Would it be okay to discuss theology here[?]

More
22 years 1 month ago #3437 by makis
Replied by makis on topic Reply from
There hasn't been any major Scientific Theory developed in the history of Mankind that did not have religious implications. Those that ingore or undermine those implications are simply not well informed on the subjects. Although I also try to stay away from Theological issues, I cannot neglect the fact that those questions were in the minds of the great people that left their marks in the development of the theories discussed in these threads. Are we smarter or we want to seek solutions that avoid the inevitable quest? If we can succeed then that would be a breakthrough. I myself doubt that a lot.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #3693 by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
Perhaps Einstein was right when he said that the more he checked the works, the more he was sure of a supreme governance.

When my students have trouble with religion and science I tell them
"Science tells us how, what, and when but usually not why"


Mark Vitrone

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #3447 by Julio
Replied by Julio on topic Reply from Julio Ogazón
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>When my students have trouble with religion and science I tell them
"Science tells us how, what, and when but usually not why"<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

MHO about religion is that it is an artifact of the people for that very reason: Science can't really tell you why, but there is a psicological need for people to know, and so, religions fill the void.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #3448 by Patrick
Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Science can't really tell you why, but there is a psicological need for people to know, and so, **religions fill the void**.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Actually, in (M)y (H)umbled (O)pinion I think it might be the opposite. It is religion that has been around much longer then science. Look at some of the tribes in remote parts of the world where they have no outside human interaction, they usually have religion even though they have no idea what science is.
Also, I think there is scientific proof of a *GOD* and I think the scriptures of all religions reference the proofs in one way or another. The proofs are in the scriptures but it needs science for their discovery. Here is a quote from a very smart man:
""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (A.E.)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #3561 by nderosa
Replied by nderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
My take is more pragmatic. If the cause of a phenomenon (eg., the universe, in Big Bang theory) is "miraculous," meaning here that something is apparently being created from nothing; then we should look for another explanation--the objective one, or the one based on empirical facts.

So our position on religion and the miraculous helps us to formulate a sound scientific method. The branch of science where this issue is most familiar is biology, where scientists are still coming up with miraculous theories. Though I probably shouldn't have strayed from astronomy to look for an example.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 1 month ago #3562 by Patrick
Replied by Patrick on topic Reply from P
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the cause of a phenomenon (eg., the universe, in Big Bang theory) is "miraculous," meaning here that something is apparently being created from nothing; then we should look for another explanation--the objective one, or the one based on empirical facts. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Something doesn't get created from nothing and something never turns into nothing, everything comes from something and returns to something. My hypothesis is that everything is just a *FINITE* amount of energy forming and transforming into different states.
Take a look at this post: www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=122

From a religious point of view, what the scriptures say, is or could the energy discribed be God? Look at the scripture of any religion and compare what it says to the eternal energy I discribed.

[I guess I deserved it. Mark probably saw it comming, being a science teacher in the "Bible Belt." I probably did too, but I was curious anyway. There may be another website that discusses scripture. This isn't it. moderator.]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.284 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum