Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Religion of Science file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Religion of Science book. Happy reading The Religion of Science Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Religion of Science at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Religion of Science Pocket Guide.

What's the purpose of the "physical? Are there only facts about physical things? Is materialism a religion? This argument supposes science is not religion and religion is not science. The doctrine of God says that he is not a thing that can be detected like a marble can be but the most important thing is that God is activity. God then can be detected indirectly. We need to be careful and realise that direct and indirect can be equally important.

Thus the Church is fibbing. Science does oppose God in the sense that it denies any need for him for it does not see any activity that could be his or any need for it. Part of my job is to prove that God does exist, when asked for assistance ALL religions, at the direction of Pope Benedict have refused.

Where’s the evidence? A scientist’s struggle with religion

While MAN will certainly claim otherwise, since they believe it is 1 vs 7 billion, and very funny, the universal record of events are impeccable, and unchangeable, and the math is not in MAN's favor. Given that the Human Race has no legitimate form of governance, there will be no negotiations of any kind, nor am I going to endeavor to perform tricks, or attempt to "live up" to the profits many false promises.

I agree that science is at war with religion, but it does not necessarily mean that religion is at war with science. That's an assumption that clearly demonstrates your bias towards science which is quite the crutch for a scientist, don't you think?

Most of what you wrote is opinion, though shared by much of the world, and I won't go into detail to share my opinion on your own. There's no point. The only point I would like to make out is that you have erred heavily in assuming that science is all based on hard fact, and strives to continue this tradition much like religion strives to continue it's own dogma. This longing to find theory proven by hard fact, be it through physical discovery or mathematical equations, has fallen to the side line.

The basis of much science is very much founded in fact that has been proven time and again. Most science of the modern age is based on theories and assumptions that we have yet to prove or disprove. The closest we get in most studies is that it highly suggests that a theory is correct, but we are incapable of proving it.

Hell, most modern theories are based off of many other theories, creating this network of theorized science that could all fall apart with a single base theory proven incorrect. This "theory science" has become so rampant, and is definitely a dogma in this current age, that new discoveries are ONLY accepted if they fit in with the current scientific view of the world. For example, how does mainstream science react to soft tissue found from dinosaurs thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago, or that carbon 14 dating has put some at only 35, years ago.

It doesn't fit with mainstream science, so it's not accepted or even considered. When considering that same example, we don't even know for a fact when dinosaurs existed. Millions of years ago is based on a dating system that's only an assumption. We have to proof to say when they existed for "FACT. Overall, I think your article is very flawed, by not only mainstream science built on theories instead of facts, but by how you base your argument.

Any good opinion or debate piece should look at both sides of the argument. Sure, you make a good argument against religion, but you do not look at both sides and don't build a good argument for science. I could write and article using the same idea but switch sides with it.

Science is a religion, for many reasons. Without listing anything else I can prove this simply by stating that modern science is based on faith. Faith in unproven theories that modern science protects like a dogma, even if evidence comes along to disprove the theory scientists just chose to ignore certain proofs. If everything was looked at with the same scientific eye, it would turn the scientific world upside down. It's faith in mainstream theories that keeps scientists religiously loyal to a field of study that can be just a corrupt at the most dogmatic of religions.

Wisdom is a human attribute that is often associated with religion. I suggest that it is both wise and intelligent to understand the definitions and purpose of science and religion and realize the importance and value of both.

Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

There seems to be some social or historical bias when people capitalize the word god or don't use the plural, gods. It's as if they've been conditioned to use the non plural capitalized version of the word. My argument is this. A Great Dragon created all the universe. I could start a religion and perhaps, given enough time, I could have many believers.

I could use the scientific method and not be able to disprove it for a long time, if at all. Religion is what you can choose to believe. Science is knowing that jumping off a high enough bridge will kill you because of something it defines as gravity. If you want to try to understand the world you live in, science is a useful tool. If you want to speculate about what happens after you die there are plenty of religions to offer you unverifiable theories.

Why waste time worrying about "the next life. And year from now people will see our "technology" as we see today bible, koran etc.. Whilst Science is not a religion in the sense of a social construct with dogmas, holy writ and belief in God, it most certainly is a belief system with axioms, precepts and methodologies hypotheses, falsifiability, paradigms etc. So sure, it's lazy language to say 'Science is a Religion' but if we grant a little latitude we can think of both a scientific and a religious mindset as being constructions with beliefs - by which I mean things that are held to be true.

In this regard they are both of a kind. Moreover, people who 'abandon' religion typically turn to Science - although thy might call it Humanism never Materialism and use it as the basis for their new world view. Psychologically speaking though, no-one can physically abandon a part of the brain at all, rather does the religious part of the brain acquire a new set of beliefs. Universe A mobile phone is clearly something that was put together in an organised way, so it would be rational to believe that it must have an organiser. Is it not enough that your lord is the witness of all things?

Origin of life The fact that living things consist mostly of water was discovered only after the invention of the microscope. In the deserts of Arabia, the last thing someone would have guessed is that all life came from water. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Professor Emeritus Keith L. It also acts like a blanket wrapped around the earth, to protect it from the freezing cold of space. The temperature just above the sky is approximately oC. If this temperature was to reach earth then the planet would freeze over instantly.

The sky also protects life on earth by warming the surface through heat retention. And yet they are turning away from Our signs! Iron Iron is not natural to the earth. It did not form on the earth but came down to earth from outer space. Scientists have found that billions of years ago the earth was stuck by meteorites. These meteorites were carrying Iron from distant stars which had exploded M.

IMHO All religions are made by man. Some people who cleave to science as adamantly as do "religious" zealots, quack like a duck. Not all scientists are athiests, not all athiests are scientists. Do not confuse atheism with science. Some athiests can cleave to science as the answer to everything All that is inexplicable will be explained eventually by using science. There is your faith element. Eventually we will understand. Many scientists really don't give a hoot whether some people believe in a religion or not.

Many athiests are the same way. It IS annoying. Science is a tool.

RELIGION VS SCIENCE - Nouman Ali Khan (Thought Provoking!)

Zealous atheism which reveres science Scientific fact is true, until it is not. While the "fact" is believed to be true, faith in the validity of the "fact" must be established and held in order for one to believe the fact is a fact. Everyday we find new evidence that disrupts the old belief in what we considered a fact. What were established as laws of physics changes as we better understand our world.

Religion and Science

Therefor science is a faith based institution, which can be described as a religion. Is it time to stop thinking of creators and instead only of creations? Back Psychology Today. Back Find a Therapist.

Back Get Help. Back Magazine. Subscribe Issue Archive. Back Today. When Should You Share a Secret? Eric Dietrich Ph. Is Science a Religion? Do those who reject science merely belong to a different faith community? Religion has been know to Submitted by Uh on October 30, - pm. Science is indeed not a religion Different logic Submitted by James on October 30, - pm. They are opposites Submitted by Anonymous A on October 30, - pm. No contest. The two theories are contradictory.

In the eighteenth century Newton's theory was believed, in the nineteenth century Huyghens's theory was believed. Today there is one large group of phenomena which can be explained only on the wave theory, and another large group which can be explained only on the corpuscular theory. Scientists have to leave it at that, and wait for the future, in the hope of attaining some wider vision which reconciles both.

We should apply these same principles to the questions in which there is a variance between science and religion. We should believe nothing in either sphere of thought which does not appear to us to be certified by solid reasons based upon the critical research either of ourselves or of competent authorities.

But, granting that we have honestly taken this precaution, a clash between the two on points of detail where they overlap should not lead us hastily to abandon doctrines for which we have solid evidence. It may be that we are more interested in one set of doctrines than in the other. But, if we have any sense of perspective and of the history of thought, we shall wait and refrain from mutual anathemas.

We should wait; but we should not wait passively, or in despair. The clash is a sign that there are wider truths and finer perspectives within which a reconciliation of a deeper religion and a more subtle science will be found. In one sense, therefore, the conflict between science and religion is a slight matter which has been unduly emphasized. A mere logical contradiction cannot in itself point to more than the necessity of some readjustments, possibly of a very minor character, on both sides.

Remember the widely different aspects of events which are dealt with in science and in religion respectively. Science is concerned with the general conditions which are observed to regulate physical phenomena, whereas religion is wholly wrapped up in the contemplation of moral and aesthetic values.

On the one side there is the law of gravitation, and on the other the contemplation of the beauty of holiness. What one side sees the other misses, and vice versa. For physical science you have in these lives merely ordinary examples of the operation of the principles of physiological chemistry, and of the dynamics of nervous reactions; for religion you have lives of the most profound significance in the history of the world.. Can you be surprised that, in the absence of a perfect and complete phrasing of the principles of science and the principles of. It would be a miracle if it were not so.

It would, however, be missing the point to think that we need not trouble ourselves about the conflict between science and religion. In an intellectual age there can be no active interest which puts aside all hope of a vision of the harmony of truth. To acquiesce in discrepancy is destructive of candor and of moral cleanliness. It belongs to the self-respect of intellect to pursue every tangle of thought to its final unravelment. If you check that impulse, you will get no religion and no science from an awakened thoughtfulness.

The important question is, In what spirit are we going to face the issue? There we come to something absolutely vital. A clash of doctrines is not a disaster — it is an opportunity. I will explain my meaning by some illustrations from science. The weight of an atom of nitrogen was well known. Also it was an established scientific doctrine that the average weight of such atoms in any considerable mass will be always the same.

Two experimenters, the late Lord Rayleigh and the late Sir William Ramsay, found that if they obtained nitrogen by two different methods, each equally effective for that purpose, they always observed a persistent slight difference between the average weights of the atoms in the two cases. Now I ask you, would it have been rational of these men to have despaired because of this conflict between chemical theory and scientific observation? Suppose that for some reason the chemical doctrine had been highly prized throughout some district as the foundation of its social order would it have been wise, would it have been candid, would it have been moral, to forbid the disclosure of the fact that the experiments produced discordant results?

Or, on the other hand, should Sir William Ramsay and Lord Rayleigh have proclaimed that chemical theory was now a detected delusion? We see at once that either of these ways would have been a method of facing the issue in an entirely wrong spirit. What Rayleigh and Ramsay did do was this. They at once perceived that they had hit upon a line of investigation which would disclose some subtlety of chemical theory that had hitherto eluded observation. The discrepancy was not a disaster — it was an opportunity to increase the sweep of chemical knowledge.

You all know the end of the story: finally argon was discovered, a new chemical element which had lurked undetected, mixed with the nitrogen. But the story has a sequel which forms my second illustration. This discovery drew attention to the importance of observing accurately minute differences in chemical substances as obtained by different methods. Further researches of the most careful accuracy were undertaken. Finally another physicist, Ashton, working in the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge in England, discovered that even the same element might assume two or more distinct forms, termed 'isotopes,' and that the law of the constancy of average atomic weight holds for each of these forms, but as between the different isotopes differs slightly.

The research has effected a great stride in the power of chemical theory, far transcending in importance the discovery of argon, from which it originated. The moral of these stories lies on the surface, and I will leave to you their application to the case of religion and science. In formal logic a contradiction is the signal of a defeat, but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory.

14 minutes

This is one great reason for the utmost toleration of variety of opinion. Once and forever this duty of toleration has been summed up in the words, 'Let both grow together until the harvest. But we have not yet exhausted the discussion of the moral temper required for the pursuit of truth.

There are short cuts leading merely to an illusory success. It is easy enough to find a theory, logically harmonious and with important applications in the region of fact, provided that you are content to disregard half your evidence. Every age produces people with clear logical intellects, and with the most praiseworthy grasp of the importance of some sphere of human experience, who have elaborated, or inherited, a scheme of thought that exactly fits those experiences which claim their interest.

Such people are apt resolutely to ignore, or to explain away, all evidence which confuses their scheme with contradictory instances. What they cannot fit in is for them nonsense. An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion. This advice seems so easy, and is in fact so difficult to follow. One reason for this difficulty is that we cannot think first and act afterward. From the moment of birth we are immersed in action, and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought.

We have, therefore, in various spheres of experience to adopt those ideas which seem to work within those spheres. It is absolutely necessary to trust to ideas which are generally adequate, even though we know that there are subtleties and distinctions beyond our ken.

Also, apart from the necessities of action, we cannot even keep before our minds the whole evidence except under the guise of doctrines which are incompletely harmonized. We cannot think in terms of an indefinite multiplicity of detail; our evidence can acquire its proper importance only if it comes before us marshaled by general ideas. These ideas we inherit — they form the tradition of our civilization. Such traditional ideas are never static. They are either fading into meaningless formulae or gaining power by the new lights thrown by a more delicate apprehension.

They are transformed by the urge of critical reason, by the vivid evidence of emotional experience, and by the cold certainties of scientific perception. One fact is certain: you cannot keep them still. No generation can merely reproduce its ancestors. You may preserve the life in a flux of form, or preserve the form amid an ebb of life. But you cannot permanently enclose the same life in the same mould. The present state of religion among the European races illustrates the statements which I have been making.

The phenomena are mixed. There have been reactions and revivals. But on the whole, during many generations, there has been a gradual decay of religious influence in European civilization. Each revival touches a lower peak than its predecessor, and each period of slackness a lower depth. The average curve marks a steady fall in religious tone. In some countries the interest in religion is higher than in others. But in those countries where the interest is relatively high it still falls as the generations pass.

Religion is tending to degenerate into a decent formula wherewith to embellish a comfortable life. A great historical movement on this scale results from the convergence of many causes. I wish to suggest for consideration two of them which lie within the scope of this article. In the first place, for over two centuries religion has been on the defensive, and on a weak defensive.

Dr Jennifer Wiseman: A Christian astrophysicist

The period has been one of unprecedented intellectual progress. In this way a series of novel situations has been produced for thought. Each such occasion has found the religious thinkers unprepared. Something, which has been proclaimed to be vital, has finally, after struggle, distress, and anathema, been modified and otherwise interpreted.

The next generation of religious apologists then congratulates the religious world on the deeper insight which has been gained. The result of the continued repetition of this undignified retreat, during many generations, has at last almost entirely destroyed the intellectual authority of religious thinkers. Consider this contrast: when Darwin or Einstein proclaims theories which modify our ideas, it is a triumph for science.

We do not go about saying that there is another defeat for science, because its old ideas have been abandoned. We know that another step of scientific insight has been gained. Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science.

Its principles may be eternal, but the expression of those principles requires continual development. This evolution of religion is in the main a disengagement of its own proper ideas from the adventitious notions which have crept into it by reason of the expression of its own ideas in terms of the imaginative picture of the world entertained in previous ages.

Such a release of religion from the bonds of imperfect science is all to the good. It stresses its own genuine message. The great point to be kept in mind is that normally an advance in science will show that statements of various religious beliefs require some sort of modification.

It may be that they have to be expanded or explained, or, indeed, entirely restated. If the religion is a sound expression of truth, this modification will only exhibit more adequately the exact point which is of importance. This process is a gain. In so far, therefore, as any religion has any contact with physical facts, it is to be expected that the point of view of those facts must be continually modified as scientific knowledge advances.

In this way the exact relevance of these facts for religious thought will grow more and more clear. The progress of science must result in the unceasing modification of religious thought, to the great advantage of religion. The religious controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries put theologians into a most unfortunate state of mind.

They were always attacking and defending. They pictured themselves as the garrison of a fort surrounded by hostile forces. All such pictures express half-truths. That is why they are so popular. But they are dangerous. This particular picture fostered a pugnacious party spirit that really expresses an ultimate lack of faith. They dared not modify, because they shirked the task of disengaging their spiritual message from the associations of a particular imagery.