Next Question
RSS
Stephen Jay Gould described the issue as "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Science deals with the world that is sensible and has concrete answers. Theology deals with the world of the abstract and intangible for which we nonetheless crave answers: moral issues, aesthetics, the meaning of life.
Theology recognizes science whether it wishes to or not. Within its magisterium, science gives concrete and (generally) undeniable answers. Religious believers don't have any quibbles with most of science: they can see what it produces and have no particular grounds on which to dispute it.
However, some areas of science push at the boundaries that Gould says do not overlap. In Gould's formulation, religious believers fight a losing battle when they try to dispute the territory claimed by science. Opposition to evolution persists solely out of ignorance, and a great many religious believers concede that area to science. They remain, however, attached to the magisterium that religion is supposed to retain control over.
The question, however, is whether there's really anything in that domain. Science claims no answers to "The Meaning of Life", but do theologians have any knowledge of it superior to just guessing? Religious scholars disagree on it, sometimes violently. Their claims to revelation are actually trying to impinge on the realm of science by offering concrete answers, but since those revelations are indistinguishable from somebody writing something in a blog and trying to sell it, it lacks the concreteness it's trying to attain. (In fact, it doesn't even need scientists to dispute the validity of the revelation; other competing theologians are happy to do it.)
So arguably, there is no domain in which theologians have any particular valid say. However, there remain questions currently considered beyond the realm of science. (They may not remain that way forever: aesthetics and morality might be explained in evolutionary and neurological terms, and even "the meaning of life" may one day be dismissed as merely an artifact of human cognition and not actually a question with meaning.)
In the meantime, theologians and scientists (and anybody else) has equally good claim to the answers. A skeptic prefers not to accept any answers without proof, but many people will demand a tentative answer and then base their lives on it. In that area, scientists can't say theologians are wrong, which is damning it with extremely faint praise, but it's praise enough to allow people to go there if it makes them happy.
Helpful Answer?
(4)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Permalink | Report
I realize science accepts nothing that isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and I realize that religion accepts everything on faith. However, what most people fail to see is that balance is the key to life. Balance needs to be present in order for life to run smoothly, or even exist for that matter. Until we find that balance between science and religion, between scientific evidence and faith, we will never know the truth.
How about this?
God is not religious.
God is a scientist.
Permalink | Report
NOTE: My ability to imagine something doesn't make it fact or fiction!
We accept many scientific theories on faith, but so few are willing to admit it. Of course they don't call it "faith", there's a fancy word that means the same thing they use instead, claiming that Faith is a God word (even though the definition and applicability is the same).
Science has theories and people spend their lives trying to support them. To what end?
Religion has answers and people spend their lives trying to disprove them. Again, to what end?
Science has discovered that the reshaping of the plains in the Mid-West (USA) didn't actually take millions of years. They've been able to recreate the effect in laboratory studies in just months (in keeping with many people's understanding of the Deluge, big surprise).
It amazes me how much imagination and faith scientists, atheists, evolutionists and agnostics have but try for even a moment to get them to pursue the THEORY that the earth is less than 7000 years old and they have an aneurism!
Or try approaching carbon dating from the notion of absorbing carbon-14 (zero point being when it was created) rather than a half life decay alone and they look at you like you just gave birth to sea monkeys.
(By the way, your inability to imagine how such an exercise is useful doesn't make it useless.)
Explaining the secretions of a poison frog as having developed as a natural defense over meelions of years does nothing to advance science. Blah, blah, blah, rhetoric and faith in scientific theory, more blah.
However, studying the secretions and it's possible uses today - does advance science and is worth pursuing.
Putting to work the knowledge that "like produces like" would be fascinating finding the species that genetic evidence suggests existed. We'd be so much further along if we stopped trying to prove that humans evolved from (insert your genetic ancestor here) or one animal was the precursor of another and pursued the reconstruction of extinct species and their impact on the world of yesteryear (not yestermillenium). Of course dinosaurs were real, but why can't we just study them as creatures rather than adding all that billions and billions of years to everything we say about them?
