Posted on Oct 31, 2014
Why do science and religion always have to be different?
6.57K
231
109
2
2
0
My question is from a place in my childhood where to me I thought of an idea that could combine religion and science.
Why is it that no one agrees? It's either one or the other.
Hasn't anyone ever thought that maybe science and religion are the same. Look at the bible it states the fact that earth was created in seven days. Well the bible has been said it is the word of God so why can't seven days for him be more than a millennium for us? Or even centuries?
Why is it that no one agrees? It's either one or the other.
Hasn't anyone ever thought that maybe science and religion are the same. Look at the bible it states the fact that earth was created in seven days. Well the bible has been said it is the word of God so why can't seven days for him be more than a millennium for us? Or even centuries?
Religion
Science
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 34
3
3
0
A1C (Join to see)
Science deals in facts, things than can be proven through testing and methods. Religion on the other hand, does not need proof in order for someone to feel is the truth.
Science deals in facts, things than can be proven through testing and methods. Religion on the other hand, does not need proof in order for someone to feel is the truth.
(3)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
The Creator is the greatest scientist of all. All these bespectacled idiots with PhDs are just trying to figure out how He did it without acknowledging His existence. It is the pseudo scientist who denies religion
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) You are describing the difference between faith and science. Faith is belief in things that cannot be readily proven. Religion describes a system of faith AND worship.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
A day to god is a thousand of our years. I think science and religion can exist together. Both require a measure of faith. I think we as humans want all the answers to the universe and science and religion attempt to answer those.
The problem is, many use science as a religion in the sense they use it to explain away religion. Many philosophers, both religious and non-religious have debated the existence of God, and creation. Both can only agree that it takes a measure of faith to believe their points of view.
Neither science or religion can prove or disprove their own theories. It all boils down to faith and what we choose to believe. I choose to believe in God as the creator of all. I do not have all the answers, but then neither do scientists. they rely greatly on theory and hypothesis, and we all know that theories change.
I consider the universe, and everything I see. There is too much perfect order for things to have happened accidentally. Consider people, even though there are many basic similarities, no two are the same. Tress, other animals are the same way.
Science and religion can co-exist, there are many scientists that study science and find that science proves the existence of design. After that, it comes down to faith, which scientist or data set does on choose to believe.
The problem is, many use science as a religion in the sense they use it to explain away religion. Many philosophers, both religious and non-religious have debated the existence of God, and creation. Both can only agree that it takes a measure of faith to believe their points of view.
Neither science or religion can prove or disprove their own theories. It all boils down to faith and what we choose to believe. I choose to believe in God as the creator of all. I do not have all the answers, but then neither do scientists. they rely greatly on theory and hypothesis, and we all know that theories change.
I consider the universe, and everything I see. There is too much perfect order for things to have happened accidentally. Consider people, even though there are many basic similarities, no two are the same. Tress, other animals are the same way.
Science and religion can co-exist, there are many scientists that study science and find that science proves the existence of design. After that, it comes down to faith, which scientist or data set does on choose to believe.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Science asks why the stick in the water seems to be bent. Religion asks why is it there? Spiritually speaking that is...
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
1LT Leo Sudnik Most of my night is studying Physics, Quantum Theory and from a broad range of people including Hawking, Smolin, Susskind, FEYNMAN (maybe the smartest Math guy ever). My favorite is however aside from Richard Feynman is Max Planck of the Planck Universe fame and light Quanta.
These geniuses push the envelope and Feynman was so bright that he virtually condensed a lot of Math physics into a much more usable. The science community was dubious but he proved them wrong in spades.
As a Meteorologist, I study the physics involved in forecasting. Those using MOS computer models understand their limitations. Initialization, over-running and climate limitations. Source Regions, gravity waves, Relative Vorticity and on and on and on.
The key is being aware of the major components of understanding. A forecaster saying never will probably never be right because they rely on slightly flawed data that projects out into a mess of contradictions. Just when you thought you had it right.
