God vs. Science

[KimberlyCandyFace]

So... why do we always pit science and religion agianst each other?...
anywayz.. thanks pach

Share your opinions... Thanks

[pach]

the question is wrong.

it implies that in God there is no room for reason, and in Science there is no room for the divine.


so we really cant compare the two.

anybody might go on and answer "god is more important because so and so"

or perhaps "science is more important because so and so"

but no matter what the answer may be, it does not change anything because the question is wrong at the most fundamental level.

error in principle generates greater error in the end says Thomas Aquinas.

so i suggest that the question be re-formulated... perhaps

"why do we always pit science and religion agianst each other"

i think that would be a greater point for discussion now, wouldnt it? 

[KimberlyCandyFace]

Oh ok... just edited it, thanks for you opinion and comment

[ohsogood]

Science is incomplete, and religion is inconsistent.

And they are both only parts of the whole.

[pach]

Science is the pursuit of truth, and God is Truth. Science, like all noble human undertaking, always leads to the glory of God.

It is only the fault of misguided (however well-meaning) Christians why we see science as something opposed to the Divine.

They undermine the message of Christianity which seeks the truth in all that is noble, beautiful and rational.

[Hanzo23]

Science is the pursuit of truth, and God is Truth. Science, like all noble human undertaking, always leads to the glory of God.

It is only the fault of misguided (however well-meaning) Christians why we see science as something opposed to the Divine.

They undermine the message of Christianity which seeks the truth in all that is noble, beautiful and rational.

The statement you have made about the message of Christianity which seeks the truth in all that is noble, beautiful and rational is true

However, depending on who you ask, Atheists deny God's existence because of the atrocities that religion has inflicted on God's image, and we are not just pertaining to christianity, all religions of the world has done something that questions morality. As the statement goes, religion itself does not guarantee morality.

The ever so continuing argument of whether God does exist or not and that science disproves the existence of the divine can be viewed on this 2 videos for anyone who is interested. This is a debate between an atheist and a religious man

Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=891278801387978613&ei=hn8WS7TaA4LsqAOP0ZHACA&q=Atheism%2C+Religion+%E2%80%93+Hitchens+vs.+Turek+Debate&hl=en

Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8588466618868861344&ei=hn8WS7TaA4LsqAOP0ZHACA&q=Atheism%2C+Religion+%E2%80%93+Hitchens+vs.+Turek+Debate&hl=en

As a summary for the debate, the atheist indeed missed some of the initial critical questions early on the part 1 of the debate, however, it does give you some insight on why are people are repulsive at some of the things that religion has done throughout the human civilization.

Though you have to give credit on certain accomplishments that religion has done. You also have to consider that religion is still one of the tools used to bid for power over any society. This in turn, ruins God's image since the primary driving force of search for truth is crediting the teachings of any religion. So where do people who are displeased with religious teachings? Science, so far, what limited observations that science has conducted has huge impacts.

In the physical world, people rely on science as the basis of truth. Observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and conclusion are necessary steps on finding what the truth is. Since God is immaterial, hence, He cannot be observed. Since there are no remnants of any credible divine artifacts, no definite experimentation can be conducted. Hence the statement that what cannot be observed is hard to believe, less regarded as the truth.

[Puppet Heart]

In the physical world, people rely on science as the basis of truth. Observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, and conclusion are necessary steps on finding what the truth is. Since God is immaterial, hence, He cannot be observed. Since there are no remnants of any credible divine artifacts, no definite experimentation can be conducted. Hence the statement that what cannot be observed is hard to believe, less regarded as the truth.

This is exactly my view. It can be simply translated as: "There isn't and never will be any scientific way to prove God's existence."

Going back to the main question of the thread, I would like to point out that aside from Science and Religion being pit constantly, humans also choose the battle arena. For example, people put Religion in the logical physical realm. Of course, in this battle, Science has the upper hand. And likewise, they put Science in the realm of the metaphysical (meta means beyond), a place where Science can never step into. It's like pitting a bird against a fish, but you have to choose if they will fight in the sky or under the sea.

In my opinion, Science and Religion need not to clash. Each of them has her own territory. Science questions "how", and Religion questions "why". I don't see any conflict there.

The debate is ignited when Religion steps into Science's territory (I have not yet encountered any major issues that involves Science stepping into the Why Realm). Let us not deny it, even in this message board alone, there are still people who believe that The Seven Days of Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and other Biblical stories actually happened LITERALLY, AS IT WAS WRITTEN. Now when scientists attacks those, believers retaliate. Typical. But really, who was the first one who tried to go beyond her territory?