Don't leave out information just because it has a capital G, B or C in front of it. A real scientist would consider all possibilities, even the possibility their own theories and teachers were wrong. After all, a flawed theory often produces flawed results - even if we try really hard to reshape the theories when the facts prove otherwise.
Gather data, apply it to known questions, if there's no clear answer, continue gathering data. It doesn't have to BE about Creation OR Evolution. It can just be science, right?
So get off your high horse evolved from a mollusk and get down off the pulpit preaching platitudes and come together as intelligent beings to figure out how we can put all this data to work for us!
Who cares who is right about their theories? Let's make SCIENCE FACT now!
Science can prove everything I know about Creation. What's your problem with it?
Permalink | Report
People are free to follow the teachings of theologists, but in my opinion those teachings should never be valued over those of scientists. Theology has way too many loopholes and unexplainable issues in itself as to explain the loopholes it actually wishes to answer.
PS: I dont want to base my answer on a movie however I think its worth seeing and considering some of the points it makes, just to open peoples eyes and be provocative.
Source(s):
personal opinion
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
but usually G-d is science is respresent as pure energy, as they have yet to find out how to define and explain G-d in scientific format. There are studied about the powers of prayer and healing... and how out thoughts can effect changes in water, as they show the example of that in What the bleep do you we know move... Is where I first saw it about the studied of Dr. Masuru Emoto. I noticed the truth of this when our bus windows did not have heat and my buswindow froze up in beautiful floral designs and snowflakes were big as I saw on the bus all the way to school, and people wondered how I had the prettiest of icecrystals on my window.. They used to say its cause I was Mother Nature.. do to an old nickname.. so nature gave me the prettiest crystals. But I know firmly believe its do to the good thoughts and energy I was giving out as I sang.
What the bleep do we know Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QlZ5O8_bGk
Positive & Negative Energy Effects on Water Crystals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbpXRSIUnE
These two examples may not be able to Prove G-d quite yet.. but it does prove our energy in thought... and eventually science will reach the point where it can prove theology, the question is will scientist admit it and allow finally Theology I see as nothing more than the study of G-d :) .... And that in itself is a very mysterious science - Rev. Dana C. L. "DNatureofDTrain"
Source(s):
Soft Science
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soft-science.htm
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
August 05, 2009 04:24 PM
Theology should recognize Science, but should Science recognize Theology?
Most people believe Theology should accept evolution, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and other facts discovered through Science, but are there aspects of Theology that Science should incorporate?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Belief & Thought |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| August 05, 2009 05:22 PM |
Theology recognizes science whether it wishes to or not. Within its magisterium, science gives concrete and (generally) undeniable answers. Religious believers don't have any quibbles with most of science: they can see what it produces and have no particular grounds on which to dispute it.
However, some areas of science push at the boundaries that Gould says do not overlap. In Gould's formulation, religious believers fight a losing battle when they try to dispute the territory claimed by science. Opposition to evolution persists solely out of ignorance, and a great many religious believers concede that area to science. They remain, however, attached to the magisterium that religion is supposed to retain control over.
The question, however, is whether there's really anything in that domain. Science claims no answers to "The Meaning of Life", but do theologians have any knowledge of it superior to just guessing? Religious scholars disagree on it, sometimes violently. Their claims to revelation are actually trying to impinge on the realm of science by offering concrete answers, but since those revelations are indistinguishable from somebody writing something in a blog and trying to sell it, it lacks the concreteness it's trying to attain. (In fact, it doesn't even need scientists to dispute the validity of the revelation; other competing theologians are happy to do it.)
So arguably, there is no domain in which theologians have any particular valid say. However, there remain questions currently considered beyond the realm of science. (They may not remain that way forever: aesthetics and morality might be explained in evolutionary and neurological terms, and even "the meaning of life" may one day be dismissed as merely an artifact of human cognition and not actually a question with meaning.)
In the meantime, theologians and scientists (and anybody else) has equally good claim to the answers. A skeptic prefers not to accept any answers without proof, but many people will demand a tentative answer and then base their lives on it. In that area, scientists can't say theologians are wrong, which is damning it with extremely faint praise, but it's praise enough to allow people to go there if it makes them happy.
| Asker's Rating: |
Helpful Answer?