Example; In Germany, the EFU and Weather Support Unit were forecasting rain, I said, "no way". I asked them how much RH that they had at each level and they said 10-15%. You need 80% for a cloud. I was the TAF Forecaster and I put out SKC and they hedged with Partly to Mostly Cloudy. And when the change came they were being too conservative so I figured it out and issued severe weather warnings, including high winds. I had a full bird contending with me and I said that I will not change it. We were hit with 88kt winds. Two C-141s suffered 75,000 dollars because the next forecaster took out the warning. I had actually found a wind shift in France that caused Severe Thunderstorms and high winds and I progged that out to Ramstein. The Weather Commander came in smiling and I was credited by the wing commander of the 86th TFW as one of the best reviews that he had ever seen.
To me, it was logic. Almost laughable easy while others had egg on their faces because this young forecaster beat them at their own game. The point is, I love being wrong if it benefits people but will not be cornered to implying what I may not know. The other forecaster were using persistence. Climatology failed because of changing airmasses.
These geniuses push the envelope and Feynman was so bright that he virtually condensed a lot of Math physics into a much more usable. The science community was dubious but he proved them wrong in spades.
As a Meteorologist, I study the physics involved in forecasting. Those using MOS computer models understand their limitations. Initialization, over-running and climate limitations. Source Regions, gravity waves, Relative Vorticity and on and on and on.
The key is being aware of the major components of understanding. A forecaster saying never will probably never be right because they rely on slightly flawed data that projects out into a mess of contradictions. Just when you thought you had it right.
Example; In Germany, the EFU and Weather Support Unit were forecasting rain, I said, "no way". I asked them how much RH that they had at each level and they said 10-15%. You need 80% for a cloud. I was the TAF Forecaster and I put out SKC and they hedged with Partly to Mostly Cloudy. And when the change came they were being too conservative so I figured it out and issued severe weather warnings, including high winds. I had a full bird contending with me and I said that I will not change it. We were hit with 88kt winds. Two C-141s suffered 75,000 dollars because the next forecaster took out the warning. I had actually found a wind shift in France that caused Severe Thunderstorms and high winds and I progged that out to Ramstein. The Weather Commander came in smiling and I was credited by the wing commander of the 86th TFW as one of the best reviews that he had ever seen.
To me, it was logic. Almost laughable easy while others had egg on their faces because this young forecaster beat them at their own game. The point is, I love being wrong if it benefits people but will not be cornered to implying what I may not know. The other forecaster were using persistence. Climatology failed because of changing airmasses.
(1)
(0)
**************CAUTION: PHYSIOLOGICAL NUDITY********************
Thomas Jefferson was one of our founding fathers and this was his point of view on reason along with other founding fathers. It does run counter to what we may have been led to believe.
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Thomas Jefferson was one of our founding fathers and this was his point of view on reason along with other founding fathers. It does run counter to what we may have been led to believe.
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
Personally, I believe that perfect Science and perfect Religion will end up being the same thing. Science and Religion are both working on the same puzzle, they just simply started in different places. And each side has been thrown pieces that don't fit, but certain members of both camps are still trying to force their red herrings into the puzzle because they like the way they look. The fact remains that the universe functions. Period. Eventually when all the questions are answered, all will know the all-important how's and why's. And science and Religion will be reconciled.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
First: The two are not mutually exclusive.
Second: Science and the discoveries therein are what we use to understand the physical nature of the Universe and the world around us. God is not Physical. However, Jesus was when he was on Earth in the flesh and he did experience things the way we do.
Third: We humans experience time in a linear fashion. Because God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, He experiences time in a different fashion. One that we cannot explain because God is not physical or linear.
MAJ Carl Ballinger does this cover it?
Second: Science and the discoveries therein are what we use to understand the physical nature of the Universe and the world around us. God is not Physical. However, Jesus was when he was on Earth in the flesh and he did experience things the way we do.
Third: We humans experience time in a linear fashion. Because God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, He experiences time in a different fashion. One that we cannot explain because God is not physical or linear.
MAJ Carl Ballinger does this cover it?
(1)
(0)
This is a simple answer. The answer is Yes and No.
Yes would be easily explained as some scientific discoveries are know as being miraculous. To some they simply can not comprehend what happened and explain it as a miracle. This is rare as many in the past, biblical, era were not exposed to new technology but only new logic.
And No. If you were to analyze religion and turn a miracle into scientific explanation you will take away the miracle of it all.
