Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In your opinion, which is a better way to distinguish what is true from what is false?
If your answer is "it depends on the nature of the question" assume the question is about evoltuion, and in the comments feel free to distinguish between those situations where you would likely choose one method of knowing over the other, assuming the conclusions were in conflict.
A. The Scientific Method - which I will loosely define as the emperical process of the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Versus
B. The Religious Method - With the understanding that there is more than one relgious method, I mean the conventional method of religious discovery based upon the interpretation of sacred text written by religous authorities who claim to have been divinely inspired, and the seeking of personal insight via attempted communion with a diety.
To find ultimate truth, it's a combination of both. Science can answer how, but it can never answer that nagging question, "why." Religion can answer why, but it can rarely answer how.
I don't really like this idea that it's A. vs. B. when it comes to our origins and total truth. It all fits together into one piece, and not all of the answers can be found in just one subject.
I agree with AT9, you need both to come to form a complete truth. But perhaps we need more than science and religion but we just don't know it yet?
The better way of the 2, I would have to say is the scientific where proofs can be made rather than the religious way where we await for death and define it as the moment of truth. But the best way would be to evaluate all methods of thought and reasoning; philosophy from both science and religion.
The idea is that, what if the two ways of determining the truth are in conflict, such that to believe one is to disbelieve the other? Which take supremecy?
And I would add that this is NOT a question of whether you believe a God would be wrong. You may assume that your God is always correct, but that your way of understanding him is imperfect. Such that, if there is a conflict between your religous beliefs and your scientific beliefs, you choose science only because your way of knowing what God really meant is less reliable than your understanding of science.
Or you can simply choose to believe the religious way of knowing over the scientific way, without exception.
I follow the evidence and that does not lead to religion.
A year ago, I posted a thread about finding the best 'church' for me as I felt that I needed the community and guidance. In that thread, I also posted that I would research religion. That research led to atheism.
To find ultimate truth, it's a combination of both. Science can answer how, but it can never answer that nagging question, "why." Religion can answer why, but it can rarely answer how.
I don't really like this idea that it's A. vs. B. when it comes to our origins and total truth. It all fits together into one piece, and not all of the answers can be found in just one subject.
Sure religion can give you an answer to the "why," but with so many different and conflicting answers to "why" out there, how do you know you're getting the correct answer?
If you put it like that, then logically, the scientific methods of determining fact as truth. We can use scientific methods over and over again to produce the same results, the same truths, formulated and written as known proofs.
Even if you do believe in god, you can hardly believe the ancient stories (although many of the morals are good) to be truth. The teachings may have nobility but there is no historical account for the writers of the text, nor for the stories which claim to be historical accounting.
Even the Vatican can understand this and many of the priests are scholars of science. I vote science.
There are many truths. So my first response is 'to which truth are you searching for'?
Also I took this topic to pew research poll data and found these reports.
Quote:
Pew Forum: Science in America: Religious Belief and Public Attitudes December 18, 2007
And indeed, a close reading of survey data shows that while large majorities of Americans respect science and scientists, they are not always willing to accept scientific findings that squarely contradict their religious beliefs. Furthermore, where scientific evidence and long-held religious belief come into direct conflict, many Americans reject science in favor of the teachings of their faith tradition.
At the same time, such conflicts -- where scientists and people of faith explicitly disagree on concrete facts -- are not common in the United States today. Indeed, the theory of evolution as a means to explain the origins and development of life remains the only truly concrete example of such a conflict. To a lesser extent, faith also plays a role in shaping views about the nature of homosexuality and, to a much smaller degree, global warming.
Quote:
Pew Forum: Religion and the Environment: Religious Groups' Views on Global Warming April 16, 2009
Earth Day takes place on April 22 each year. One issue at the center of public discussions about the environment is global warming: whether it is occurring and what its causes might be. An analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life of a 2008 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press examines views on global warming among major religious traditions in the U.S.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Since many people need evidence that can be seen, then the Holy Spirit is an irrevocable notion to those. So the truth that one is searching for is the only truth that is evident to them.
So your poll is black and white where as life is gray.
So your poll is black and white where as life is gray.
On some occasions, it is indeed gray. But I'm talking about the times when it's black or white.
Religious orthodoxy occasionally runs directly contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, and this puts many religious practicionars in a difficult spot. Not all, but many.
So from the religous practicioners imparticular, I would like to know how they react when what they learned via religion is different than what they learned from science.
Do they tend to think that they have their religion wrong, or do they think the scientist have their science wrong? Which yeilds to make way for the other?
On some occasions, it is indeed gray. But I'm talking about the times when it's black or white.
Religious orthodoxy occasionally runs directly contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, and this puts many religious practicionars in a difficult spot. Not all, but many.
So from the religous practicioners imparticular, I would like to know how they react when what they learned via religion is different than what they learned from science.
Do they tend to think that they have their religion wrong, or do they think the scientist have their science wrong? Which yeilds to make way for the other?
First off, I don't believe anything in life is black and white. So we will agree to disagree there.
Second your question might be better served if you asked a Preacher or surveyed a group of Preachers.
And final, Billy Graham has a website with question and answer section.
But I did find this on pew research. As this is the only place I could find anything and yes I do reference from here most.
Quote:
Religion News: Study: Evangelicals trail other faiths on global warming (http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17948 - broken link)
April 22, 2009
by Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
(RNS) While a majority of white evangelicals believe there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, only one in three says human activity is the cause, according to a recent survey.
As the world celebrates Earth Day, a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows significant disagreement among U.S. religious groups on climate change and its causes....
Black Protestants (39 percent); white, non-Hispanic Catholics (44 percent); white mainline Protestants (48 percent); and religiously unaffiliated Americans (58 percent) are all also more likely to attribute climate change to humans, the survey found.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which Truth?