(4)
(0)
Helpful: colonial butros, defolts, ghanan20003000, brian san
Tip phryne for this answer
Reply
Other Answers (5)
August 05, 2009 04:56 PM
No. No theological concepts are compatible with science as they are based upon faith not evidence. However, behavioral and social sciences might have an interest in examining why humans often create and adopt theologies. It would also be interesting to discover if other animals had similar mental constructs. Considering how religious primitive humans are, one would expect to be able to discover the same phenomina at least in the great apes and probably elsewhere.
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 05, 2009 06:07 PM
One more thing, I happen to work for a psychiatric facility. (Don't worry, I'm not a doctor, just a clerical worker). Every so often there will be someone come in who is otherwise mentally healthy and normal, but think they are going "crazy" because they saw a person who "wasn't there" or "disappeared into thin air." They will describe the incident. A few times, I have been skeptical, based on their description, but having had this happen to me before, I can pick out the ones who actually did see something that really was there. They are being visited by friends and relatives from the other side. Unfortunately, those visitors may not look how you remember them. Sometimes the visitor will think ahead far enough to change their appearance so you recognize them, but sometimes they don't and it can be really unsettling to have a complete stranger show up in your bedroom and wake your butt up in the middle of the night like, "Hey, it's me, aren't you happy to see me?" and you're scared out of your mind wondering who the heck it is and if they have a gun. LOL
In any case, I see cases come through that I know are not the result of mental health problems but, of course, they are put on medication to "help with the hallucinations." It saddens me to see this. If science would recognize the existence of the other side and spirits and visitors, we wouldn't have otherwise normal people on antipsychotic medication. Furthermore, if religion would recognize the existence of spirits and visitors here, that would help a lot, too.
Report
In any case, I see cases come through that I know are not the result of mental health problems but, of course, they are put on medication to "help with the hallucinations." It saddens me to see this. If science would recognize the existence of the other side and spirits and visitors, we wouldn't have otherwise normal people on antipsychotic medication. Furthermore, if religion would recognize the existence of spirits and visitors here, that would help a lot, too.
August 05, 2009 06:09 PM
Sorry, but I meant to reply to the posting below, not this one. I can't delete my comment and move it, so it'll have to stay here. Sorry.
Report
August 05, 2009 06:31 PM
Sounds like genuine mental health problems to me. Possibly even contagious ones.
Report
August 05, 2009 05:15 PM
In the old science versus religion conflict, I believe they are both wrong. I believe the truth lies within a meld of those two separate factions. I believe in order to see the truth, science and religion need to work together and meld their "truths" in an openminded way. I realize science accepts nothing that isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and I realize that religion accepts everything on faith. However, what most people fail to see is that balance is the key to life. Balance needs to be present in order for life to run smoothly, or even exist for that matter. Until we find that balance between science and religion, between scientific evidence and faith, we will never know the truth.
How about this?
God is not religious.
God is a scientist.
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 05, 2009 05:36 PM
Can you give an example of a religious idea that would be useful to scientists?
Report
August 05, 2009 05:51 PM
Before I go into this, let me explain that I am not a religious person. I am a spiritual person. This means I don't take the mainstream religion to be fact. There are way too many holes in it for me to be able to take it for completely true. So, below I will use the word "spirituality" in place of religion because it's a better fit since I speak below of things that religion even denounces.
Now, to answer your question...
How about the very existence of God and the afterlife? As far as I know, most scientists are aetheists because of the very fact that there is no evidence that there is a God and science doesn't take anything on faith. How about the very complex human mind that science has been unable to scratch the surface of with regards to it's true capabilities however, those who are more in touch with spirituality (not religion) know that the subconscious mind that houses all our memories from past lives. How about the phenomenon where heart transplant patients are known to be described as complete different people afterwards. This is due to the removal and exchange of the very essence of their soul, which the spiritual know is housed in a specific set of cells in the heart. Then you have the fact that the body loses exactly one ounce of weight at the time of death. This has been scientifically proven, but science fails to acknowledge that it is the soul leaving the body.
