Science vs Religion which is more correct?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes maybe

Is that meant to be satire?

Like is my pupil a black hole? I mean it would have to be one with two events horizons.
The one observed by those looking without the aid of an opticians tool that allows the optician to see more than what the naked eye can see?
My logic for asking the question comes down to the dual wave property.
What if the light splits as it hits the rods and cones inside my eye that possibly serves as seperator?
Doubt if the instruments are available to even measure that without killling me in the process.
Still, I can accept that the wave property of the sunlight that enters my body through my pupil gets absorbed by my nervous system as it is energy.
But what happens to the matter part of the light? I mean, does it come out with all the other crap or maybe it gets expelled as i sneeze.
My maths is useless too
But if emotions are no more than neurochemical variables and everything that we are is defined by our genetic make up why do identical twins have different finger print patterns?

I love reptiles.

I don't see why they can't exist side by side in relative harmony.
Sure, religion has some gaps or incorrect things, but it can change. Same with science.

I prefer science over religion, and I'm an atheist, but I think it's hard to compare them since they're basically separate realms at this point. Science deals with what we can observe and religion deals with what we cannot. *shrug*

I put faith in both personally.

My religious beliefs are a bit complicated to explain, but it makes sense in my mind.

Neither one is "more" correct than the other because they both answer different questions. I don't find science all that interesting, but if it gives meaning to some people's lives, then good for them.

Not at all just pointing out the ridicule that religion provides on an actual logicial realistic level. Religious people stick to a book of fairytales regardless of actual physical provable discoveries being made proving certain things in their book incorrect so they willfully allow themselves to be ignorant and plug their ears and refuse to learn new things.

As a Classical Pantheist and Yogi leaning kind of guy, which is the farthest thing away from atheist there is; Classical Pantheism and the YOGI way sees science as the scribe of the GOD of nature. From the Golden Spiral mean seen in the Milky Way to the same Golden Spiral mean seen in Quantum Physics.

Science is an attempt to describe GOD, in measurable and quantifiable description, but only an approximation of course. Again, as scribe of GOD.

The essence of GOD is what IT IS. Humans try to understand the GOD of nature. Yes, try they do, and try they will likely always do, with the tools of science. Learning more about GOD as time goes by, but learning all about GOD; nah, not much more likely than a flea learning all about DOG.

It's just common sense. And pretty cool to believe in a GOD big enough, where Science can never likely wrap the science around the WHOLE Thing that is GOD.

The GOD of nature gives humankind reason and emotion. It is FAIRLY silly to use either without the other. But, yes some people do seem to attempt to do this; sadly or unreasonably enough, WITHOUT the other.

It's not 'logical' or 'realistic' at all though, is it. The analogy provided doesn't actually resemble any issue facing religious thought. At very best it addresses the problem of certain kinds of American Protestants turning their noses up at scientific thought, but it doesn't even do a particularly good job at this. Even if it did it would still be a petty argument against a very specific set of people trying to pass itself off as total refutation of any world view outside of its own, which is arrogant to say the least.

Religious texts aren't 'fairytales' either. Both take quite different forms and serve quite different purposes (religious texts of course being the far more diverse of the two).

The idea that 'science proves religion false' is the result of a clashing of languages and an unwillingness to compromise. It would be really nice if both parties in this dispute could have a decent go at trying to understand the other, trying to see the world from the other's perspective, just for long enough to see that there's no need for disagreement.

What I am saying is that everyone has their own little world or their own mind about things.
People don't see the world the same way and that is that.
No matter how much two people share a love of science or ideas about life they still will disagree on how the world works in at least one way.
I'm not trying to spout idealistic nonsense, I was being serious.

Psycology has nothing to do with morals, only theories on how morals work/come to be.
Philosophy can come from a completely illogical mind as well.
The arts can come from a completely illogical mind, even more so than philosophy.

That is knowledge. Wisdom is a question of right or wrong. Knowledge is who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Trick question. They are both seperate issues and have no business being compared. Science is for schools. Religion is for church. Narry they should ever meet.

I figured it out, animeguy. What's my prize?

^ This.

What about the religious folkswho don't do this? Who hold religious views independently from any book or any church's directing, derived entirely from the way the balance of evidence looks to them?

They would probably believe in this [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC8wWsBKc88[/youtube]