Why should we choose Religion over Science?

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by danielsil18

 

Why do you think or believe that we should all choose to accept religion over science.

...Because of a lethal allergy to facts and research?

Oh that's not lethal whatsoever...

look at all the folks who still support Socialism.

reply to post by danielsil18

I see...

So you believe that we all have a common ancestor?

I do!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


There are numerous views of socialism and no real definition. Personally I'm an independent.

Anyhow religion and science are two different things. Religion is basically people who believe in the concept of a deity, practice traditions, etc.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

You can see how the two are very different. You can be a religious person and still agree with science. But to me you'll have to sacrifice a lot of your beliefs to accept the reality of science. It's like you want to have your faith and tradition, but you want to accept the modern world and reality. It's an impossibility because the two contradict each other.

reply to post by Phoenix267


Okay, to be specific Marxist Socialism. Stealing money from the producing class and giving it to the people who did not earn it. History has repeatedly shown this is unsustainable and collapses nations.

And I like the subtle wording choices you decided to employ. But seriously, I have no less that 50 books from Conservative Christian scientists in just about every field from microbiology to astrophysics and I don't see any problems reconciling science with theology. I say theology and not religion because theology is the study of God, religion is just man-made attempts to reconcile oneself to a deity of some kind.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And I like the subtle wording choices you decided to employ. But seriously, I have no less that 50 books from Conservative Christian scientists in just about every field from microbiology to astrophysics and I don't see any problems reconciling science with theology. I say theology and not religion because theology is the study of God, religion is just man-made attempts to reconcile oneself to a deity of some kind.

We all come from different walks of life. I took the definitions from Wikipedia and to me I feel it takes a lot to be a person who has faith in God and their beliefs and then to accept science and secular views. To me it's like you're trying to follow ideas that are contradictory. Hopefully this makes sense!

Originally posted by danielsil18

Originally posted by Glass
We shouldn't.

Religion's purpose is to answer the outer, non-physical, unmeasurable-by-science questions. Science's purpose is to answer the mechanistic questions pertaining to this particular instance of physical reality. Both play a role in defining existence, both should be treated with proper respect, and neither should be seen as an alternative to the other.

Both can't coexist though.

Religion and Science don't agree with each other.

I disagree. Religion and science CAN co-exist, and SHOULD. The problem is that there are equally ignorant people on both sides who are determined to undermine that process. Some of the brightest minds in Science are theists. So to answer your original question, we shouldn't choose religion over science. We are free to choose them both if we so desire.

i love this topic.

technically speaking, the book of genesis is a science book.
it talks about 2 different floods, the one associated with ice age and the black sea flood, both]
proven to have existed, by science.

it discusses the cloning and modifying of dna. it talks about re-terraforming the planet after the ice age cataclysm. it discusses the creation of physical matter via super massive black holes.

genesis is brimming with all kinds of useful data.

Originally posted by undo
i love this topic.

technically speaking, the book of genesis is a science book.
it talks about 2 different floods, the one associated with ice age and the black sea flood, both]
proven to have existed, by science.

it discusses the cloning and modifying of dna. it talks about re-terraforming the planet after the ice age cataclysm. it discusses the creation of physical matter via super massive black holes.

genesis is brimming with all kinds of useful data.

Do you have proof or is this just how your own interpretation of Genesis?

Originally posted by Phoenix267


Do you have proof or is this just how your own interpretation of Genesis?

which part first? cause i covered alot of topics.

reply to post by undo


Basically how Genesis is a science book and how you connect like the floods, cloning, etc. I'm skeptical of your views, but I'll hear you out. I love seeing what different people believe in.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by undo

 

Basically how Genesis is a science book and how you connect like the floods, cloning, etc. I'm skeptical of your views, but I'll hear you out. I love seeing what different people believe in.

in genesis 6, i believe, it discusses the flood of noah. the timetable for it would've coincided with the following:

the flood in the story of atrahasis, an akkadian text.
the flood of the epic of gilgamesh, a babylonian text.
the black sea flood, discovered by 2 geologists from oxford university.

however, in the biblical text, it indicates that noah only took 32 animals on the ark. in effect, it wasn't a global flood he experienced, in fact,it was more like the black sea flood. a bad flood to be sure, but only required saving the barnyard animals. woven into the story line is a separate flood account talking about a global flood. this is not the flood of noah. this is the flood you see in genesis 1:2 and genesis 1:9. the surface of the earth was covered with water that sounds to be frozen, it melts, and draws down. the words used such as void and without form, refer to it being in a chaotic state, the hebrew is tohu and later in the text it says the earth was not created in a state of tohu, so Genesis 1:2 is not talking about the creation of the earth since it was in a state of tohu in the verse. the water recedes to reveal dry land that was already there.

somehow, when the account of noah's flood was written down, both floods were included. OR there's another possibility. noah's flood was the global one, and the black sea flood was the account in the akkadian and babylonian versions, in which the local king saved the royal barnyard on his boat. either way, it's 2 floods.

this means the earth was around and had lifeforms on it, before the flood, but what lifeforms? theoretically, they were aware of the cataclysm approaching, saved the dna of the lifeforms on the planet at the time, and then re-terraformed the planet later, using that same dna and THAT is the creation account in the bible. not the original creation, the re-introduction of lifeforms following the ice age.

how was that?