If science and religion ever came together and brought all their ideas to the table, I believe we would all be able to put two and two together a little easier and understand much more about the world around us. At the very least, the faith-based of us could bring our ideas to the table and science could try to prove or disprove them. But, as it stands, these two entities are at constant odds with each other because both sides are too stubborn to even look at the other side of the story.
Report
Now, to answer your question...
How about the very existence of God and the afterlife? As far as I know, most scientists are aetheists because of the very fact that there is no evidence that there is a God and science doesn't take anything on faith. How about the very complex human mind that science has been unable to scratch the surface of with regards to it's true capabilities however, those who are more in touch with spirituality (not religion) know that the subconscious mind that houses all our memories from past lives. How about the phenomenon where heart transplant patients are known to be described as complete different people afterwards. This is due to the removal and exchange of the very essence of their soul, which the spiritual know is housed in a specific set of cells in the heart. Then you have the fact that the body loses exactly one ounce of weight at the time of death. This has been scientifically proven, but science fails to acknowledge that it is the soul leaving the body.
If science and religion ever came together and brought all their ideas to the table, I believe we would all be able to put two and two together a little easier and understand much more about the world around us. At the very least, the faith-based of us could bring our ideas to the table and science could try to prove or disprove them. But, as it stands, these two entities are at constant odds with each other because both sides are too stubborn to even look at the other side of the story.
August 05, 2009 06:24 PM
If the body really lost exactly one ounce when a person dies (why one ounce, I wonder, eh?) that would be interesting and worth further investigation. However, it isn't a fact at all, the notion came from a movie and has no other basis. It was metric in the movie, by the way, and the number of grams had some traditional meaning. But that would not be an example of a religious idea useful to scientists, it would be an interesting phenomina that could be investigated scientifically.
A change in the personality of heart transplant (as opposed to other organ transplants)recipients would be interesting if there were any evidence for it. Such evidence should be easy to find, so the lack of any is telling.
Since the existence of god is always framed in terms that are untestable, there is nothing for science there.
Well, at least you had something in mind.
Report
A change in the personality of heart transplant (as opposed to other organ transplants)recipients would be interesting if there were any evidence for it. Such evidence should be easy to find, so the lack of any is telling.
Since the existence of god is always framed in terms that are untestable, there is nothing for science there.
Well, at least you had something in mind.
August 05, 2009 06:49 PM
I thought you might be interested in this, which discusses the origin of the weight notion:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience
Report
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/05/13/1105956.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience
August 05, 2009 07:37 PM
The movie was based on a study performed by a scientist who would place dying patients on a delicate scale to see if the soul had any weight to it. Actually, there was a doctor who measured and, no it wasn't exactly an ounce. It varied from .75 ounce to 1.5 ounce. Still, it is very interesting, but it is still not accepted by science to be conclusive.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
Report
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
August 05, 2009 07:59 PM
As for the personality changes in heart transplant patients, there is evidence to support that, but not enough to satisfy the scientific world. I understand why the scientific world thinks the way it does. The scientific method is very important because you don't want to go making theories and hypotheses based on false ideas, so you want to make sure you don't take something for true until you have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true, so this kind of all or nothing thinking is taken to the extremes in the scientific world. I understand that, but scientists need to learn to gather their ideas based on faith, and then try to prove those ideas. We are not as smart as we think we are. As far as we have come, there is still much for us to learn. I remember back about 30 or so years ago when doctors found no health benefit to taking vitamins and scoffed at people who took them as being unnecessary. I knew the truth because I had seen first hand how my mother (who took vitamins religiously) aged so very gracefully with very few health problems, unlike her family. Now, they find that taking vitamins is an essential part to a healthy lifestyle. I knew it all along and became agitated when I would hear doctors speaking as if they knew for a fact it didn't help, but then changed their minds later on. Guess they really didn't know for sure did they? There was a time when doctors thought that obesity was solely a behavioral problem and are now finding out it is sometimes a medical problem. I knew this all along and it irritated me to hear doctors tell their patients that they are fat because they are undisciplined. Don't get me wrong, I love science. It's one of my favorite subjects, but.....I'm trying to pinpoint this here.....I guess it's the lack of humility that I don't like. The idea that science is always completely right when, really, they are wrong quite a bit of the time. Our scientific knowledge is constantly growing and changing and the best thing for a scientist to do would be to understand that fact and not completely abandon ideas that are "inconclusive" when science itself could be wrong. We are not even halfway through our journey of discovery as a human race and we need to have enough humility to admit that we might not be right about some things.
