|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do we need science to back up religion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Some religions (esp. Islam) stated that their scripture includes scientific findings, thereby being the right one. Is there any merit for this position? Should a religion have a scientific back-up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I think the better question is "Can a religion which wishes to have a scientific backup support it's claims scientifically?" So far, this hasn't happened. The only reason any religions want to use science to strengthen their case is to get more people to follow the given religion. IMO it cheapens both religion and science to try to "prove" the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran with a science. If religion is based upon faith, then why does it need to be proven by modern science? Is faith so weak that it requires constant proving?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andor Inactive Member |
My opinion is that science and religion are two completely separated and independent, though not incompatible, fields.
Every one of these fields represents an aspect of knowledge, science is the "how", religion (and philosophy) is the "why". You and I can be interested in both fields, but the fields themselves should NEVER mix: To confuse the facts with their possible meaning, only can lead to explosive situations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: Religion is based on faith- but faith doesn't mean believing something that is wrong or ludicrous. Also, YECs don't try to "prove" the bible- they simply try to interpret evidence under a biblical model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I don't like the division between science and religion. It divides the world, I think, artificially. If something-- anything-- intersects our experience we ought to be able to study it. And religion-- God for example, certainly would intersect our experience. In other words, how is it possible that something-- a miracle, say-- effect the world and it not be quantifiable? Take prayer. If prayer works wonders, a simple study ought to verify it. 30% of prayed-for cancer patients survive vs. the 10% survival of not-prayed-for patients-- that sort of thing. The alternative is that the tenants of religion-- the supernatural or some such-- are real but don't effect anything. If so, I don't see the point. No effects, no consequences... might as well not be. So, yeah, I think religion ought to be scientifically back-up-able. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Studies have been done on the positive effects of prayer on health and recovery, and I'm sure someone here can point us to information on the web. My guess is that such studies are not scientifically valid because they would need to be double-blind where the patient doesn't know if he's being prayed for or who is praying for him, and the person doing the praying doesn't know which patient they're praying for, if any.
Naturally you couldn't have a blind study where the patient prays for himself. I suppose you could have a comparative study, though, where they measure the relative success rates of praying Catholics against praying Baptists and so forth. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Right. It would certainly have to be a properly done study. I have a link to one such study.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9903/07/religion.health/ Sorry if that has been posted here before. I don't remember where I found the link. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The belief in the worldwide Biblical Flood, for example, has no physical evidence to support it. YEC'ers believe in it first and then attempt to find support for a global flood in physical natural evidence while ignoring all evidence which points away from such an event. You can call it "interpreting evidence under a Biblical perspective" if you want to; it certainly sounds better phrased that way. At day's end, however, it's still and exercise in trying to prove the Bible true. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tertulian Inactive Member |
quote: Faith IS irrational! It IS the belief in something wrong and ludicrous! You can't see a god. You can't prove he/she/it exists. And yet millions/billions of people believe in a supernatural being. This belief is irrational. Why does one believe in something they can't see or prove, even to themselves? A book? They need science in order to validate their positions. Otherwise, it is just "dust in the wind".A biblical model cannot stand on its own when confronted with all kinds of scientific evidence. The evidence is 'mutated' to fit these kinds of models. The answer to the TOPIC "Do we need science to back-up religion", is a resounding "YES!!". It needs all the help it can get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think it's pretty horrifying when people judge moral guilt or innocense with scientific certitude, so I don't think religion needs backup from science.
Religion is of the heart, and science is of the mind, and in the struggle between them, the heart should always win. Maybe corny, but still basicly true in my opinion. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, should a child be denied a blood transfusion which would save her life (science/mind) because her parents follow a religion which forbids such procedures (religion/heart)? There need not be any struggle between science and religion. The only struggle which occurs is when religion demands that one must believe despite what science has discovered about the world. IOW, religions cause this struggle because they cannot or will not change and grow, and they demand that their followers keep their minds in ancient times. What kind of God/gods would take joy in followers who purposefully stunted their divinely-created intellects, choosing to remain ignorant and narrow-minded? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-tooley0.html Read the debate. I'm not saying that Craig whoops the competition completely- but contrary to your rather pessimistic assertions of the lack of any intellectual reasons to believe in God- there is a good basis (intellectually) for being a theist. Also, YEC is not neccesary for religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
The answer to the original post really depends on whether religions have to be 'mystical' or 'legalistical' or can be considered to be potential realities. Christianity, as recorded in the Bible, is unambigously meant to be literal truth. The fact that many Christians practise either mystically or legalistically does not detract from the clear intention recorded in scripture.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tertulian Inactive Member |
I've read better debates on bathroom walls. Both sides, Craig and Tooley, were severely lacking in content. Craig appealed to abstract concepts for the proof of a god. But any of those proof, as Tooley mentioned, can be used for the existence of any supernatural creator. These 'proofs' are weak at best. Tooley pointed out some errors in his arguments but his debating skill are lacking (mine aren't any better). I didn't learn anything from that garbage.
I was laughing when Craig gave his 'proofs' or 'plausibility' of the existence of a god. He made a major mistake is the first of the two contentions. He said that "I. There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true, ". Atheism is not a world view. Atheism cannot be true or untrue. Atheism is the denial of theism, that's it, that's all, and nothing more. It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa. But that is off topic. If there wasn't any modern science, there wouldn't be any serious objections to religion (they'd get burned at the stake). Now that scientists have removed the yoke of religion they are free to follow evidence instead of irrational faith.
quote: What good 'intelectual' reasons? Those that Craig gave? Those are just poorly understood ideas. Sort of like the ancient Greeks thought that Apollo flew across the sky everyday in a chariot drawn by white swans. We certainly don't believe that anymore, although it does make good fantasy reading. Why do we need to need to project human attributes to unexplained abstract ideas? "God did it!" is not a valid answer to those ideas. Just because we do not know 'where it came from' or 'why it's here', does not put into supernatural providence.
quote: YEC, IS the religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"YEC, IS the religion."
--No, actually a YEC is a Young Earth Creationist. This abbreviation does not conform to a particular religious perspective. There are Christian, Mormon, Muslim and what not YEC's. ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024