What should I believe in? In science or my religion?

To both.According to the Baha’i religion, science and religion are the two greatest forces in the life of mankind. Without science, humanity will sink into the swamp of superstition, and without religion it will perish in the morass of materialism.

There are plenty of examples of what happens when one thing is ignored: witch-hunts, religious wars, terrorist attacks, etc. often go back to one-sided religious fanaticism.War machines, atomic bombs, pollution, human experiments (not only with the Nazis), mass animal husbandry, poverty, etc. are the results of unreflective and unscrupulous use of science.

The balance of intellect and morality is all crucial.And as far as faith is concerned, there are the two fields of religion and science that overlap in a certain area. In areas where they do not overlap, frivolous statements should not be made.

Faith is a basic term for religion.

Everything that is soul, spirit, eternity, etc.should be separated from science.

Science is based on reason.But if facts are scientifically sound and proven, they should be believed.

If there are contradictions, you should check whether you are not following a sect.The greater the religion, the more one can assume its correctness.

Islam with IS, however, has become very questionable in recent years.

You don’t have to believe in science.Since science only refers to everything that can be measured, all scientific descriptions can be verified by anyone.

Religion, as ideology, must fit with the descriptions of science, since it can only refute the validity of scientific knowledge with scientific methods.Religion as ideology must therefore renounce many traditional fundamental ideas.

Making religion as a guide to a good life for itself and adding good to people’s communities is very valuable as long as it is based on people’s experience and does not define for people what is good for them.

Faith is one thing that is not so easy to reconcile with science.

Science is credible, yes. It is plausible.In the sense of explanatory or meaningful. It makes causality credible, but it is not faith.

Faith and science are like trying to mix oil and water.If you stir enough, you may be producing an emulsion, but not a real mixture.

Faith does not require causality.It is optional, applicable if available. Otherwise one must use the will of the Deity.

If you really want it to be cross-border, like me.Science explains everything that concerns us, everything we can grasp.

The Deity all that does not concern us.The time “after” for example, everything that we do not explain “must” but in spite of everything is about us. It also fits the moral claim of the postulated deity. He is an “ass” a “joke” he would really be so powerful, he would have to intervene a few times. But he didn’t. Therefore, it is morally bankrupt.

So what does he want to judge about me?

He should just get out of the way if I choose my life after death.

“Should” you do goar nix.

What someone “should” is (first of all) only a human opinion (=consciousness), and that exists only as a visible proclamation.

Because “give” it does only this: demonstrable original cause and demonstrable effect.

There is no cause and/or effect called “consciousness” (you can’t prove it!) – all THAT on this occasion is detectable and original, that’s the brain.

Those who believe in something that cannot be proven believe religiously, and you can tell you everything – especially on Quora.

By the way, “science” does not promise eternal life.

especially to yourself and your skills.Science is religion, science is influenced by religion. religion e.g. Islamism, Christianity can be taught and studied as a science. an educated person probably believes what he wants.

In the sciences we are already very far and at the same time still very early.Scientifically and rationally thinking people are all the more aware of their divisiveness the deeper their knowledge is. Science has also gone astray and has sometimes accepted more correct findings only after a long dispute (religions could be a hard brake on knowledge).

Religion can(will) do without critical science, observe “truths”, dogmas and fixed rules, enough to be pious, thus an important personal goal has been achieved for many people.It is not to be denied that religion can also give inner peace and strength, it is so. This is one of the many sides of religion.

If you can tolerate people with different faiths, other wisdoms, you have more of your own free choice between religion or science.My path in a more cononceiating, defining faith was a longer path, today I am freer and oriented towards science.

Science, of course.

Science is looking for answers to the questions that the universe places before us.If we cannot find conclusive answers, it does not mean that there is no answer, but that we are not (yet) able to find the answer.

Quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson: “The Univerum is not obligated to be comprehensible to you.”

Religion is not looking for answers.Something inexplicable happens? God was it. And you think so, otherwise there will be a lot.

This is absolutely no contradiction for me, as some authors say before me!

What was still called a miracle in the past, and was unexplainable due to the lack of knowledge of so-called science, was nevertheless perceived, is no longer called a miracle…

Although Gallilei was still outlawed, the Vatican has long operated its own observatory.

I liked the statement in the context of a broadcast by Scobel, where representatives of the Catholic Church and (astro)physicists were invited to a conversation, where a church representative said, “without physics no religion” and vice versa.

A statement that gives cause for reflection…

Have fun with it.

Believe science, follow religion!Religion certainly does not have the full truth, but its rules stop man. But also in science not believe everything, because often a mountain of claims rests on a molehill of evidence!

Leave a Reply