Why can't religon and science be friends?

Science and Spirituality are friends.
Metephores and symbols are not to be taken litterally, they have hidden meaning that only those that want to can see.
Evolution and creation are a part of the same thing, just the opposite extreme of eachother.

The proof is in a simple question:
What came first the chicken or the egg?

Evolution would say the egg. Creation would say the chicken. But common sense will tell you that you can't have one without the other!

However, some people only see one side of the extremes, and who am I to tell them about the other side. Not everyone is ready for the same things at the same time.

I respect the passion of the extremists, and I need the extremes to find my comfort, so I even thank them for making my way seem obvious to me, but my way is much different then theirs.

peace.

PS - Look at the history of science. Look at when most of the discoveries were actually being made and/or added to. You will see almost all the brilliant minds that did most of the work were spiritual in some form. Science and spirituality have been friends all along, one of the greatest tricks ever pulled was making the 2 appear to be enemies!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No they aren't.
We've been through this in another thread.

No they aren't: one has scientific evidence, the other has no evidence whatsoever.

Which just goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about.

It doesn't seem to stop you making ridiculous claims.

Examples? Or are you just spouting again?
Define "spirituality".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

because it's possible that the rules of nature change by themselves as much as it's possible that god changes them himself.
because we can never be certain the laws we discovered now are the real natural laws as much as we can never be certain the laws we've discovered now are the real rules god put.

of course, all science was produced by atheist people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see you missed this bit:

Ho ho.
You mistake the method of enquiry for the motivations of the person.
Even if, as was the case with many scientists, the motivation was to "discover god's workings" (or whatever) the methods and assumptions used were that there was am underlying "real" foundation for the phenomena observed rather than "what does god have it doing today?"

 

i see that you missed this bit:

not only are you assuming that nature is inclined to give you a mechanism when it changes, you're also assuming that god won't give us a mechanism to follow when he decides to change his rules.

well, you're half wrong.
but i guess somehow half right too...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nope, I replied to that:

And you're assuming that I'm assuming.
Science is the discovery of nature: finding the mechanisms would be part of the search.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

God, being god, isn't subject to science.

Oh, I see you're ignorant of the history of science...
One or two proto-scientists (as the article says, they were philosophers) do not make your case.

 

Science and religion are nothing to do with each other.
therefore only ignorant people will be threatened by their paths crossing.

Scientists look at physical evidence, no scientific idea has ever been proven by someone who believes it's true but has no physical proof.

Religion can never have physical proof, hypothetically the second physical proof were to become available, religion would no longer faith based... and therefore religion would be non existent. It would just be accepted.

If people were certain of there God they would have no need to argue for his recognition against science. All it is is self justification, there scared to make a mistake not believing and are stupidly trying to prove something they are unsure of against something they cannot argue.

I'm religious by the way...

 

Nice post, and damn' good for a first post.

 

RELIGION is correct and science is a lot of BS its all fiction. Evolution is a load of crap it started with and idiot thinking of something stupid and try to defi GOD

 

Science fiction sure is...

 

Not very bright, are you?

 

Wow tbh that describes your post much better than it does science!

 

um no God is the maker of heaven and earth and all of earths people all of you must be idiots or not very bright if you think that science is right. God is the means of all and is fantastic and you should hope he can forgive you when you die

 

no you're assuming that i'm assuming that you're assuming

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

..as i KNOW you're assuming because you don't know.

grrrr, that mechanism existing is part of the finding of the mechanism which is part of the search. man you're just too slippery.

:wallbang:
if god exists it's he who made science.
i.e god being god, creates everything, including science.

maybe, there's a better bit coming up about this..

 

God is imaginary.

Heaven is imaginary.

Earth formed via natural processes in our universe.

All life on earth evolved.

Science studies reality, so if you are saying that reality is incorrect then here is a little experiment to demonstrate otherwise:

- Put your hand on a red hot stove. Reality says you will get burned. If reality is incorrect then you will become a very famous and rich person.

God is imaginary. Here is an important question for you Newyorker, which do you value more?:

A) Truth
B) How you feel

 

This is not a rant against science. There are many clues in this post pointing towards Newyorker's fragile psyche. The poster is lashing out against science purely for selfish reasons. The post is about an obsequious sycophant, a flatterer who believes he/she is telling God exactly what He wants to hear. IOW's he/she believes God can be swayed by using psychology. Now there's irony for ya!

 

The mind reading goes on.

Of course there is no contradiction between atheism and a belief in telepathy. I think it is brave of psychotic episode to repeatedly demonstrate his or her belief in his or her psychic abilities here at sciforums where they are likely to be mocked.

 

You can lead a believer to science but you can'y make him think.

 

Nor can you make him or her canny.

 

Surely you, the Ann Landers of SciForums, the consummate advisor to those of lesser intelligence, the purveyor of all things anecdotal and antidotal, would not argue against....... Oh'! How am I doing so far?

Doreen, your sardonic wit coupled with your words of consolation make me feel the need to ask if you counsel people in your professional life?