Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Super19

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences

2,035 posts in this topic

As long as they stay compartmentalizes, which is what I think you're suggesting, then there's no reason that they can't have the ability to be held in one's head. People do it all the time. The problem of co-existence arises when someone attempts to have them co-exist in the same compartment. Very much similar rational reaction/outcome for those who are capable of reason as is borne when matter and anti-matter.share the same space.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious.

Does anyone in here get offended when they hear "Oh my God."?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with religion and science is religious people make claims despite no evidence and then when evidence to contrary is presented they still refuse to change their positions.

Because religious people do that - religion and science will always have conflict. Unfortunately.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Science doesn't explain the unexplainable. It ignores it. Much like it ignores religion.

Volcanoes are natural, so science can be applied to it. It is supernatural phenomena that it cannot be applied to, while religion can. This is what makes science and religion mutually exclusive.

Saying that religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences is like saying atheism is a religion, in that both sides are supposed to be mutually exclusive, but can be brought together by those who want to make a debate for the sake of debate.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science doesn't fight religion. It ignores it. (Right?)

However, those with an antitheistic agenda would use science to crucify religion.

The response from theists is usually, well, science can't disprove ghosts, ESP, visions, historical miracles, etc. or anything supernatural, so how can it disprove God, let lone religion?

The result is neverending debate from two sides with an unyielding agenda.

The problem with using science to disprove religion is that it is based on empiricism. Experience, evidence and sensory perception can only take the human mind so far. You can't use science to disprove what it cannot possibly reach.

While religion might be archaic, at least it attempts to explain the unexplainable, whereas those things are out of science's reach, and that's why science and religion are mutually exclusive.

The science vs. religion debate is folly, since by definition the sides can never come together. Still, i can see progress being made when science and religion do work together. It would be nice if scientists were able to open their minds a bit and if religious people realized that some of their archaic beliefs aren't even worth having.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Science doesn't explain the unexplainable. It ignores it. Much like it ignores religion.

Volcanoes are natural, so science can be applied to it. It is supernatural phenomena that it cannot be applied to, while religion can. This is what makes science and religion mutually exclusive.

Saying that religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences is like saying atheism is a religion, in that both sides are supposed to be mutually exclusive, but can be brought together by those who want to make a debate for the sake of debate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And once again, you are wrongheaded in your argument. Atheists don't try to disprove god (or anything else really) we simply lack belief one exists due to a lack of any evidence or data. It is not unyielding, if anything science is the epitome of yielding, the other side simply needs to provide an argument worth yielding for. So far they can not.

I'll also argue that your "science can't explain the unexplainable" premise is false as well. Many things USED to seem unexplainable until science uncovered the root of them. Earthquakes or volcanoes are not in fact angry, vengeful gods for instance but simply techtonic, magma etc movement. Yay Science!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Science doesn't explain the unexplainable. It ignores it. Much like it ignores religion.

Volcanoes are natural, so science can be applied to it. It is supernatural phenomena that it cannot be applied to, while religion can. This is what makes science and religion mutually exclusive.

Saying that religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences is like saying atheism is a religion, in that both sides are supposed to be mutually exclusive, but can be brought together by those who want to make a debate for the sake of debate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you have jumped to the wrong conclusion - he didn't say atheists, he said antitheists (like yourself and SS).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that what Scientology is about? :)

Kidding - I know the Scient part of it has nothing to do with "Science" today - it comes from a Greek word meaning "Knowledge or "skill"...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Scientology. Is that related to atheism? Or is that a cult? Is there a God in scientology named Xenu? Whatever. It's an example of how anyone can make a religion out of anything these days. Cha-ching!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are there things that can't be explained though? You simply can't say that for certain. And please note I'm not saying that there definitely AREN'T "supernatural" phenomena (though I'd love for you to offer up some examples).

But it's also equally possible that we simply lack the knowledge AT THIS TIME to explain "X" phenomena. As I noted earlier, two thousand years ago we may have lacked the knowledge to explain seemingly "supernatural" acts like those earthquakes or say the aurora borealis. Yet we can explain them now. A lack of knowledge about a thing does not equate a quality of "supernatural" to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. If you aren't denying the existence of supernatual phenomena, then you are rejecting science. What empirical and measurable evidence is there for you to believe in supernatural phenomena? If you are rejecting science, then what are you in fact using to explain your believed supernatural phenomina?

Relax, i'm not saying that you have to use religion to explain these, but some do. Why? Because science cannot.

Perhaps science isn't the end-all to gaining true knowledge afterall. If that's the case, then who gives a frack if religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. If you aren't denying the existence of supernatual phenomena, then you are rejecting science. What empirical and measurable evidence is there for you to believe in supernatural phenomena? If you are rejecting science, then what are you in fact using to explain your believed supernatural phenomina?

Relax, i'm not saying that you have to use religion to explain these, but some do. Why? Because science cannot.

Perhaps science isn't the end-all to gaining true knowledge afterall. If that's the case, then who gives a frack if religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Science is a process, not an absolutism. Science can be used to accept or reject claims about the natural world, even supernatural truth claims when they are purported to exist in the natural world.

You continue to make logical, and I use that word ever so sparingly in your case, leaps about what JR is asserting. No where did he say that he was :"rejecting science". That's your own fallacious inference from a faulty critical thinking skill-set. Science is the best game in town when it comes to acquiring 'real' and 'true' knowledge about the natural world. Critical thought is the game in town in identifying religion as nonsensical. But i'm sure you'll interpret that to mean that I have concluded that critical thought is just a 'game'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just explained why science cannot be used to disprove religion. All it can do is prove/disprove 'supernatural truth claims when they are purported to exist in the natural world.'

I think your problem isn't really with religion. It's with some of their followers' actions throughout history. You may or may not agree with their actions. That's your right. However, it's hardly scientific.

'Yawn' at the rest of your post. But at least it wasn't another animated gif or memegenerator pic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leaving my mind open to possibility isn't scientific? Just like the existence of "god" i think the truly "supernatural" is VERY unlikely. But with out science to refute (or support) it, I can not say with certainty it doesn't (or does) exist. Based on present knowledge, it's VERY unlikely. This is EXACTLY what science does.

As for your last point, it's not science that has the burden of proof of god/supernatural. Also, do you not believe religion exists? I do. Science can easily prove that. Once again you're talking out of your buttocks.

And I'm still waiting for your examples

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your problem isn't really with religion. It's with some of their followers' actions throughout history.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Religious people aren't crazy, they just believe crazy things."

-Hitchens

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.