Religion and Science

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

As we all know science and religion don’t always work well together, some would say never.

However, one thing we know about our sciences is that we are always finding out more about what we thought we knew. Maybe the same is true about the relationship between science and religion. Maybe there was a time when it didn’t clash? Perhaps there were some aspects of physics and engineering that our ancestors were more advanced in than we are today?

Before you dismiss this, consider the pyramids all over the world, the fact that the ancient Greeks had knowledge of advanced sciences, many of our ancestors understood astrology, and some of the greatest philosophers in history lived thousands of years ago.

There is a chance that earlier in our history religion and science were more balanced than today. When you put this concept it into context with what we know about evolution, it actually goes a long way to explaining a quote like this in the bible:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Genesis 2:7

Here is a 42 min history channel special about how the more we learn about science the more we learn about religion. It’s an amazing special with actual scientific experiments that prove things like the floating Ark of the Covenant wasn't an impossibility. The fact is it might just be that our superconductivity technology hasn’t caught up to what we had a few thousand years ago.

That's right floating Magnets...

Superconductivity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

[Maroon Medium]

Maybe there was a time when it didn’t clash?

During stone age?

Religion and Science are akin to Oil and Water. That is a fair comparison to me.

[Reckless Roselia]

Sept 8, 2012 8:04:49 GMT -5 Maroon Medium said:

Maybe there was a time when it didn’t clash?

During stone age?

;D

Einstein's quote on religion and science is somewhat ambiguous. His words are simple but the purpose behind the quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." is not explained.

[Reckless Roselia]

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Genesis 2:7

What dust? Stardust?

[weltschmerz]

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Genesis 2:7

Oooh, like a Golem?

The earliest stories of golems date to early Judaism. In the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 38b), Adam was initially created as a golem (âåìí) when his dust was "kneaded into a shapeless husk." Like Adam, all golems are created from mud. They were a creation of those who were very holy and close to God. A very holy person was one who strove to approach God, and in that pursuit would gain some of God's wisdom and power. One of these powers was the creation of life. However, no matter how holy a person became, a being created by that person would be but a shadow of one created by God.

Early on, it was noted that the main disability of the golem was its inability to speak. Sanhedrin 65b describes Rava creating a man (gavra). He sent the man to Rav Zeira. Rav Zeira spoke to him, but he did not answer. Rav Zeira said, "You were created by the magicians; return to your dust."

During the Middle Ages, passages from the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) were studied as a means to attain the mystical ability to create and animate a golem, although there is little in the writings of Jewish mysticism that supports this belief. It was believed that golems could be activated by an ecstatic experience induced by the ritualistic use of various letters of the Hebrew Alphabet.[1]

In some tales, (for example those of the Golem of Chelm and the Golem of Prague) a golem is inscribed with Hebrew words that keep it animated. The word emet (àîú, "truth" in the Hebrew language) written on a golem's forehead is one such example. The golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (à) in emet, thus changing the inscription from 'truth' to 'death' (met îú, "dead"). Legend and folklore suggest that golems could be activated by writing a specific series of letters on parchment and placing the paper in a golem's mouth.[citation needed]

-wiki

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Perhaps all it is, is a theory weltz? Just like how our theory right now is that we came from what, ooze? fish like animals to apes? Maybe one day we will look back at what we think now and laugh at our primitive theories.

Did you watch the special? What about all the experiments? The fact that the pyramids took some serious math and equipment to build? No one really has an explanation for how some of these structures were built. It's way more logical to me that they had something similar to superconductivity back in the day to help them make these monuments, as opposed to say; Aliens helped us build them as some people are claiming(not saying you are but it's out there)...

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Sept 8, 2012 16:28:45 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Sept 8, 2012 8:04:49 GMT -5 Maroon Medium said:

During stone age?

;D

Einstein's quote on religion and science is somewhat ambiguous. His words are simple but the purpose behind the quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." is not explained.

I have to disagree Roselia, personally I think it explains itself. If science isn't pulling us all closer to the truth about God, what is?

[chiver78]

Sept 8, 2012 23:02:49 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Perhaps all it is, is a theory weltz? Just like how our theory right now is that we came from what, ooze? fish like animals to apes? Maybe one day we will look back at what we think now and laugh at our primitive theories.

Did you watch the special? What about all the experiments? The fact that the pyramids took some serious math and equipment to build? No one really has an explanation for how some of these structures were built. It's way more logical to me that they had something similar to superconductivity back in the day to help them make these monuments, as opposed to say; Aliens helped us build them as some people are claiming(not saying you are but it's out there)...

ooze? I don't know that I'd call amoeba and paramecium ooze, but if it makes you happy go right ahead.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Lack of better words. Sorry. Also, looks like the building blocks came in on an asteroid, so the whole theory will most likely change again in the next bit as well.

[Virgil Showlion]

I don't know that I'd call amoeba and paramecium ooze, but if it makes you happy go right ahead.

Amoeba and paramecia would be literally a billionfold larger and incalculably more complex than the so-called "first ancestor".

