Religion and Science

It's true that at first there was little backlash, but it his book was later placed on the index of forbidden books along with Galileo's works. But there was much acceptance from other scholars of his book. I can give you a whole list of scientists, philosophers, and even theologians that accepted his work that I've found in one of Randall Knight's physics textbooks. That list, compared to the ones who did oppose him, is quite large. With that being said, there is stubbornness in the scientific community, but unlike with the Catholic Church it doesn't involve burning people at the stake, ex-communication, or imprisonment.

4shore
Religion breeds Martyrs and Theocracies.
Science breeds jackasses and Technocrats.

To say that religion is more rigid than science is somewaht amusing to me. So, the scientific method is not dogma to science as much as the Trinity would be to Christianity or the sanctity of the Quran would be to Islam?

In which sense exactly: the different models to use scientific reasoning, or the theory behind the ideas of the scientific method itself? Because both have changed through history.

Certainly religion has also changed to at least the same extent as both.

I now sum up the argument for Judea-Christian vs. Science

Ya.
That sounds good.

I honestly think this is bit too much of a touchy subject to have on a forum like this. x: Good luck and good future to this thread, however. ^^

My only 2 cents would be that the Bible isn't everything it says; those are stories with morals 'cept for some parts that were registering history. People who take it literally need to think into it just a little more.

I'd be happy if someone could provide some insight on this.
when i learned about the three cell theories, one of them was really wierd.
"every cell must come from a pre existing cell"
if that's true, then if you undid every cell division in the universe, shouldn't you be left with one cell that came out of nowhere?
doesn' this disprove the theory?
if not, where did that one random cell come from D:
the universe is so confusing ._.

I'd be happy if someone could provide some insight on this.
when i learned about the three cell theories, one of them was really wierd.
"every cell must come from a pre existing cell"
if that's true, then if you undid every cell division in the universe, shouldn't you be left with one cell that came out of nowhere?
doesn' this disprove the theory?
if not, where did that one random cell come from D:
the universe is so confusing ._.

Wiki to the rescue!
Read all three. :/

whats the difference between believing a single cell formed out of nothing, and believing a single being created the whole universe...both sound equally ridiculous to me

The cell didn't pop out of nowhere, it formed by molecules bonding and reacting.
After a billion/few hundred million years of random reactions, the odds that life pops up is pretty high.

How do you define things as broad as "science" or "religion" into two terms and then attempt to compare them to one another?

Science doesn't change. Only our perception changes as we learn more. This is the most logical way to look at the world; if you learn something you thought before was wrong, you change your understanding of the world to be in line with how you now know it to be.

Please don't say things that are completely wrong, especially in such a sure attitude. Science has changed dramatically over thousands of years; Newtonian physics has been tested time and time again. Biology wasn't even considered a science until the 20th century, Quantum theory has caused conflict with many previous sciences (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle v Einstein Podolski Rosen Thought Experiments), the list is endless. Science changes, and whether the objective laws of physics/whatever change is still UNKNOWN. We don't even know how much randomness plays a role in the world (e.g. Chaos Theory, Thermodynamics, various thought experiments)

Science is solid in that it can be backed up by facts, proven, and tested. Certain religion is suppose to be solid such as Christianity since their rules and fairy tales are written in an ancient book but ever since the late 1800s where Science has majorly contradicted religion, religion is now interpreted in certain ways to make their faith more convinient, and everytime something new is discovered the bible has to be reinterpret.

Have fun trying to prove entanglement and the wave/particle duality of light.




This thread appears to be more Newtonian science v Western monotheism than Science v Religion. If you're going to make a comparison between legitimacy of science and religion, it's important to really learn more about BOTH subjects, not make baseless assumptions.

PS:

The cell didn't pop out of nowhere, it formed by molecules bonding and reacting.
After a billion/few hundred million years of random reactions, the odds that life pops up is pretty high.

Lol be careful with that argument, you don't want to sound like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

Biology is considered a science? Not in my house!

Sorry, had to say that.


But seriously, people can be completely wrong in science. Sometimes theories pop up which just are well, wrong in so many levels.

I think the idea is that science outside of human perception is definitive.
Though things like Chaos theory stand to disprove that.

Edit: that movie is sooo funny. PEANUT CRITTERS FROM JIFFY SPACE 7: RETURN OF THE JESUS EATERS!@!

I've found exactly what I want to say:
Science (and math) exist independently of humanity.
They are pure and correct.
HOWEVER.
Humanity's interpretation or PERCEPTION of science or math can lead to false conclusions.

Uhh...couldn't you say the same thing about religon and religous texts, ect

Uhh...couldn't you say the same thing about religon and religous texts, ect

What?
No...
Religion(s) is a human organized environment to worship deities.
Now DEITIES could be subed in.
But not the texts or the religions.
But we are UNSURE of deities.
Science is just... there

You could say that anything is pure and perfect, and that humans interpret it wrong. That, in essence, is what those who are religious claim (a god that is pure and perfect but interpreted wrong throughout history) and those who are science lovers claim (a concept that is perfect but interpreted wrong through history).

You could say that anything is pure and perfect, and that humans interpret it wrong. That, in essence, is what those who are religious claim (a god that is pure and perfect but interpreted wrong throughout history) and those who are science lovers claim (a concept that is perfect but interpreted wrong through history).

You can only make those things for objects and ideas that exist INDEPENDANTLY of humanity.
- Religion does not- It is a human function
- Deity (or god)- can
That is what I said.