Report
August 06, 2009 02:23 AM
I find it hard to believe that you read the Snopes page and probably the article I pointed to and still give any credence whatsoever to the absurd experiment by an eccentric doctor in 1907. His results were completely unscientific by any standard whatsoever. Read the story again carefully.
Report
August 06, 2009 03:30 PM
The fact of the matter is, those who believe do so for a reason and those reasons cannot be proven "scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt," but for those who have had experiences, they know what's going on. It's not rocket science (padum ching!) to know when you've had a spiritual experience that proves to you and you alone beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is an afterlife, there is a spiritual world, and, yes, probably a God, too. There is absolutely nothing I can say to prove the truth to you. In fact, that's why they say religion, or spirituality, is a personal thing.
I've had so many experiences in my day, I know for a fact beyond any doubt whatsoever that there is an afterlife and a spirit world. As a child, my sister could see auras. At the time she had no idea what they were, but categorize people by the color of their auras. At the time, people who could see auras were thought to be nuts, but, now, science is finding out that we do indeed put off energy. Imagine what they'll discover next that people like me already know to be true? See the value of going on a little faith? They haven't quite figured out what that enegy looks like. Eventually science will catch up to people like us once they get done proving all the stuff they need to prove in order to realize that we are right. My sister would have visions and even helped my dad solve a police case, letting him know where the gun was left and where the assailant escaped to. They found the gun and found marks and broken limbs on a tree consistent with someone climbing the tree. My sister described it all perfectly having never even seen the crime seen. As an adult, I have been visited by my now deceased father, aunt, and two dogs. My sister has been visited by my deceased grandfather and father. My mother has been visited by my dad. She said he played a joke on her, saying he got shot and showed her a bandage on his side (he was a cop in life and kind of a smarta**). Of course, he didn't get shot. He's freaking dead for Christ sake! It was funny, however, because it made her pause for a moment. LOL! Love my dad. He's such a jokester. My dad, while he was alive, could astral project. I am so jealous of him. I haven't been able to yet. I almost did one time, but I wasn't actually trying to do so and it startled me. Once I got startled, I got sucked right back into my body. I mean, seriously, you lay on the bed on your stomach with your eyes open all alone in the house and see the pattern on the bedsheet move upward as if you are being pulled down and off the bed by some unknown force and see if you don't get scared. Now that I know what it is, I've been trying to do it again, but haven't been able to achieve the necessary degree of relaxation. The day that happened to me, I was dog tired after having worked a 16 hour day, so I was super tired and just melted into the bed.
Yeah, there's a lot of proof that there is an afterlife and spirit world, yada yada, but it's all personal stuff that isn't provable to anyone else. I mean, what am I supposed to do? Take a picture? LOL
Let's just agree to disagree. I know for a fact I am right and you know for a fact you are right and no amount of explanation on my part will convince you and no amount of explanation on your part will convince me. So, let's just leave it at that.
