Should science replace religion?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, May 7, 2019.

  1. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member


    The OT was a foreshadowing of the NT, only people following Judaism at this point in time, adhere to OT law. But the stories are just that - stories of how different cultures interpreted God.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2020 at 7:58 PM
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    So, that wasn't your God in OT, pick and choose. And, do you choose to pick Jesus was not the son of a god? Do you think there is anything to that story too?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Everybody picks and chooses.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    I see the ''OT God'' as the same God of the NT, but I also believe in a triune God.

    Why do you sound angry? If you want to spar with me simply because I believe in God, I'm really not interested in being insulted. You don't know why people believe what they believe, so you shouldn't judge.
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    From another forum I chat in, not specifically about faith, was this regarding testing faith


    And some that have been bebunked by laboratory experoments

    1. Power of prayer (study of healing prayer on post-operative cardiac patients. Patients fared equally. However, patients who were informed that the were being prayed for did worse than those who got no prayer…hmmm.
    As I understand this type of testing has been repeated and in none of the test has praying been shown to be effective via faster healing and better recovery

    My 3 neurone brain Huwey Dewey and Louie reminded me MythBusters did a segment about praying for plants to grow

    Also no positive results


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    My grammar and spelling are crap, I try to get everything into a tight few words, the result sounds hard. Yes, I know there is software for this, but sometimes I quick-fire not bothering to check.
    Reading back what I wrote about ''pick n choose'', I can now see how that would come across as a snarky remark. I was interested in your use of the word ''stories'', and wondered if it stretched over into the NT.

    That Abraham event seemed story-bookish. The first story-bookish thing I thought of in the NT was Jesus being the son of God. So, I asked (badly).
    Would you see Jesus being the ''son of God'' as a story?

    The second thing (and I may have misunderstood here) was that you was looking for a way to explain or prove how important your belief was to you. I thought that answering the Jesus thing was a way for you to say... '' I don't believe it because it is a story''. Or more harder to declare (test) ''I do see it as true''.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020 at 5:23 PM
  10. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for clearing that up (your grammar)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I will share more later when I have time and a free mind to respond (working atm)

    For starters, I’m reading the Bible in its entirety right now and I’m coming away with that it is a compilation of stories testifying to different cultures’ view of God. I believe there is only “this” one God, and the Bible now for me personally, is a relation of my own stories and faith and how my life compares (for want of a better word) to those of ancient civilizations. They struggled with the same troubles we do today and I find it all pretty fascinating, reading it for what it is - and not what I wish it would be or what it isn’t. I’m reading not with a desire to debunk it, but a desire to truly understand what and why it was written. Even as a believer, the Bible offends me, too. I don’t delude myself anymore to thinking that it shouldn’t, and that God should be an invention of my choosing.
  11. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Answers for what? Science is just based on theories.

    The only thing you know for sure on this earth is I think so therefore I am. You know you exist, everything past that is open to interpretation.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    What a totally ignorant statement!
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Like the theory of gravity? Please do provide an "interpretation" of that theory that isn't the explanation agreed upon?
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well I can't disagree with you there however perhaps your apparent lack of respect for these theories is I suspect due to your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word theory in science.

    In common usage "theory" can be equated with a mere casual thought whereas in science to gain the qualification of "theory" is just so much more than you understand the word to mean.

    To make it simple where you read "theory" when used in science, for example the Big Bang Theory or The Theory of Evolution, you are perhaps better placed to substitute the words.."established fact based on rigorous testing and providing testable predictions which if not met causes the whole theory to be rejected, presented in a scientific paper presented for review, rigorous criticisms, by other scientists in that field who absolutely enjoy destroying the life time work of someone else so as to be recognised as top dog in that particular field"...sure it's a mouth full that's why they use one word to mean all that and that word is theory. Personally I would use another word ..Perhaps a rock solid fact..however science sadly uses a word that casual passers by think means brain fart.

    You really make such a huge mistake demonstrating you do not know what the word means in science that your credibility totally disappears such that folk will not even bother to discuss any matter further with you.

    Now it's not all bad as you now know what you reject and hopefully my post provides a turning point in your understanding.

    What you will find helpful is to read the notes in Wiki under Carl Popper re the Philosophy of Science and although having read that short entry you will be embarrassed by your uninformed comment you will at least understand what a theory means and enjoy having found the foundation of future wisdom.

    Read Popper but here is the wiki entry to help you understand why folk will think you are stupid when you are so ignorant of the meaning of theory.

    A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

    The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

    The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidenceis gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That does not mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, etc.). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

    Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

    As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[6] aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

    The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[7]
    All the best.

Share This Page