The "primordial ooze" was theoretically an acidic ooze consisting of amino acids, basic sugars, and a number of other (presently unknown) substances that would somehow render the first organisms able to function without being dissolved and degraded within milliseconds.

Even barring this, the probabilities of the "primordial ooze" theory working out are so low (somewhere on the order of 10^-1400), that most scientific interest in the origins of life has moved the the theory of "living molecules"—or rather, evolution that acts at the level of chemicals and molecules rather than at the level of organisms. The first organisms and the so-called primordial ooze would have come much later.

As an aside, Ham: Perhaps you haven't noticed, but NMSNM is the least productive place in the known universe for a "science and religion" discussion. The is no objective interest in the subject. The discussions are inevitably hostile. The threads, of which there have been least a dozen since 2010, become a 10% dumping ground for third- and fourth-hand articles from pop science magazines (both pro- and anti-God) and a 90% echo chamber for the views posters have expressed literally hundreds of times before.

In short: beat your head against the wall if you want to, but you have been warned.

Also, looks like the building blocks came in on an asteroid, so the whole theory will most likely change again in the next bit as well.

I always rag on skeptics to be more open-minded, so I shouldn't say anything. ;D

[Reckless Roselia]

Sept 8, 2012 23:04:34 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Sept 8, 2012 16:28:45 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

;D

Einstein's quote on religion and science is somewhat ambiguous. His words are simple but the purpose behind the quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." is not explained.

I have to disagree Roselia, personally I think it explains itself. If science isn't pulling us all closer to the truth about God, what is?

Hello Aham,

I have changed my views slightly re: religion and science. Few years ago I believed that science and religion complemented each other and didn't contradict one another even when I had found the many contradictions in some of the holy verses re science. I used to ask the non-believers if they could explain why Einstein said 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' but no one could to my satisfaction. Because like I've said the words are simple but let's remember Einstein was a non-believer in the God you or I believe or have faith in. So what exactly does he mean?

Some people will say that science is pulling them away from God. I mean why do many Atheists have faith in science and not God? (I am using the term faith here loosely before someone pulls the trigger on me for that.)

[Spellbound454]

(somewhere on the order of 10^-1400), .

I wonder where they get this figure from....How could anyone possibly know that?

Amino acids are just strings of chemical elements....It seems very likely to me that a pool of elements would group together to form complex molecules.
All you have to have is a group of molecules that injests other molecules and spits the remains out....and you have a very basic life form.

I have no problems pitting religion against science.....If you are going to ask me to believe that the earth was created 10,000 years ago I would say absolutely not.
...but we are arrogant indeed if we think we know everything....Its just the tip of the ice-berg.

[Spellbound454]

Einstein was a man of his time...he didnt believe in sub-atomic particles at all.
We have moved on a bit since then......The good thing about Science is that it grows... as understanding grows.

[Reckless Roselia]

Sept 9, 2012 4:31:12 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Einstein was a man of his time...he didnt believe in sub-atomic particles at all.
We have moved on a bit since then......The good thing about Science is that it grows... as understanding grows.

Exactly, Spell.

[Reckless Roselia]

Good morning btw.

[Spellbound454]

We can have this conversation...its was on msn UK politics board for years.

but ths board won't tolerate the main contributers because everyone gets upset if the atheists and agnostics get represented in any way.
..and Tosh and ISA don't post together anymore ........Shame those guys can rip each other apart... its awesome...

So....it ends up as a group-hug Kumbaya session.

So be it.

[Reckless Roselia]

It's all very circular for me Spell (and yourself too) rather it being spiral. I've been there and seen it all - so nothing is new for me. It was fun on MSN UK - I learnt so much even in the 'let it rip' sessions. I knew whose side I was on.

I can still try 'defending' religion without losing a sweat too but it's obvious that science does have a better edge than religion.

[Spellbound454]

Morning Roselia....
I do understand actually with the "let it rip" scenario....its a moderating nightmare.
However, that thread was the best and most intelligent I've seen anywhere on the net...Still partly on the other board.

Science and religion are not incompatible imo.. I

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2012 4:44:19 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

We can have this conversation...its was on msn UK politics board for years.

but ths board won't tolerate the main contributers because everyone gets upset if the atheists and agnostics get represented in any way.
..and Tosh and ISA don't post together anymore ........Shame those guys can rip each other apart... its awesome...

So....it ends up as a group-hug Kumbaya session.

So be it.

;D

My regards to Tosh, Spell. On the odd occasion that you can get the bloke to stop talking about Ernest Becker and Ayn Rand for five minutes, he'll usually have something quite interesting to say. I'm sure our paths will cross again.

It is a shame that religious debate is somewhat quashed here -particularly since there are so many different views on offer, and particularly since the forum has an 'ignore' function which should theoretically shield even the most sensitive of souls from the trauma of adverse opinions.

Sept 9, 2012 4:31:12 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

The good thing about Science is that it grows... as understanding grows.

Yes, that is one of the differences between science and religion.

It is considered a good thing when a scientist is shown to be wrong about an idea she has, for it means that some measure of progress has occurred.