Report
I've had so many experiences in my day, I know for a fact beyond any doubt whatsoever that there is an afterlife and a spirit world. As a child, my sister could see auras. At the time she had no idea what they were, but categorize people by the color of their auras. At the time, people who could see auras were thought to be nuts, but, now, science is finding out that we do indeed put off energy. Imagine what they'll discover next that people like me already know to be true? See the value of going on a little faith? They haven't quite figured out what that enegy looks like. Eventually science will catch up to people like us once they get done proving all the stuff they need to prove in order to realize that we are right. My sister would have visions and even helped my dad solve a police case, letting him know where the gun was left and where the assailant escaped to. They found the gun and found marks and broken limbs on a tree consistent with someone climbing the tree. My sister described it all perfectly having never even seen the crime seen. As an adult, I have been visited by my now deceased father, aunt, and two dogs. My sister has been visited by my deceased grandfather and father. My mother has been visited by my dad. She said he played a joke on her, saying he got shot and showed her a bandage on his side (he was a cop in life and kind of a smarta**). Of course, he didn't get shot. He's freaking dead for Christ sake! It was funny, however, because it made her pause for a moment. LOL! Love my dad. He's such a jokester. My dad, while he was alive, could astral project. I am so jealous of him. I haven't been able to yet. I almost did one time, but I wasn't actually trying to do so and it startled me. Once I got startled, I got sucked right back into my body. I mean, seriously, you lay on the bed on your stomach with your eyes open all alone in the house and see the pattern on the bedsheet move upward as if you are being pulled down and off the bed by some unknown force and see if you don't get scared. Now that I know what it is, I've been trying to do it again, but haven't been able to achieve the necessary degree of relaxation. The day that happened to me, I was dog tired after having worked a 16 hour day, so I was super tired and just melted into the bed.
Yeah, there's a lot of proof that there is an afterlife and spirit world, yada yada, but it's all personal stuff that isn't provable to anyone else. I mean, what am I supposed to do? Take a picture? LOL
Let's just agree to disagree. I know for a fact I am right and you know for a fact you are right and no amount of explanation on my part will convince you and no amount of explanation on your part will convince me. So, let's just leave it at that.
August 05, 2009 07:23 PM
Of course we'd benefit from a merging of the two. Darwin thought so too (yes, Darwin was a Creationist http://telicthoughts.com/was-darwin-a-creationist/). Darwin's reasons for his dissertation were valid. His theories were imaginative and fun to ponder but many people today recognize the uselessness of lining up things by size and color alone. In Darwin's time it was brilliant though inherently flawed. But his attempts have inspired many actual discoveries so the attempt was worthy. NOTE: My ability to imagine something doesn't make it fact or fiction!
We accept many scientific theories on faith, but so few are willing to admit it. Of course they don't call it "faith", there's a fancy word that means the same thing they use instead, claiming that Faith is a God word (even though the definition and applicability is the same).
Science has theories and people spend their lives trying to support them. To what end?
Religion has answers and people spend their lives trying to disprove them. Again, to what end?
Science has discovered that the reshaping of the plains in the Mid-West (USA) didn't actually take millions of years. They've been able to recreate the effect in laboratory studies in just months (in keeping with many people's understanding of the Deluge, big surprise).
It amazes me how much imagination and faith scientists, atheists, evolutionists and agnostics have but try for even a moment to get them to pursue the THEORY that the earth is less than 7000 years old and they have an aneurism!
Or try approaching carbon dating from the notion of absorbing carbon-14 (zero point being when it was created) rather than a half life decay alone and they look at you like you just gave birth to sea monkeys.
(By the way, your inability to imagine how such an exercise is useful doesn't make it useless.)
Explaining the secretions of a poison frog as having developed as a natural defense over meelions of years does nothing to advance science. Blah, blah, blah, rhetoric and faith in scientific theory, more blah.
However, studying the secretions and it's possible uses today - does advance science and is worth pursuing.
Putting to work the knowledge that "like produces like" would be fascinating finding the species that genetic evidence suggests existed. We'd be so much further along if we stopped trying to prove that humans evolved from (insert your genetic ancestor here) or one animal was the precursor of another and pursued the reconstruction of extinct species and their impact on the world of yesteryear (not yestermillenium). Of course dinosaurs were real, but why can't we just study them as creatures rather than adding all that billions and billions of years to everything we say about them?
Don't leave out information just because it has a capital G, B or C in front of it. A real scientist would consider all possibilities, even the possibility their own theories and teachers were wrong. After all, a flawed theory often produces flawed results - even if we try really hard to reshape the theories when the facts prove otherwise.
Gather data, apply it to known questions, if there's no clear answer, continue gathering data. It doesn't have to BE about Creation OR Evolution. It can just be science, right?
So get off your high horse evolved from a mollusk and get down off the pulpit preaching platitudes and come together as intelligent beings to figure out how we can put all this data to work for us!
Who cares who is right about their theories? Let's make SCIENCE FACT now!