Originally posted by danielsil18
Question for everyone, a simple question.

Why do you think or believe that we should all choose to accept religion over science.

both of these give a person a certain world-view.
Religion and science can co-exist but the question comes as to which gets preference.
Giving preference to pure science blocks a lot of religious beliefs but Religion can allow science to keep functioning unhindered.
So thats my answer.

reply to post by undo


That's interesting, thanks for sharing. As I mentioned I'm skeptical of your views. To me I doubt there was global flood or at least a flood that influenced the stories of Gilgamesh, Noah, etc. To me I need to find reason and try to see what can float and what will sink.

Instead of 'science or religion'

Let's word it 'reason' or 'faith'.

At which point it comes down to how much importance you attribute to evidence.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by undo

 

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. As I mentioned I'm skeptical of your views. To me I doubt there was global flood or at least a flood that influenced the stories of Gilgamesh, Noah, etc. To me I need to find reason and try to see what can float and what will sink.

well we know the ice age happened, and there's some really interesting evidence of it, such as the fossils of sea creatures found at very high elevations (of course, it's possible they got there as a result of being sucked up into a storm surge/hurricane, tornado, and deposited there as the contents of the storm precipitated out). a good portion of the northern hemisphere was covered in huge sheets of ice that had to melt.

also, the ancient sumerian civilization was found buried under 8 feet of flood silt. this would've been coincident with the black sea flood.

as regards the creation of the adam. the first verse that mentions adam, does so in a very sneaky way in english translations. it calls him man instead of adam and then goes on to say man was created, male and female, in the images of the gods. the actual hebrew there is adam. so the adam was copied / cloned males and females and the whole lot of them were called adam. adam is a plural word as is elohim.

to me, that just screams cloning technology. at this point, the adam race had eternal repairing bodies and did not give birth. new adam were created via cloning. then a modification was made, to include mammalian procreation. what the original adam race looked like, i have no idea, but i don't think it was man (homo sapiens). i think the human appearance didn't come to fruition till the addition of mammalian dna for procreation. this procreation thing would allow for a hands free away team, as it were. no one had to be present 24/7/365 to create new workers, as the workers could replicate themselves via procreation. this didn't go over well with the elohim, one of which was an environmentalist. he demanded the adam race's dna be nerfed so their lifespan was shortened.

all that is actually in the text.

Well, to be honest, there is only one reason. It is so that everyone knows what to expect from everyone else and themselves so that they trust each other, stop squabbling, and move on to better things :-)

God's existence is irrelevant.

Wow so many here have such a religious faith in science.

Nobody knows how old the earth is, they are at best guesses. Nobody fully understands evolution and can categorically prove it.

For mine humanity was created in the image of God, that is a significant statement carried through out the Bible.
Any Christian who believes that we evolved doesnt understand the importance of being created in Gods image.

reply to post by borntowatch

Wow so many here have such a religious faith in science.

You're the perfect example of a person with faith. That's not wrong, but to me your views are not influenced by rational though.

Nobody knows how old the earth is, they are at best guesses. Nobody fully understands evolution and can categorically prove it.

A good way to check the age of the Earth is through radioactive testing of meteorites. This is a quick check from Wikipedia.

Source
Source 2

Also evolution is proven science. In science a theory has a completely different meaning then the English definition. In science a scientific theory is an explanation of of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge confirmed through observation and experiment.

Source

Yes, I do accept evolution and I do disagree with your views. But I do accept that you can have faith in God. I'm just skeptical and see them differently.

Originally posted by borntowatch
Wow so many here have such a religious faith in science.

Nobody knows how old the earth is, they are at best guesses. Nobody fully understands evolution and can categorically prove it.

For mine humanity was created in the image of God, that is a significant statement carried through out the Bible.
Any Christian who believes that we evolved doesnt understand the importance of being created in Gods image.

I'm sorry but that is a very narrow minded view. Any Christian who espouses the statements you've made obviously doesn't understand the importance of not placing limits on what God is capable of.

Is it not that much more incredible that God could have created man in his current form through the process of evolution, starting billions of years ago? Think about the incredible foresight, omnipotence, and intelligence involved in such a process. Cosmological evolution does not diminish God's glory in any way whatsoever and in fact just demonstrates it. Please explain how evolution somehow means that God did not create man in his own image?

The idea that science is incompatible with religion is archaic and fundamentally flawed. You are commanded to be "wise as serpents yet gentle as doves". Disregarding scientific data to cling to outdated interpretations of theology is the antithesis of that admonition. God wouldn't have designed people with brains if he didn't want the latter to be put to use.

I think that religion is such a broad word because it encompasses so many different fields of belief, some contradict others eg you die and go to heaven or hell as opposed to you die and come back.

The one thing I see as a major flaw to some of the Western religions is that Christ gave his apostles the power to heal and obviously that was miraculous. Today how many of his administrators within the churches can actually carry out the gift he bestowed on his followers and why has it not followed down through the generations?

This is where I see science pulling ahead of religion as I don't think we expect enough of our religion administrators IMHO..