I'm becoming more religious and into the bible a lot but have some questions...

[IamMe90]

This seems a very odd way to phrase things, science is not the authority in religion just as much as religion is not the authority in science. Religion, and science are two separate. categories of thought that man has designed to further his knowledge of the world around him, and the world within him. I feel the two compliment each other.

Just out of curiosity, do you have some sort of historical justification for this? As far as I can tell, most major religions have always veered into the arena of scientific inquiry - creation, natural phenomena, etc, are all assertions made by most world religions. But, rarely do I see science going the other direction, that is intruding upon what is "uniquely" religious (although I would be interested in even hearing what falls under this category).

 

[panic in paradise]

" most major religions have always veered into the arena of scientific inquiry - creation, natural phenomena, etc "

... and with great biased, ' they ' have.

" do you have some sort of historical justification for this? "

or anyone -
very interesting.
_______________________________________
.....
spirituality: a -ception'
religion: a -jection'

IDK, spirituality seems to be more scientific, as it is about observance and progressive understanding, looking for fact - rather then accepting fact only as is, as a history of proof(Burroughs- he who controls the past...), to be accepted as our future and ends; and strict adherence to along the way.


i say this waiting for the Old and New Testament, though.
;-)

 

[Pythagoras]

Just out of curiosity, do you have some sort of historical justification for this? As far as I can tell, most major religions have always veered into the arena of scientific inquiry - creation, natural phenomena, etc, are all assertions made by most world religions. But, rarely do I see science going the other direction, that is intruding upon what is "uniquely" religious (although I would be interested in even hearing what falls under this category).

The historical difference is the move from mythopoeic thought, to inquisitive thought on nature, is usually demarcated by Historians as occurring in the time of Thales.

My point, perhaps poorly phrased, was a questioning of the use of the term - 'being the authority in'. Historically the authority in religions has been scripture, holy men, or personal revelation...none of these seem scientific to me.

The fundamental point I was making was that Science and religions are different modes of thought, and therefore neither has authority over the other.

PS - I am not sure why you required a historical justification for my comment Oo

 

[Pythagoras]

This seems a very odd way to phrase things, science is not the authority in religion just as much as religion is not the authority in science. Religion, and science are two separate. categories of thought that man has designed to further his knowledge of the world around him, and the world within him. I feel the two compliment each other.

If you want a historiographical appraisal then Western man, up until roughly the Renaissance was engaged in philosophy-(Theology)/Science. That is, they were all one subject, and mode of enquiry. After the Renaissance Theology was parsed off (though not entirely) into a separate subject leaving us with the philosopher/Scientist. The Philosopher/Scientist is best described in the person of Leibniz or Newton. As the Enlightenment progressed and (and up until, some would argue post-modernism) developed of a new subject, Scientia was born, with philosophy's previously braod remit narrowed down to Ethics, Metaphysics/Ontology, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science etc.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Z Y G G Y]

... or did you mean not to draw a distinction between the 2 OP.?

Drawing a distinction b/w the two is totally fine.

(At the same time I hate to talk about differences b/w religions, I just don't want controversy in this thread and here I am starting the talk myself)
What interests me concerns the differences b/w specific religions and how some religions seem to take science as something normal (Buddhism) and some seem to fight it. While some argue Buddhism is not a religion, I'd say it has enough followers and similarities to let us assume it's a religion enough to compare it to other religions. I don't think I need to bring up specific examples but I think everyone can think a lot of scientific, studied ideas that major religions totally refuse to accept.

So it's hard for me to see how science and religion compliment each other at this point for the majority of the world.

Like birth control and Christianity, Islam.

Maybe the two compliment each other for some people here who have the freedom to follow their own way of thinking, but for me it feels that history has shown that religion has a tendency to fight science out of fear, maybe. While the same is not true for science fighting religion. Faith being incorporated into many studies on healing in patients or whatever else.

Seems like in Christianity (maybe not so much today) and Islam if science proves something with high certainty that is uncomfortable for the religion then that idea will be fought hardcore, no matter how good for people it seems or how credible.

 

[Z Y G G Y]

If you want a historiographical appraisal then Western man, up until roughly the Renaissance was engaged in philosophy (Theology)/Science. That is, they were all one subject, and mode of enquiry. After the Renaissance Theology was parsed off (though not entirely) into a separate subject leaving us with the philosopher/Scientist. The Philosopher/Scientist is best described in the person of Leibniz or Newton. As the Enlightenment progressed and (and up until, some would argue post-modernism) developed so a new subject, Scientia was born, with philosophies previously braod remit narrowed down to Ethics, Metaphysics/Ontology, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science etc.

I hope that answers your question.

Forgot about that whole Greek philosophy period, lol that humans did.

It's just so odd, since I have been praying I have been able to cry for the first time in years.

A lot of people I respect pray and say that having faith helps in life. Not to say there aren't any atheists I respect. I always felt that spirituality should come from the inside of a person and that if God was able to talk to those that wrote the Bible then he will also talk to me and guide me. Sometimes the apparatus that guides people gets broken and then it feels to me having God direct them is sensible. For so many people it works. If your internal moral guidance is not as strong and good as you'd like it to be, ask God for help. It always was so phony to me, but now it's becoming a reality and something good. (Why do I use he when talking to about God is beyond me, but its hard not to)

At the same time I know religion has cause humans many evils with things like religious wars that are still going on.

It has potential to cause so much good but it has also caused so much pain.

I like the discussions in this thread, This topic has probably been talked about before many times here but its always good to hear intelligent thoughts.