Science can prove everything I know about Creation. What's your problem with it?
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 05, 2009 07:42 PM
The work theory is not a scientific word for guess. Its a theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Is that just a guess too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PqUwr5eNpA
Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PqUwr5eNpA
August 05, 2009 08:25 PM
No, science should not recognize theology becuase it is based on belief and stories rather than evidence. I think everyone is entitled to their religion and to their beliefs, however so am I to my opinion then, which is, theology is nothing more than a mere collection of stories and interpreted beliefs to help people understand the unknown. Just because there is an unknown however, does not make theology correct or exact. Theology places mere guesses as to what happens in the after life or what the point of life is, we can choose to follow these faiths however we do so blindly because we desire answers and hope that life is not in vain and that death is not ultimate. Perhaps it is not, but until theology provides hard evidence that its not or that whatever it preaches does as a matter of fact have a believable foundation, I choose to believe that theology is nothing that any scientist should pay attention to. People are free to follow the teachings of theologists, but in my opinion those teachings should never be valued over those of scientists. Theology has way too many loopholes and unexplainable issues in itself as to explain the loopholes it actually wishes to answer.
PS: I dont want to base my answer on a movie however I think its worth seeing and considering some of the points it makes, just to open peoples eyes and be provocative.
Source(s):
personal opinion
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(0)
Helpful: colonial butros, defolts, brian san
Tip nickunderscore for this answer
Reply
August 06, 2009 04:32 AM
Yes, and in many cases Science is starting to recognize theology...We will not see this taught much in schools do to the seperation of church and state issues in the United states. But if you look into the things that study that paranormal or unknown, that is where theology is accepted is under the soft science catagories. Like psychology, anthrology, and social sciences, quantum physics, is a big one... You may want to watch the movie "What the bleep do we know" ... There are many Spiritual based sciences churches with or without a God or a Goddess or central being. I remember I had fun listening to the scientific studies that verified truths within the ancient stories and legends.. of the Bible as well as other holy Scriptures. but usually G-d is science is respresent as pure energy, as they have yet to find out how to define and explain G-d in scientific format. There are studied about the powers of prayer and healing... and how out thoughts can effect changes in water, as they show the example of that in What the bleep do you we know move... Is where I first saw it about the studied of Dr. Masuru Emoto. I noticed the truth of this when our bus windows did not have heat and my buswindow froze up in beautiful floral designs and snowflakes were big as I saw on the bus all the way to school, and people wondered how I had the prettiest of icecrystals on my window.. They used to say its cause I was Mother Nature.. do to an old nickname.. so nature gave me the prettiest crystals. But I know firmly believe its do to the good thoughts and energy I was giving out as I sang.
What the bleep do we know Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QlZ5O8_bGk
Positive & Negative Energy Effects on Water Crystals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbpXRSIUnE
These two examples may not be able to Prove G-d quite yet.. but it does prove our energy in thought... and eventually science will reach the point where it can prove theology, the question is will scientist admit it and allow finally Theology I see as nothing more than the study of G-d :) .... And that in itself is a very mysterious science - Rev. Dana C. L. "DNatureofDTrain"
Source(s):
Soft Science
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-soft-science.htm
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
- Arts & Design
- Beauty & Style
- Books & Authors
- Business
- Cars & Transportation
- Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
- Education
- Entertainment
- Environment
- Fitness
- Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
- Health
- History
- Hobbies
- Home & Garden
- How Tos
- Humor
- Jobs
- Legal
- Local
- Love & Relationships
- Mahalo Answers Community
- Money
- Music
- News
- NSFW
- Parenting
- Pets
- Science & Mathematics
- Services
- Shopping
- Social Science
- Society & Culture
- Sports
- Technology & Internet
- Travel
- Video Games
Welcome New Members
- judycritchley, November 29, 2009 08:02 AM
- leebutler, November 29, 2009 07:11 AM
- maritaalvaran, November 29, 2009 07:10 AM
- sumaanand, November 29, 2009 06:48 AM
- staceysmith, November 29, 2009 06:35 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
Congratulations. I just nominated you to the August 06 : AotD contest ! :-)
Good Job !