The same is generally not true in religion. On the contrary, religious thought is often compelled into all kinds of convoluted reasoning that there might be some chance stood to wriggle out of having to accept the unfavourable verdict. Of course, the wriggling is lubricated by one's God being some kind of Cosmic Houdini -capable of escaping everything from the rudest of common sense to the most elegant of reasoning.

[Deleted]

Good quote:

"Thousands, millions of people fear that science will destroy not only poetry, not only sentiment, but religion. This fear is idiotic. Science will destroy superstition, but it will not injure true religion. Science is the foundation of real religion. Science teaches us the consequences of actions, the rights and duties of all. Without science there can be no real religion. Only those who live on the labor of the ignorant are the enemies of science. Real love and real religion are in no danger from science. The more we know the safer all good things are."
--Robert Green Ingersoll - Science and Sentiment

[vonna]

Sept 9, 2012 9:05:57 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Good quote:

"Thousands, millions of people fear that science will destroy not only poetry, not only sentiment, but religion. This fear is idiotic. Science will destroy superstition, but it will not injure true religion. Science is the foundation of real religion. Science teaches us the consequences of actions, the rights and duties of all. Without science there can be no real religion. Only those who live on the labor of the ignorant are the enemies of science. Real love and real religion are in no danger from science. The more we know the safer all good things are."
--Robert Green Ingersoll - Science and Sentiment

THe Great Agnostic!!

[Deleted]

Yeah, good statement. Just pointing out that there room for both. Believers believe in a God of Order. That God set the planets and world in motion in an orderly way that can be studied. There is NO incompatibility with that and science. Believers should not be afraid of science nor should science be afraid of believers. There are lots of scientists who are believers and study their craft. Science can show us what is, it can't show us why or why it is "good or bad" or assign any value judgement in that regard.

[Reckless Roselia]

Evening Spell,

I do understand actually with the "let it rip" scenario....its a moderating nightmare.

I used to like it better without the moderators and the pm facilities etc. I kinda do miss what we once had on MSN.

However, that thread was the best and most intelligent I've seen anywhere on the net...Still partly on the other board.

Hehe, we were the best crew on the MSN Politics Board without a doubt. Come to think of it, I've even thought of Throbbo and the soft corner he had for you. It's a shame that some people's egos are more important to them than friendships but I think even though things seem slow for now on the other board, it'll be alright. Maybe come Christmas time? Everyone is in the Christmas spirit then - even me.

Science and religion are not incompatible imo.

It depends on which religion or the religious teachings, right? I agree with your conclusion however we cannot say that science and religion are compatible as how Aham has stated in #1.

The little snow-white in me would have added to Aham's #1 with

"We made from water every living thing, will they not then believe?" Al-Qur'aan 21:30

Take care.

[weltschmerz]

Some people will say that science is pulling them away from God. I mean why do many Atheists have faith in science and not God? (I am using the term faith here loosely before someone pulls the trigger on me for that.)
------------------
I believe in science because it can be measured and proven. I can't believe in a Grand Puppetmaster, pulling our strings and doling out divine punishments if we're naughty. It just doesn't compute in my world.

[mrsdutt]

I absolutely believe in science. Before I retired, I was in a science field. Radiation Physics. After I retired, I dumbed down and relaxed quite a bit. I also believe in God. I see Him as the master scientist.

Also, He is not a puppet master as He has given us free will and will not interfere with our choices. He will send assistance in hopes we make a good decision, but the end result must always be our choice. He doesn't dole out punishment either. Scientifically what goes up must come down, or the circle must always be completed. Or, every action has a reaction. The only thing is - that I can see - the reaction may fall somewhere else. To this I have no answer, just a therory.

[Virgil Showlion]

I absolutely believe in science. Before I retired, I was in a science field. Radiation Physics. After I retired, I dumbed down and relaxed quite a bit. I also believe in God. I see Him as the master scientist.

I do too.

[Deleted]

A majority of scientists say religion and science don't always conflict, according to new survey results released by Rice University.

The study, conducted over five years through in-depth interviews with scientists at universities whose fields range from biology and chemistry to social sciences like political science and economics, dispels the widely held notion that religion and science are incompatible.

“When it comes to questions about the meaning of life, ways of understanding reality, origins of Earth and how life developed on it, many have seen religion and science as being at odds and even in irreconcilable conflict,” said Rice sociologist Elaine Ecklund. Yet, a majority of the scientists Ecklund and her colleagues interviewed saw both religion and science as “valid avenues of knowledge” she said.


www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-science-can-coexist_n_974116.html

[Deleted]

This is interesting as well.

I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

articles.cnn.com/2007-04-03/us/collins.commentary_1_god-dna-revelation?_s=PM:US

[Loopdilou]

I think Science and Religion cannot coexist IF a religion teaches that their guiding books are completely literal. If, however, teaches that those books are guides, then there is no reason that they cannot just coexist, but enrich one another.

But I'm an Atheist, so feel free to ignore me

[Virgil Showlion]

But I'm an Atheist, so feel free to ignore me

Will do.