the people we have the privilege of leading.


I am also a person of faith. Belief in God is an important part of who I am. I was an atheist until I was 27 and then I became a believer—largely on the basis of an intellectual exercise I thought was going to strengthen my atheism and surprised me by converting me instead.




Podcast: Francis Collins on leadership - The Washington Post
 
tosca1 said:
Here is the latest on Francis Collins.



Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He previously led the Human Genome Project, and he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007.

In this conversation, Collins speaks about the unique challenge of leading scientists, how science strengthened his spirituality and what he's learned about motivating people.

For me as a scientist, my leadership started out in a very modest way by trying to encourage a few graduate students to believe in themselves and to believe that science could be a valuable approach to making discoveries. And that expanded to having the challenge of leading the entire Human Genome Project—about 2,500 scientists.


Science is an interesting area to try to develop leadership. Science has a currency, and the currency is facts, evidence, data. You can’t lead other scientists just by telling them what you hope to be true. And you can’t just say, “Well this is true because I said so”—because that isn’t going to hold up.

I think people involved in a team effort, whether it’s science or business, want to be considered not just as one-dimensional cogs in the wheel but as fully formed human beings. Whatever environment we find ourselves in, we should encourage that kind of multi-dimensionality of the people we have the privilege of leading.


I am also a person of faith. Belief in God is an important part of who I am. I was an atheist until I was 27 and then I became a believer—largely on the basis of an intellectual exercise I thought was going to strengthen my atheism and surprised me by converting me instead.




Podcast: Francis Collins on leadership - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

You guys sure like your celebrated authorities don't you.
 
doniston said:
You are of course very bright. HEH HEH
Click to expand...

Talk about errors, (i just caught it)--- both correct, but the word BRIGHT was actually intended to be RIGHT, the b was an accident. (really!)
 
tosca1 said:
It is part of history, no?
Click to expand...

But, it is not long relevant to the 'religion verses science' debate , because our knowledge has expanded so much, and the attitudes to religion have changed.
 
RAMOSS said:
But, it is not long relevant to the 'religion verses science' debate , because our knowledge has expanded so much,
Click to expand...

Oh? Not relevant anymore?

Why? Have anything significant changed from those disciplines in science? Which disciplines or discoveries above are no longer relevant today?

As long as they're still being used - they are relevant to this topic. There is no real "Religion VERSUS Science" - that's what we've been saying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom