Science or God: Do You Have to Pick One?

[Standing Wolf]

You can quote all the Bible verses in the world, but when you post crap like this (and worse) it makes your Christian witness amount to a great big zero.

[Calypso Jones]

lol Do you deny what is in God's word?? That post up there is what is going on and it is what is going on from YOUR side. I know that must make you uncomfortable otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

Own it bud. Aren't you proud of it.

[Standing Wolf]

lol Do you deny what is in God's word?? That post up there is what is going on and it is what is going on from YOUR side. I know that must make you uncomfortable otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

Own it bud. Aren't you proud of it.

I'm curious how you reconcile being one of the angriest, vilest public insulters of those with whom you disagree on this forum with your claims of being a follower of Christ. Do you believe it "doesn't count" if you just do it on the Internet? Assuming that you go to church, would you make a point of publicly calling out fellow members of your congregation for having political or social views you have a problem with? Calling them names and insulting them to their faces? Do you know what a "Christian witness" is?

[countryboy]

I'm curious how you reconcile being one of the angriest, vilest public insulters of those with whom you disagree on this forum with your claims of being a follower of Christ. Do you believe it "doesn't count" if you just do it on the Internet? Assuming that you go to church, would you make a point of publicly calling out fellow members of your congregation for having political or social views you have a problem with? Calling them names and insulting them to their faces? Do you know what a "Christian witness" is?

Says the guy who thinks Jews being depicted as dogs, is just peachy keen.

[Standing Wolf]

Says the guy who thinks Jews being depicted as dogs, is just peachy keen.

Now you're going to have to explain that one.

[Standing Wolf]

Says the guy who thinks Jews being depicted as dogs, is just peachy keen.

Still waiting for an explanation.

[skepticalmike]

So far no one appears to have listened to the video because no one discusses anything in it. This is understandable because the length of the video is 31

minutes and that is too much work.

I listened to his monologue and quit when he started opening up for questions from the audience. I was not impressed.


Dennis Prager doesn't clearly define what science is. This is the first definition I found on the internet and it is good enough. Would this definition apply to any known religion?


Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)


I don't believe that this definition would apply to Islam or Christianity. What would be the systematic methodology used by Christians in order to understand the natural world or human

behavior?

Most religions are concerned with supernatural things and science does not recognize a supernatural realm.


To me, science is mostly about following a method that involves carefully forming a body of knowledge based on much evidence that is composed of theories and laws and is capable of being

falsified.


Dennis Prager says, "if you follow science you don't keep the elderly and infirm alive and you follow the Darwinian rule of survival of the fittest". He says that science doesn't tell

us to be kind. Science doesn't tell us that we must follow survival of the fittest, which is not a Darwinian rule. There is no particular reason why human beings need to pattern their

behavior to be like wild animals. We can rise above our nature and humans have gradually become much more peaceful and kind as a result of cultural influences.

Steven Pinker has written about this.


Dennis Prager says that science hasn't given him wisdom or morality. According to him, science only tells us how to build an atomic bomb but not about when to use them.

That is a little simplistic. Since we know what kind of destruction atomic bombs can cause they have only been used once in world War II. Today, with the destructive power

of many hydrogen bombs and with wars started by nuclear powers impossible to "win", it is not wise for any country to start a nuclear war. Science is very useful in arriving

at that conclusion.

[NapRover]

Who has evidence supporting the existence of gods?

Jews.

[skepticalmike]

Religion and Science are perfectly compatible until one attempts to portray itself as the other.

I don't like to criticize your posts because they are among the best on this website. However, I have to disagree with you on this. Religions generally don't follow any scientific method and they

can conflict with scientific knowledge. The religion of Christianity has evolved over time and spread into many diverse forms of belief. I don't know of any of those Christian variations that can

said to be entirely consistent with science. Science has found no evidence of a soul, a god, an afterlife, miracles, angels, satan, or the resurrection of the dead. Science depends on critical

thinking and skepticism which is missing from religious belief.

[Standing Wolf]

I don't like to criticize your posts because they are among the best on this website. However, I have to disagree with you on this. Religions generally don't follow any scientific method and they

can conflict with scientific knowledge. The religion of Christianity has evolved over time and spread into many diverse forms of belief. I don't know of any of those Christian variations that can

said to be entirely consistent with science. Science has found no evidence of a soul, a god, an afterlife, miracles, angels, satan, or the resurrection of the dead. Science depends on critical

thinking and skepticism which is missing from religious belief.

I can't disagree with anything in your post, above, so I can only think that I didn't make my meaning entirely clear in the post of mine that you quoted. Let me explain what I meant.

As noted elsewhere, some see Science as a substitute for Religion - something that makes Religion unnecessary or obsolete. They may view Religion as nothing but a primitive attempt to explain the world's physical mysteries, and to find out how things got to be the way they are. They may believe that Science has answered (or will answer) all those questions, so why would anyone need or want Religion?

Others see Science as challenging their understanding of what God has done and how He has done it - so rather than questioning their own understanding, they lash out at Science. Some dispute the truth of evolutionary theory for no better reason than that they can't bring themselves to believe that their God would do it that way. I once had somebody on a discussion forum, someone who claimed to be a professing Christian, tell me that if he ever came to believe in evolution he would have to stop believing in God. (I have to wonder how many folks who think that way would be surprised at hearing the view of their own pastor, priest or other spiritual leader on the subject.)

So when I wrote that "Religion and Science are perfectly compatible until one attempts to portray itself as the other", what I was attempting to say is that both can be forces for good and co-exist in harmony as long as the proponents of Science don't presume to reject Religion entirely, and as long as the proponents of Religion don't lose sight of the fact that the all-powerful creator of the universe may very well have done some things in ways that are beyond the full understanding of any human being.