• Who cares? I think I'm pregnant. I found a pill. Does he like me? Am I gay? gr8! Yay!
  • I don't understand why it can't be a little of both:)
  • "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
  • Eeep...I tend to stick with science, because although it can't prove everything, it does work from substantial matter, say like fossils, what we know about space, or what we can SEE about's theory elements all start somewhere, they have something to go on even if the supposed elaborations seem far fetched at times, while religion does not. They just that's that and nothing more. Religious behaviour also seems to adhere highly to psychology. :/ On the other hand, there's a whole lot of things that perhaps science can't ever prove, maybe it's just too complicated, or too different, even though I still stick with the idea that because something can't be explained, doesn't mean it has no explanation. :/ But then, I don't understand squat about science and its terms, so wtf do I know lol.
  • I don't draw a line, Chris. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to debate. Nothing Science has proven or shown us has diminished my religious faith. Of course, I am not what is commonly called a "Fundamentalist". All of the "Bible" or any other written religious work is not "written in stone"...(or any other hard substance). If anyone's faith is threatened or destroyed by a new scientific discovery, then their faith was not grounded very well. My own faith comes from much more than any single book or writing. Volumes have been written about this and I certainly don't have the time to discuss them all. I can only answer questions on AB briefly. You may disagree with anyone's reasoning about religion, but it is foolish to ridicule anyone's faith. You have no idea where that person is coming from...or what their life has taught them.
  • I have religion, but I love science and see no sense in trying to argue with it - especially when the scientists are so busy actively making a "mark of the beast" ... (and that's not the only thing, just read the bloody Bible ... mumble mumble mumble ...) As for where science seems to contradict religion, I say don't argue with science, but don't argue with religion either. Just wait. Just because we are so sure of ourselves today, who knows what we will discover tomorrow? The chromatic scale (music) is what, 300 years old? Our ideas on the nature of light are less than 100 years old. Most quantum theory looks ridiculous - who would have believe in entangled photons if it wasn't backed up with "But that is what scientists have discovered!"?, the role of viruses has just recently been discovered to be much greater than we earlier imagined, and here we are saying we know enough about science to dispute religion? It doesn't work. Science is great at saying what is impossible, but people are great at finding a way around those limitations - with more science. Science may one day "prove" religion, but 200 years later it might "disprove" it again. And 200 years after that it might "re - prove" it, so what do you gain? Did you need to prove the science that drives your car before you drove it? Did you refuse to believe that the 4.00 bus exists because no bus turns up until 4.10? Don't ask a scientist about religion. You'll get the same level of expertise that a religious person will give you about science. And I really need to stop raving on. Why do I keep answering these questions? XP
  • If you believe that God is the Creator of all..then He created science as well. A belief in God does not invalidate a belief in science. Each has its role to play in one's life. No one alive will ever know the truth about God is all supposition, belief, faith, conjecture, hope. Perhaps at death, the truth is revealed. Until that time, it is kinda silly for imperfect humans to assume that they "know", isn't it? :)
  • Put me down for the science side of the line Chris
  • There's no line, they are mutually exclusive. Neither can 'prove' anything, they are different methods of discovering truth, that are not affected by the conclusions of the other. One uses a model of testing, hypothesis, observation, conclusions, to create theoretical models of how the universe works. The other is based in an interpretation of tradition and sacred writings to determine what is true. Of course, there is only one "truth" but neither are necessarily better at telling us that. I happen to believe that because science is a construct of reason, and religion is not, that it is much more likely to be true, but I do not presume that this means that all non-evidence based claims of religion are false. I don't believe them, but I can't say they are definitely false, because nothing is truly falsifiable. Only people who wish to declare the other method false to support their own view or align their own conflicted interpretations create the line you speak of.
  • I don't think there needs to be a line. There is no need to keep religion.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy