SCIENCE AND RELIGION IN TOTAL AGREEMENT

A great point about the limited mind of man. Even though every field of science seems to change its fundamental premise every generation or so, we are still so proud to think that we have complete knowledge and understanding.

That is the most ridiculous scientific announcement I have ever read. The main thing that struck me was the last sentence. First of all, who is the "divine reality" referred to and if it's God then his "pure teachings" refute all that was said in this announcement. And, just how does a human remove anything from "among mankind"? Is that person going to brainwash everyone and remove the "dissension and discord" from their minds? If you are going to believe science and scientists then you have to put your faith in a man. But if you are going believe the Holy Bible (God's Word) then you have to put your faith into an almighty and powerful B
eing that has the ability to "speak" and it happens. I prefer to trust and put my Faith in God.

I do not see science and religion to be in opposition. I think science helps us understand the "How?" questions in this life, while religion answers the "Why?" questions. As the sciences bring new information to light, we can integrate these into deeper understandings of the divine. It is only when we think we have all knowledge of science and/or religion that we get stuck. The creator did not stop revealing itself to us 2000 years ago. We need to integrate new knowledge into our understandings every day.

There are really no such things as 'science' and 'religion.' There are many branches of science and many different kinds of religion. Some are compatible with each other, and some are not. So I consider this a silly argument.

Harrel P.: I think you are misunderstanding the import of this article and the concept in general. It is not that one should take a side on an apparent conflict between "science" and "religion." To the contrary. They are two differing approaches to whatever is and turns out to be the truth. The quest for understanding by us is a God given attribute and drive. How we manage it depends upon the status of our moral and social maturity.

Catherine J.: I think you are also making a fundamental mistake in your approach. You mention stem cell research as if it were a conflict between "science" and "religion." It is not a conflict between "science" and "religion." The research or the issue as to whether we should do research is not a conflict between "religion" and "science" but between a particular understanding of religion by some people (Catholics, for instance) and those who are not of that persuasion. The Catholic church is not "a religion" except as one wants to define religion for their own partisan purposes. Religion is a general process from God and the Catholic church is just one of many interpretations of that process. What you or I or anyone in the world thinks is religion is a matter of differing perspective. You may think that the Sun is a star and I may think that the Sun is a "flaming planet" and another may think that the Sun is God, but that does not change what the Sun is in fact. There is conflict between what people conceive of when they speak of religion, just as what people think when they conceive of the word, "science." But that is simply a matter of either ignorance of preference of thought.

God created everything, even mathmatics, physics, chemistry and all the other sciences that provide understanding of our world. There is no confict and there is no need to question putting your faith in man. Who do you think wrote the Bible? Man. Man as he understood the world at that time. There is no conflict. There is God and everything that is of the universe including the tiny molecules inside our bodies which began as matter in the universe. Who are we to question this? In realtion to the Universe we are dust motes and need to recall the humility of God's messengers, Jesus, Baha'u'lla, Mohammed, Buddha. The kingdom of god IS here but none will see.

Mary: You are one of true understanding. Thank you for expressing your enlightened views.

Kathy: It is heartwarming to hear the views of people such as yourself who have a profound understanding of God and His creation.

Are you sure? You always sound so sure. Are you sure you know as much as you think you know - or do you just think you know all these things.

Are you sure?

I do love you Peter.

Isis created science.

Peter: Good questions. I write about things I KNOW to be true and I express them as accurately as I can. In the few cases where I am not sure I will say so or I will pose the subject in the form of a question so as to get other's opinions.

Truth is the key to it all, to the degree either seek the highest truth of the subject matter there can be no conflict, when there is conflict it is because one or the other (or both) has deviated from truth.

David: Yes, God is an unknowable essence.

David A.: What's in a name? All names of God are "titles". The Jehovah Witnesses, who I admire, claim that the word "Jehovah" is the name of God. But Jevhovah has a meaning, "He Who brought all things into being" which I obtained from reading Jehovah Witness literature in depth. It is therefore as much a title as it is a name and that depends on who is insisting that it is only a name and not a title. My name, "Donald" means, "World Conqueror" but it is a name. It is also therefore a title. In fact, most names come from some form of title. "Smith" refers to a blacksmith or goldsmith, etc. In fact, some names are such as Goldsmith.

Thomas,

After reading the comments, I had to go back and read the article again to understand the derivatives deduced therefrom. I like your statement that it is difficult to believe that which is counter to reason. However, I must state that many do it in relation to their religious beliefs and all of us do it in certain instances.

