Well that sounds like an intelligent design...better have an outlet before you start in-taking!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Want to know something funny? This first structure that ball of cells decides to form is the anus. Well, where the anus will go anyways.
Well that sounds like an intelligent design...better have an outlet before you start in-taking!
Sorry, missed this. I think this is spelled out decently in the OP
OP said:if you assume that religion and science complement one another
What parts are questionable to you?
No, it's not. The OP merely said this:
[/I]
"if you assume...." My question is: why would you assume that? On what grounds? What makes you think it's a reasonable assumption?
Also, doesn't the assumption by itself require one to also assume religion has any bearing on reality at all? It seems to me that you actually require additional assumptions (not stated in the OP) to even only assume that which I just quoted...
I'm just wondering on what basis you would make the assumption that you suggest in the OP. How would you justify the assumption? Is it a reasonable assumption? How?
Because it's up to the person claiming that religion and science contradict one another to make a reasonable case, which I haven't seen?
Not necessarily. It just means assuming that religion and science complement one another; it doesn't necessarily say if religion is true or not.
I justify the assumption by not having any convincing rational argumentation by people who claim religion and science can't work together.
Because it's up to the person claiming that religion and science contradict one another to make a reasonable case, which I haven't seen?
Not necessarily. It just means assuming that religion and science complement one another; it doesn't necessarily say if religion is true or not.
I justify the assumption by not having any convincing rational argumentation by people who claim religion and science can't work together.
Can you give examples of religion and science actually complimenting one another?
As I stated in a previous post, I believe religion and science can coexist, but one would have to have adjustable and unique interpretations of theology for them to compliment one another.
For example; how many people agreed with the TOE 50 years ago compared to today? There was ample evidence available in regards to the TOE 50 years ago, but far fewer agreed with it. The difference has been, education and acquired knowledge, that makes refusing to acknowledge certain findings of science untenable to some. With fundamentalists, we see them hold onto their belief, by flat out rejecting science, because they have no choice. With most others, they adjust their theology to accommodate science and this is how they make them compatible.
50 years ago, most Christians stated; God created man in it's present form. Today, most acknowledge the TOE and just say; this is how God did it. The adjustment comes in this; when science discoveries become compelling, the theist just says; well, that is how God did it.
I think in the sense articulated in the OP science and religion can complement each other. Religion isn't inherently falsifiable, but when it's paired with science (which is falsifiable), then you can negatively know what God isn't when science reveals that X belief about God can't scientifically be the case. Take creationism: that can't be true (negatively know) because of the fossil record, speciation, etc.
I think in the sense articulated in the OP science and religion can complement each other. Religion isn't inherently falsifiable, but when it's paired with science (which is falsifiable), then you can negatively know what God isn't when science reveals that X belief about God can't scientifically be the case. Take creationism: that can't be true (negatively know) because of the fossil record, speciation, etc.
Ignoring cases where religion had the political power to stifle scientific research, of course. But that's just another example to contradict the idea that they are complementary rather than adversarial.Science has never had to adapt to religion to do it's work
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?