Science offers a very clear explanation of the how of things work. Religion offers a philosophical explanation of the why of things. Science is rooted within in theory, experimentation and verification of ideas. Religion is rooted in history, cultural tradition and hoped for truths. Religion must conform to science and not the other way around. I don’t think personally, that that invalidates religion but offers an opportunity to focus, sharpen and better define religious tradition and dogma. In both cases, facts ultimately run out of runway and speculation takes over. Our ability understand our reality and existence has a limit. I’m as annoyed at the disrespectful, disdainful scientists as I am at the Bible-thumping religious weirdo’s who offer up a twilight zone version of reality and social order. Usually with them at the top. The prevalence these days of quasi religion- based groups, that rule with an iron-fist around the world, proves the danger that ignorance and unrestrained religious dogma presents.
Science doesn’t explain how? That’s all it does. As well as how things interrelate. Why is there something rather than nothing? Science will never be able to explain that. Is there an infinite series of realities stretching infinitely into the past? Or into the future? Science will never answer that. The stumbling block lays in the word infinite. Theology in its purest form, offers potential answers that even though they have to ultimately accepted by personal choice have proven to be of value to humanity over the millennia. Otherwise religion wouldn’t exist despite every attempt to stamp it out. It seems to be a fundamental need and aspect of the human mind.
Science as differentiated from discovery is a predictive field of study. Does that, necessarily, make it mathematical? Now ask if math developed in humans before language? Usually I would assert that math was a subset of language, but can a case be made for the opposite: is language a subset of math? Religion seems to be a narrative that is also predictive. A story is told about perfection, a fall, and a return to perfection, even conquering death itself. The narrative prediction is a belief dependent on human and supernatural design. The mathematical equations of predictive power are based on observations of Nature and a design constructed from the prowess of the human mind to categorize and judge, rationally. Is religion therefore non-rational? Is mathematics totally rational? Where religion considers rationalism contingent; science makes rationalism central. That is a difference, I think.
@kallianpublico7517 An attractive idea that is EASY to agree with , friend.. I suspect that Neanderthals had an effective, if not rudimentary, form of verbal ommunication . BUT FIRST came a simple observation of mathmatical reasoning , No? To overly simplify the idea, (X) amount of food would feed those in the tribe, therfore (X) amount would be needed on a hunt which might inspire more effort IF necessary... One opinion that might be incorrect..
Science is certain of _nothing_ & requires evidence for _everything_ whereas religionS are certain of _everything_ & require evidence for _nothing._ So in light of that fact which is more _humble_ & which more _arrogant?_
Science has no properties. Science is the diverse methodologies for understanding nature(s). Theology is the study of nature, so inferring a better understanding of God aka the Primordial Cause, the Cause of all causes. Scriptures that religions try to utilize are based on science and metaphysics, but such scriptures are profound that interpretation is very difficult, and people end up having contrary beliefs about the interpretations of the scriptures. Religion, too, is like a crutch, for people need something to believe in, as in hope, because life is difficult with the many trials and setbacks. It's not religions fault, but the fallen state of man's mind. Religion can be used as a tool or a weapon, just like science.