An example of this would be if someone is cured of Cancer via chemotherapy. If you were religious you would thank God for the miracle of ridding yourself of cancer. If you were not religious you would thank the Doctor that was administrating the chemotherapy.
Even further back, if you were to look at most religious texts you can apply science to it. Carbon dating does not sync with Bible. If you have to reach to make an explanation you are missing the point. Then yet again we are use science to alter just about anything. We are capable to cloning a human and alter the world.
They can never be the same. The Bible even states it.
then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it. -Ecclesiastes 8:17
How great is God--beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out. -Job 36:26
It can be best summed up with this
Ecclesiastes 1:13
I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind!
Yes would be easily explained as some scientific discoveries are know as being miraculous. To some they simply can not comprehend what happened and explain it as a miracle. This is rare as many in the past, biblical, era were not exposed to new technology but only new logic.
And No. If you were to analyze religion and turn a miracle into scientific explanation you will take away the miracle of it all.
An example of this would be if someone is cured of Cancer via chemotherapy. If you were religious you would thank God for the miracle of ridding yourself of cancer. If you were not religious you would thank the Doctor that was administrating the chemotherapy.
Even further back, if you were to look at most religious texts you can apply science to it. Carbon dating does not sync with Bible. If you have to reach to make an explanation you are missing the point. Then yet again we are use science to alter just about anything. We are capable to cloning a human and alter the world.
They can never be the same. The Bible even states it.
then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it. -Ecclesiastes 8:17
How great is God--beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out. -Job 36:26
It can be best summed up with this
Ecclesiastes 1:13
I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind!
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
1LT Leo Sudnik It came down to how they were being used. The question was how the LRS asset was being being used from a CAV perspective without utilizing their skill set.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
1LT Leo Sudnik I stay abreast with the LRS community as we have an active FB page about the current events. If you want to see a movie with LRS watch this. It is a Documentary about a LRS unit commander. This is the deployment right after I got out. A lot of the guys are friends of mine. The issue of the doctrine of LRS is that it is never set. It is always changing.
Two Brothers went to fight. One went to find out why.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
1LT Leo Sudnik I don't think I know anyone from the Hood LRS unit. Even the guys I know from the Bragg unit are all over the place now.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
PO3 Dale Stanton I have heard that before many many times. We have to establish a few things first. The day is 24 hours. It is measured by the rotation of the earth while it is on its orbit around the sun. The Sun must have been created first. The Earth had to be placed in its orbit around the Sun. If it was not moving it would be exposed to mass amounts of radiation that the sun gives off. It would have also damaged the earth.
In addition to the Bible does not contradict itself. I have been told that from the bringing. I won't disagree with that. I am more of a deist anyway. But then what of the 40 day Jesus went into the wilderness? Was really 40 years? What was a day then? What about the 3 days it took him to raise? Those days were measured in a 24 hour span. They were days. Just as in the day, 24 hour, in the creation story. If you were to say that that it wasn't 24 hours it could have been more then you are contradicted the term day in the bible. You would be advocating that it really has two meanings and is not clearly defined? If that is case what of the other terms in the bible?
It could have used any other time reference but it didn't. It used day.
In addition to the Bible does not contradict itself. I have been told that from the bringing. I won't disagree with that. I am more of a deist anyway. But then what of the 40 day Jesus went into the wilderness? Was really 40 years? What was a day then? What about the 3 days it took him to raise? Those days were measured in a 24 hour span. They were days. Just as in the day, 24 hour, in the creation story. If you were to say that that it wasn't 24 hours it could have been more then you are contradicted the term day in the bible. You would be advocating that it really has two meanings and is not clearly defined? If that is case what of the other terms in the bible?
It could have used any other time reference but it didn't. It used day.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It could have been six days like He said. He rested on the seventh. The theory of evolution is just that; a theory. Most of it has been scientifically disproven so that in fact it can no longer be consider red a theory. The math just doesn't add up and math is the mother of science
(1)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
Read dr john baumgardners work on plate tech tonics. God is the ultimate mathematician, scientist electrician. If you want to know the answers, ask the creator. The problem is most scientists deny the existence of God. Nikola tesla went to the Bible to answer questions about electricity and it worked out pretty well for him
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
So when you hear the words God created the world in seven days, you think he ment a 24 hour day? A billion years to God is just a blink of an eye.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google