Please name one thing about the natural world described more accurately by religion than science can provide

  • Thread starter Thread starter cho_pilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Describing the natural world is not the purpose of religion. At one time science, mans use of reason to understand his environment, described the earth as flat and the sun as revolving around it. 🤷
 
Religion and Science. You cant have one without the other! Revelation and Experience. One is more poetic. The other is of course more descriptive.
Anyway scientists need faith too. They need to have faith that the universe follows laws and is measurable.
 
Yes Cho, It is in Genesis 1:3 "And GOD said, Let there be light: and there was light.
 
fhansen said:
Describing the natural world is not the purpose of religion. At one time science, mans use of reason to understand his environment, described the earth as flat and the sun as revolving around it. 🤷
Click to expand...
For my own take - I have always felt that science is limited to what can be physically tested. It deals with what can be apprehended by our senses. Science is man understanding certain patterns that are inherent in the physical world - i.e. gravity - the sun rising and setting - seasons - and so forth.

Faith deals with the reality that is beyond the physical, beyond what Science can deal with. Faith deals with the why, where from, where are you going - those questions that Science - as wonderful as it is - can’t answer.

Peace in Christ,
Joel :harp:
 
how about “the spirit”? scientists, to my understanding, have never offered any concrete definition of the term “spirit”, yet the vast majority of human beings all over the world, from all faiths and belief systems, know that they have a spirit.

it seems to me that the very word “spirit”, along with the words “faith”, “heaven”, “miracle”, etc, are anathema to many contemporary scientists, who have come to share a growingly powerful and united belief system, generally referred to as scientific atheism, which represents some sort of new master belief system meant to replace christianity and the other theistic faiths of earth with the ideas that all living beings can be reduced to mechanics and mathematical equations and the carbon and nitrogen (etc) cycles. two of the most powerful thinkers (and they are brilliant) in this burgeoning problem are richard dawkins (author of the book “the selfish gene”) and steven pinker (another prolific author and world renowned scientist), and the general mentality of their followers is that religion has been one of the worst problems on earth, not one of the greatest sources of love and hope, etc, and that these scientists like them are doing a huge favor to the masses to finally educate the masses about the hard truth science reveals about faith, miracles, heaven, the spirit world, etc, which these scientists claim are all bunk.

this rise of scientific atheism, which is already prominent among educated people everywhere, i believe represents the greatest challenge to the holy church in this day. scientists are increasingly being looked to as some sort of “new priests” and as dispellers of faith’s illusions. as a devout christian man, i tremble to think what earth could become like, if scientific atheism ever eclipses our faith totally or near totally. human beings, if they have no faith in nor respect for god, will succumb to animal and selfish behaviors entirely, in my opinion. our species will fall into deep spiritual suffering and chaos, should faith in god ever be destroyed to any large measure by these crusading scientists.

anyway, all that being said, i challenge any participants in this thread who subscribe to scientific atheism to dismiss the concept of “spirit” and/or to explain how science can better explain the concept than can religion.

whitecrayon
 
Can science explain (I mean really explain, not offer a speculative just-so story) why human beings have a conscience?
 
The rational foundation and justification of natural science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top