4:26 ... but from the theological point view it's not symmetrical because the problem sometime it looks like a symmetrical argument but scientists would say I think justifiably so that it is not symmetrical that scientce does not have to consider theology but theology has to consider science so how then do you as a theologian protect the rational Integrity of your discipline theology from the methodology of science 4:52 J.v H: yead that's a really good question and that's an important question. ... the second thing that I think that is tremendously important is you are right they are asymmetrical but I don't think it's a hierarchy in the sense that science dominates certain methodologies I think it is clearly true that science has a very impressive history of and that the empirical nature of science gives it a standing and the spin-off through technology that has changed our lives and our worlds what I think a theologian should be doing in he interdisciplinary conversation is 5:52 to show that the disciplines that we are practicing here are philosophically sound are open for scientific for scientific input yes in a generic sense science may not care about theology but there are always scientists who are interested if the theology is good to have this conversation and say why are people doing this in a systematic sense and why are they thinking about issues of the meaning of life and faith and of evil in a way that 6:19 might complement the empirical approach of science some may and some might not like it but I do think theologians have a use epistemic obligation if I can put it like that to show that in thinking about this domain of religion through theological disciplines we have a huge task in trying to foster this interdisciplinary conversation. 【Don't expect too much as a parent (theology) who love their children (sciences) for frequent communication when they are busy in schools and professional fields.】6:47 so you're protecting the integrity of your discipline theology by circumscribing certain kinds of issues that science is unable to deal with 7:00 J.v.H Yes. but also internally refining the methodology and the conceptuality 【Example, in The Theology Of Truly Right Interpretation, we've logically expanded realms, from our world the 4-dimensional through through the 6°∩0° spacetime, and spiritual mechanism and resolution are conceptulized for believers to understand Word of LORD God】of what it is we are talking about. 7:07
The way God has been thought for thousand of years is no longer convincing.To know the divine,one must break free the limitations that religion impose on the mind.
Of the estimated 250,000 souls that died from malpractice last year, I wonder if they would consider Polytheism more similar to Interdisciplinary observations or more similar to Monotheism. *bonus round: Is Monotheism more similar to secular world power structures or more similar to Polytheism?
If several diciplines ask the same question, it does not mean they are aligned. It depends on how they arrive at the answer. I am amused by the sudden "can we all get along" attitude of some religions and theologians. They seem to have forgotten what they did to Galileo and Geordano Bruno. And declare some as militant atheist at the drop of the har for simply asking questions. It is likely that they will revert to the oppressive attitude if they get a chance or at minimum undermine science. We are seeing that undermining already at the highest levels.
..I do not understand why Man must always seek to be contrary. Not specific doctrine, but we should seek similarities. There are many paths that all lead to GOD. Creation is so marvelous cuddle fish, octopus, everyone has different fingerprints. Just the distances between planters, stars, & galaxies. Man's short time of knowledge growth. First Flight to landing a Man on the & returning. Sixty years Medical, science, math, engineering. It all coexists not contrary The great old Masters of thought. St. Augustine, Plato, Aristotle, Martin Luther, and so on Please let us carefully consider everything, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube...Blessings...
Yes, the two are in DIRECT conflict with each other! Science is a pragmatic and analytical approach to understanding, while religion is a superstitious acceptance of untestable BELIEFS.. A big and irreconcilable difference.. One opinion..
@johnjohnson1657 You got the distinction between the two world views in my comment, right friend? Respectfully, I would argue that they do NOT arrive at the same conclusions.. The scientific method of information analysis (in my humble opinion) is self-evidently the ONLY path to a confident understanding of our reality, no..? Peace
@@Bill..N let me suggest a short read...about 285 pages. The Physics of God by Joseph Selbie. You read that and we can continue this conversation...respectfully of course.
@johnjohnson1657 Thanks for the response.. I respect ANYONES' natural right to believe as they choose..NP.. Although I have not read this particular book, I do not believe it to be necessary in understanding the essential premise here.. If a creator god made everything in accordance with THEIR desires, then most mainline scientific theories of our species would be falsified. Yes? Like naturalism, evolutionary pressures, and even QM/QFT would be falsified.. How AND why would an omnipotent creator god create a universe that even HE could not effectively predict? That is what we have learned from our best theories.. All wrong, friend..? All in the spirit of civil debate..
@johnjohnson1657 Such a book would only represent ONE persons opinion, yes? There are NO "authorities" with a lock on truhs, which includes science.. Nonetheless, only scientific ideas have provided humans with such real-world benefits, and I think that is easily supported WITHOUT the benefit of having read this book.. Peace, AND yes indeed, I welcome civil debates..
We can accept the theological explanation and apology for an earthquake, asking ourselves, "Why did God want this to happen," or turn to science for evidence of tectonic shifts. Science began as an enterprise to combat superstition and carries on that function. What does theology have to offer except fear of the dark?