It isn't just what is accurate, it is what fills our needs. A religion, or cult (using the word as it was intended and not as a pejorative) , must satisfy an intellectual role and must also satisfy an emotional role or it cannot be adopted by an individual. The emotional role is not only desirable, it is paramount! Two people are not necessarily satisfied with the same emotional offerings.

Some person's intellectual need is far greater and their ability to satisfy their emotional need is inferior. Others are the diametric opposite. That is why certain religions are acceptable to many and anathema to others.

The ultimate joining of religion and science is not completed at this time. Our understanding religion and our development of science are not there yet although they are coming in that direction. If it is truth, it will stand up the the harshest scientific analysis. "Seek the truth and it shall set you free."

Is God truly an "unknowable essence?" Or is our understanding and perhaps our unwillingness to understand a factor here as well?

My father used to say that he didn't much believe in heaven and hell as he thought that you created your own right here.

Neither science nor religion will come together prior to their transcending their dualistic think of (+/-) because those symbols are really both truths relative to each other, NOT an absolute right versus wrong ... the dualism is a world misperception of our reality. it is a divisive view based upon polar extremes considered dichotomies ... it is false compared to the cosmic (universal) truth which is a Trinity of (+=-) where the Spirit of God is the (=).

The BET (Basic Equation of Truth) as (+=-) is the very "Theory Of Everything" that science is still looking for and religion claims to have, neither has it yet as long as dualism (+/-) is their priority.

IMnsHO.

James: You make some good points. You take after your father - he was a very wise man.

Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. They are not, nor ever have been at odds. God is the author of both. The science side appeals to the brain and the religion side appeals to the soul. The problem derives from our misunderstanding of either side.

... and the two "sides" are the (+) and the (-) and the "coin" itself is the (=) ... (+=-) !!!

Jerry: I don't think your math analogy works. Both sides are +, and + = +

Sorry Thomas, (+=+) and (-=-) are the old orthodox thinking that we are all still taught in elementary school ... that which reduces down to (+/-) and stands for "Dualism", the seeking of the "better" (+) at the expense of the worst (-) causing subtractive and divisiveness that results in conflicts because most often the "other" side, the (-)s reject the "labels" applied to them by the (+)s ...

It being the VALUATION thing that causes the problems, that inherited from Church Think, where God was seen as (+) and Evil seen as (-) ... with complete disregard for the INterconnectivity of the two by Spirit as (=) ... The Trinity being (+=-) ...

IMnsHO. of course it is all relative and can be looked at differently, the very meaning of (+=-).

Science is science, and like the mathematics and even the arithmetic involved is only purveyed correctly where rigor is applied. Precision is key; accuracy is the first step towards precision. To mention science online implies the rigor necessary for computers to work. For the programmers and engineers it is science, to many (and most, like me), it just works and there is a faint reason why, for others it may be complete magic and another example of god's work in the world; all experience and perception is valid. A cantilevered cycle exists of mind and matter. What comprises a thought is still unsolved. The greatest advance of science is the recognition that there is more to find out than we already know. Existence is not a right, it is an obligation. Science, Religion, and Art all benefit from rigor, for without it they suffer smallness of vision.

Whether you see them as compatible or not is irrelevant because religion is completely lacking of merit.

Anna: You are speaking of all the dead religions of the past. You are apparently unaware of current religion, in keeping with the needs of today's world.

I really disagree. I think modern religion is one of the most harmful forces in the world today. I am most emphatically not only speaking of dead, historical religions. I fully and passionately reject religion in all its forms. And it is impossible to be "unaware" of religion in today's world, given that almost everyone partakes in it.

I take it from what you say that you re not aware of "modern religion". ALL religions over 200 years old are obsolete, hence dead.

I can't imagine what religions you could possibly be referring to. I agree that all religions over 200 years are obsolete since I believe all religions are obsolete. But a religion (or a language, or a cultural practice) is not "dead" if it is still in use. Almost everyone alive in the world today believes in a religion that is over 200 years old. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all over 200 years old all have millions of followers. Thus they are far from "dead". I genuinely would like to know, though, what religions you have in mind when you say "modern religion".

They are "dead" in the sense that they are no longer relevant. The current chapter in God's one, ever-evolving religion is not dead nor is it more than 200 years old, and it has millions of followers worldwide today. This is all new to you, but will become clear and evident in due course and at just the right time. Thank you for your input and questions.

You are very evasive as to what that religion is. Also, you are misusing the word "dead". Also there is no god. Religions are made up by people. That's why they are different, and why there is no reason for them to get better over time.