I’m not going to answer all the questions asked by those who want to poke holes in everything I’m posting in this thread, however I will try to explain my last post the best that I can. Plus none of my questions were answered either.
My last post was written mainly due to the fact that I was trying to explain the main reasons why science and the basic idea that there is a God, clash so bad and at the time I wrote it ( since I knew the point I was going for) it seemed to make sense but in hindsight, not so much.
Scientists don’t hate anything that they can’t explain. That is just plain, NOT TRUE.
Where I was trying to go with all this was where it all started that things needed to be measured accurately in order to prove something existed. I was trying to explain why science and religion seem to be at war and perhaps didn’t do a very good job at it.
After looking at a few articles I tried to string some of the ideas into one post and didn’t quite get the results I was going for so I will try again. Of course there are black holes. I was trying to select topics that have evolved through our understanding of them and perhaps my wording didn’t work. Now I ‘m seriously starting to understand why people warn against discussing sex, religion or politics on forums.
So the clash between science and religion is probably as old as the beginning of our understanding of science. Trying to understand and explain God, is almost impossible, especially to those who do not wish to understand it, for whatever reasons they have.
Albert Einstein said when asked if he was religious : “Try and penetrate with our limited means, the secrets of nature and you will find that behind all the discernible laws and connections there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent, I am in fact, religious.” He then spent the rest of his life trying to explain what he meant. I personally like his explanation.
The scientist usually offer no solace to believers and since Albert Einstein ( theoretical physicist ) was probably the most famous scientist of our times, his quotes have become legendary; one of his most famous ones being:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Do science and religion need to clash?
Einstein proposes that science and religion are harmonious because they have distinct but complimentary tasks:
science helps us understand the physical structure of the universe and religion deals with human values, morals and meanings.
If we were to understand science and religion in this way then conflict between the two seems impossible. Science can only claim ‘what is’ not ‘what should be’ and outside of its domain value, judgements are necessary.
Religion deals with evaluations of human thoughts and actions and cannot justifiably speak about facts and the relationships between facts.
Conflict usually arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness on all statements recorded in the bible. This of course would mean an intervention between religion and the world of science and where the struggles between the church and science first began; where doctrines of Galileo and the findings from Darwin’s Theory, clash.
The main point of my last post was that science and religion have usually clashed because science demands measurable proof of somethings existence whereas religion requires faith and belief in something that doesn’t have ‘measurable proof.’
(By the way, some scientists have found there is God by researching nature.)