*"With a book in the hand full of blah blah blah any fool can create a religion. But with science its not possible"* ... no, it's quite easy for science to create a religion: "MULTIVERSE"
Well, that's just simply not true. Science today has a dogma in: "What's real is only that which i can measure, control, manipulate and exploit. Whatever there is that I can not control is simply nonsense. " Modern science is the religion of atomism, and I just shared their dogma with you. There's no God to them because they can't bring it into the lab and test on it. Nor can they test the intellect or the laws of nature. Science is a methodology. It doesn't make claims or have beliefs. The many scientists out there have different perspectives. Not all of them are atomists.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
interdisciplinary متعدد الخصائص reasoning تفكير impermanent غير دائمر tangible ملموس diffuse انتشار integrity نزاهة symmetry متماثل ر upheld مؤيد how to diffuse لوقف contemporary معاصر foster تعزيز circumscribed تقييد epistimic معرفي fallibility خطء
The hope that science will be able to explain everything in the future is an illusion. A lesson that believers will never accept.
Science offers a very clear explanation of the how of things work. Religion offers a philosophical explanation of the why of things. Science is rooted within in theory, experimentation and verification of ideas. Religion is rooted in history, cultural tradition and hoped for truths. Religion must conform to science and not the other way around. I don’t think personally, that that invalidates religion but offers an opportunity to focus, sharpen and better define religious tradition and dogma. In both cases, facts ultimately run out of runway and speculation takes over. Our ability understand our reality and existence has a limit. I’m as annoyed at the disrespectful, disdainful scientists as I am at the Bible-thumping religious weirdo’s who offer up a twilight zone version of reality and social order. Usually with them at the top. The prevalence these days of quasi religion- based groups, that rule with an iron-fist around the world, proves the danger that ignorance and unrestrained religious dogma presents.
@@ronhudson3730 no, it doesn't explain how.
Science doesn’t explain how? That’s all it does. As well as how things interrelate. Why is there something rather than nothing? Science will never be able to explain that. Is there an infinite series of realities stretching infinitely into the past? Or into the future? Science will never answer that. The stumbling block lays in the word infinite. Theology in its purest form, offers potential answers that even though they have to ultimately accepted by personal choice have proven to be of value to humanity over the millennia. Otherwise religion wouldn’t exist despite every attempt to stamp it out. It seems to be a fundamental need and aspect of the human mind.
Science as differentiated from discovery is a predictive field of study. Does that, necessarily, make it mathematical?
Now ask if math developed in humans before language? Usually I would assert that math was a subset of language, but can a case be made for the opposite: is language a subset of math?
Religion seems to be a narrative that is also predictive. A story is told about perfection, a fall, and a return to perfection, even conquering death itself.
The narrative prediction is a belief dependent on human and supernatural design. The mathematical equations of predictive power are based on observations of Nature and a design constructed from the prowess of the human mind to categorize and judge, rationally.
Is religion therefore non-rational? Is mathematics totally rational?
Where religion considers rationalism contingent; science makes rationalism central. That is a difference, I think.
@kallianpublico7517 An attractive idea that is EASY to agree with , friend.. I suspect that Neanderthals had an effective, if not rudimentary, form of verbal ommunication . BUT FIRST came a simple observation of mathmatical reasoning , No? To overly simplify the idea, (X) amount of food would feed those in the tribe, therfore (X) amount would be needed on a hunt which might inspire more effort IF necessary... One opinion that might be incorrect..
Religious: God tells me what to do
Scientist: I tell God what to do
Philosopher: WTF?
God:
Nature doesn’t care about our ignorance and imaginary characters.
Science is certain of _nothing_ & requires evidence for _everything_ whereas religionS are certain of _everything_ & require evidence for _nothing._ So in light of that fact which is more _humble_ & which more _arrogant?_
Only human beings can be humble and arrogant. It is not science, nor is it religion.
