SHOW ME THE PROOF

Excellent article Thomas! It is the arrogance of human nature that deludes us into thinking that science can explain everything, and that everything can be known.

Science never said that everything can be known. Science is theories.

They need to teach science better in America. So many people don't even know what it is, and assume it's another religion, and talk about it like it's religion. I was just arguing this all day yesterday at another article that did one of those "God VS Science" things. Ug.

Kay: Thank you. You are right.

Science and religion are two ways of looking at the same thing. There is no disagreement between the two.

They are two different things.

One of the greatest gifts given by the universe is our insatiable curiosity about the world around us and the ability to reason. However, some things are just too large for our minds to grasp and that is where faith enters the picture. How we use that faith is as individual as a fingerprint.

It has always been my belief that a true scientist is not arrogant, but rather humble. A true scientist is one who acknowledges that the unknown grows exponentially as you learn new things. When we don't understand something, we often move to the poetic, to the metaphor - in the autumn, God paints the leaves golden. When we learn about photosynthesis and the multi-colors of chlorophyl, and the death and re-absorption of the colors that mask the yellows, we also take away the poetry of living. As we learn more we need to accept both the analysis and the poetry and speak of both easily and without shame or blame.
As scientists are learning ever more about our universe, they are learning with ever more certainty that the hidden secrets of nature will never be revealed to them - and they too are now describing this glorious universe we live in with metaphor. The cold emptiness of analytical science is wonderful and important in so many ways, but cannot fully sustain us without the richness of metaphor. Science in all of its shortcomings and religion in all of its shortcomings, if truly practiced, both bring us closer to truth. They are not in opposition to one another, but fill our world, our lives, with wonder and surprise.

Nice reply, Gary, but there is a difference between poetry and metaphore, and the delusion of a big man with a long white beard up above the sky somewhere, meting out blessings on the good and thunderstorms and fire and disaster on the really bad. It doesn't wash. 'Gods' were 'invented' a long time ago, then the romans had gods for almost anything; then along came one of the popes and decided to change everything, to tidy things up, and just have the one. Where did all the redundant ones go?
Or was it a convenient way of tidying up the social engineering of the simple peasants who went along with everything they were told by the lords and kings, for fear of their lives?

I like poetry and metaphore; written well, they can be beautiful, but there are people out there who believe in every single word in the bible...as it is written today, in English, without qualification or ever querying the history of a large set of documents which has been carefully selected by the religious heirarchy.

But that's just the way I see it....

King, I have met many a scientist, and believe me, they believe everything can be explained scientifically! My sympathies to you on your God vs. Science debate :}

I loved the article and the comments too. They stand as articles on their own.
I've often wondered about the panich a part of the world's population experiences when science talks about religion, and the disregard another part of the planet's population shows when religious people tap into science. Some of us make it difficult for the more open minded to work through theories and experiences because at the bottom lies the fear of having to assume life is dynamic, so is everything in it, and we're part of it.
Knowledge... intuition, who knows whether intuition is not related to resonating with nature's unwritten and unspoken rules?
A man lies freezing on the snow. Sweat stops being produced.
The minute muscles under the surface of the skin called erector muscles (attached to an individual hair follicle) contract (piloerection), lifting the hair follicle upright. This makes our hairs stand on end which acts as an insulating layer, trapping heat. This is what also causes goose pimples since humans don't have very much hair and the contracted muscles can easily be seen.
Arterioles carrying blood to superficial capillaries under the surface of the skin can shrink so that less heat is carried by the blood and lost to the surroundings. This process is called vasoconstriction. It is impossible to prevent all heat loss from the blood, only to reduce it. In extremely cold conditions excessive vasoconstriction leads to numbness and frostbite.
Muscles can also receive messages from the thermo-regulatory centre of the brain (the hypothalamus) to cause shivering. This increases heat production as respiration is an exothermic reaction in muscle cells that accelerates when they contract.
Messages from the brain that reach effectors (e.g. muscles and glands) are done so by motor neurons. Neurons are specialized cells that pass messages around the body in the form of electrical impulses. Motor neurons are the ones that pass messages from the brain directly to the effector, in this case muscles. A collection of thousands of neurons is termed a nerve.

The process explained above, in which the skin regulates body temperature, has been studied by science, and it has a name: thermoregulation. The lab wher all this happens is a human living body.
Is he a Muslim? Is he a Jew? Is he a Christian or an Atheist? Does nis body laboratory respond in a different way depending upon his beliefs? Does he know all that's happening to him?
One thing is for sure: he can't see it happening with his eyes, and he won't experience consciously all he's going through in his body lab. Another point is that we can prove it even though we can't see it happening.

As I have said, science and religion are two ways of looking at the same thing. They are different, yes. But they are in agreement. Both must be seen with open eyes. God is the author of both science and religion. And I don't think He has a split personality.

I simply love your last statement: God is the author of both science and religion. And I don't think He has a split personality. Never better said, Thomas!!!!!!!

Hey Thomas:) - Nice and thoughtful article. Personally I have never been able to understand why some people try and use science as a yardstick to disprove religion and existence of God Almighty, where as science was originally supposed to be a means of recognizing that there indeed is a greater, more intelligent supreme being, responsible for this great show.

In any case I say Science is a GREAT BLESSING of GOD and only provides us to see his power, sheer brilliance and complete command over the millions of delicately balanced yet complex systems, going around us in such perfection, be them far away in the heavens or within our fragile selves.

Indeed God invites the men of intelligence to ponder and reflect upon his creation because his signs will only take us closer to him.

And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth: Behold, in that are signs indeed for those who reflect." (45: 13) - Quran

Kamran: Wise thoughts, beautifully stated. Thank you.

A good article and great discussion resulting from it. I think that much of the confusion and debate on this subject over time is due to several factors. First, no two people have the same "vision" or perspective on what "God" is, even those who do not believe that He exists. It is much like anything else in that nothing can be observed even physically except from differing perspectives. Second, since God is "unknowable" no perspective held by anyone even approaches the "truth." Third, the way anyone "views" God depends upon their own personal maturity, their educational background and their sophistication of thought, no two of which are the same. Forth, since we are living in a dynamic environment in which nothing is constant (even our own perspective and thought paradigm), our own "view" of God is a "moving target," so to speak. Fifth, since everyone's view (or most everyone) of "God" involves some"thing" or some"nothing" that "is" but is above and beyond all that "is," to say that God "exists" is demeaning to the concept per se. Since God is beyond all that "exists" then God does not by definition "exist." But that does not mean that there is not a "God" in some sense that eludes explanation. No wonder very intelligent and perspicacious people think "one way one minute" and another way "the next minute."

Donald: Thank you for your perspicuous comments. I figured this subject would be of interest to you.

Perhaps, in time, just as we have proved many things in the past beyond deductive reasoning, God will be provable. At that time we can firmly establish the actual nature of God as well! And "faith" will be actually unnecessary! I'll be long gone before that happens.

Thanks everyone for your enlightened thoughts on this important matter.