@@SillyHumons - yeah right, only Sisyphus can be both humble and arrogant
How is it proof if it's not certain? Of course evidence isn't proof and neither science nor religion can prove how the universe exists.
@@kevincoffey631 it's evidence in the patterns of things in the heavens, the earthy tabernacle from Wisdom of Solomon?
@@gettaasteroid4650 Only God can prove the existence of God. The existence of an intelligence-creating universe is certainly evidence.
Religion happens when a particular representation of a body of science escapes comprehension
The Physics of God by Joseph Selbie...280 pages...is a GREAT BOOK to read for this topic. It will open your eyes.
Scientifically speaking the physics of god is an empty set. I take it the purpose of this book is to claim the opposite?
@@endthisnonsense7202 One finds the purpose of the book when one reads the book.
@@endthisnonsense7202 One finds the purpose of the book when one reads the book.
@endthisnonsense7202 One learns the purpose of the book when one reads the book.
@@johnjohnson1657 I'll take this as confirmation.
Science has no properties. Science is the diverse methodologies for understanding nature(s). Theology is the study of nature, so inferring a better understanding of God aka the Primordial Cause, the Cause of all causes.
Scriptures that religions try to utilize are based on science and metaphysics, but such scriptures are profound that interpretation is very difficult, and people end up having contrary beliefs about the interpretations of the scriptures. Religion, too, is like a crutch, for people need something to believe in, as in hope, because life is difficult with the many trials and setbacks. It's not religions fault, but the fallen state of man's mind. Religion can be used as a tool or a weapon, just like science.
4:26 ... but from the theological point view it's not symmetrical because the problem sometime it looks like a symmetrical argument but scientists would say I think justifiably so that it is not symmetrical that scientce does not have to consider theology but theology has to consider science so how then do you as a theologian protect the rational Integrity of your discipline theology from the methodology of science 4:52 J.v H: yead that's a really good question and that's an important question. ... the second thing that I think that is tremendously important is you are right they are asymmetrical but I don't think it's a hierarchy in the sense that science dominates certain methodologies I think it is clearly true that science has a very impressive history of and that the empirical nature of science gives it a standing and the spin-off through technology that has changed our lives and our worlds what I think a theologian should be doing in he interdisciplinary conversation is 5:52 to show that the disciplines that we are practicing here are philosophically sound are open for scientific for scientific input yes in a generic sense science may not care about theology but there are always scientists who are interested if the theology is good to have this conversation and say why are people doing this in a systematic sense and why are they thinking about issues of the meaning of life and faith and of evil in a way that 6:19 might complement the empirical approach of science some may and some might not like it but I do think theologians have a use epistemic obligation if I can put it like that to show that in thinking about this domain of religion through theological disciplines we have a huge task in trying to foster this interdisciplinary conversation. 【Don't expect too much as a parent (theology) who love their children (sciences) for frequent communication when they are busy in schools and professional fields.】6:47 so you're protecting the integrity of your discipline theology by circumscribing certain kinds of issues that science is unable to deal with 7:00 J.v.H Yes. but also internally refining the methodology and the conceptuality 【Example, in The Theology Of Truly Right Interpretation, we've logically expanded realms, from our world the 4-dimensional through through the 6°∩0° spacetime, and spiritual mechanism and resolution are conceptulized for believers to understand Word of LORD God】of what it is we are talking about. 7:07
Guys methodology is false information because he approachs is not evidence. Instead he evidences a lot rambling.
The way God has been thought for thousand of years is no longer convincing.To know the divine,one must break free the limitations that religion impose on the mind.
Of the estimated 250,000 souls that died from malpractice last year, I wonder if they would consider Polytheism more similar to Interdisciplinary observations or more similar to Monotheism. *bonus round: Is Monotheism more similar to secular world power structures or more similar to Polytheism?
If several diciplines ask the same question, it does not mean they are aligned. It depends on how they arrive at the answer. I am amused by the sudden "can we all get along" attitude of some religions and theologians. They seem to have forgotten what they did to Galileo and Geordano Bruno. And declare some as militant atheist at the drop of the har for simply asking questions. It is likely that they will revert to the oppressive attitude if they get a chance or at minimum undermine science. We are seeing that undermining already at the highest levels.
These religious types believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
..I do not understand why Man must always seek to be contrary. Not specific doctrine, but we should seek similarities. There are many paths that all lead to GOD. Creation is so marvelous cuddle fish, octopus, everyone has different fingerprints. Just the distances between planters, stars, & galaxies. Man's short time of knowledge growth. First Flight to landing a Man on the & returning. Sixty years
Medical, science, math, engineering. It all coexists not contrary
The great old Masters of thought. St. Augustine, Plato, Aristotle, Martin Luther, and so on
Please let us carefully consider everything, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube...Blessings...
Yes, the two are in DIRECT conflict with each other! Science is a pragmatic and analytical approach to understanding, while religion is a superstitious acceptance of untestable BELIEFS.. A big and irreconcilable difference.. One opinion..
Sci3nce and religion come to the same conclusions about life...just different paths to the same truth.
@johnjohnson1657 You got the distinction between the two world views in my comment, right friend? Respectfully, I would argue that they do NOT arrive at the same conclusions.. The scientific method of information analysis (in my humble opinion) is self-evidently the ONLY path to a confident understanding of our reality, no..? Peace
@@Bill..N let me suggest a short read...about 285 pages. The Physics of God by Joseph Selbie. You read that and we can continue this conversation...respectfully of course.
@johnjohnson1657 Thanks for the response.. I respect ANYONES' natural right to believe as they choose..NP.. Although I have not read this particular book, I do not believe it to be necessary in understanding the essential premise here.. If a creator god made everything in accordance with THEIR desires, then most mainline scientific theories of our species would be falsified. Yes? Like naturalism, evolutionary pressures, and even QM/QFT would be falsified.. How AND why would an omnipotent creator god create a universe that even HE could not effectively predict? That is what we have learned from our best theories.. All wrong, friend..? All in the spirit of civil debate..
@johnjohnson1657 Such a book would only represent ONE persons opinion, yes? There are NO "authorities" with a lock on truhs, which includes science.. Nonetheless, only scientific ideas have provided humans with such real-world benefits, and I think that is easily supported WITHOUT the benefit of having read this book.. Peace, AND yes indeed, I welcome civil debates..
One is based in truth.
The other in fantasy and wishful thinking.
I’d love to say that this comment gives a clue as to what your opinion on this issue is. Unfortunately that’s not the case.
Sci3nce and religion come to the same conclusions about life. Period.
We can accept the theological explanation and apology for an earthquake, asking ourselves, "Why did God want this to happen," or turn to science for evidence of tectonic shifts. Science began as an enterprise to combat superstition and carries on that function. What does theology have to offer except fear of the dark?
Religion supercedes science religion already has an answer to it all science doesn't
'Guessing' isn't an answer. It might be right, but probably not. Science is always trying to disprove itself, whereas religion does the opposite.
To paraphrase Schweitzer, religion sees life as a great mystery, a miracle, while science sees life merely as a given, a brute fact.
With a book in the hand full of blah blah blah any fool can create a religion. But with science its not possible
*"With a book in the hand full of blah blah blah any fool can create a religion. But with science its not possible"*
... no, it's quite easy for science to create a religion: "MULTIVERSE"
Well, that's just simply not true. Science today has a dogma in: "What's real is only that which i can measure, control, manipulate and exploit. Whatever there is that I can not control is simply nonsense. " Modern science is the religion of atomism, and I just shared their dogma with you.
There's no God to them because they can't bring it into the lab and test on it. Nor can they test the intellect or the laws of nature.
Science is a methodology. It doesn't make claims or have beliefs. The many scientists out there have different perspectives. Not all of them are atomists.