Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Wraithorn · 51-55, M
No, especially when religion causes harm. Example : Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse their dying children blood transfusions because of their religion.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
What makes you think science is a superior method of scrutiny?
View 8 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Celine Sucks to be you. It is in the news today. Look it up. Science is a religion. Get used to it.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
JP1119 · 36-40, M
Religions are inherently immune to scientific scrutiny. Religion is not just a collection of stories, it's about what you worship, what you value the most. Science can prove that some stories sacred to a given religion are not literally true, but science has nothing to say about whom or what you should worship.
GreenGoddess · F
They kind of are in the sense than any religious person ignores all scientific facts despite how damning they may be.
GreenGoddess · F
@JP1119 Then they aren't really religious. If you believe in science you can't believe in religion because science discredits everything you believe.
JP1119 · 36-40, M
@GreenGoddess First of all, everyone is religious. Being religious is part of the human condition. What I mean is that everyone is constantly changing according to their own perceived ultimacy. In short, everybody worships something.
I am a Christian. Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist. I believe the scientific fact, for example, that the world is millions of years old, not just a few thousand years old as one might believe if they interpreted the Bible literally.
That doesn't mean I'm not a Christian, here's why: I believe that the Bible was written by imperfect human hands and may contain some (especially scientific and historical) errors. Furthermore, I don't interpret the Bible strictly literally, I believe where it says that the world was created in "seven days" that that doesn't necessarily mean seven twenty-four hour periods, each of those "days" may actually mean perhaps thousands or even millions of years. Finally, I believe that the Bible was not meant to be a book of science or history, it was meant to be a spiritual guide to living your life, so I can read a science book when I want to learn science and read the Bible to help me make important life decisions.
I am a Christian. Science cannot prove that God doesn't exist. I believe the scientific fact, for example, that the world is millions of years old, not just a few thousand years old as one might believe if they interpreted the Bible literally.
That doesn't mean I'm not a Christian, here's why: I believe that the Bible was written by imperfect human hands and may contain some (especially scientific and historical) errors. Furthermore, I don't interpret the Bible strictly literally, I believe where it says that the world was created in "seven days" that that doesn't necessarily mean seven twenty-four hour periods, each of those "days" may actually mean perhaps thousands or even millions of years. Finally, I believe that the Bible was not meant to be a book of science or history, it was meant to be a spiritual guide to living your life, so I can read a science book when I want to learn science and read the Bible to help me make important life decisions.
GreenGoddess · F
Fair enough ☺.
Firespirit · 26-30, M
Well since religion is belief without proof if they started using scientific method it would stop being religion
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP
why is the scientific community so interested in debunking religion.. shouldn't they be curing cancer and shit?..
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP
@Celine no. ive noticed you dont like answers that dont correlate .. :)
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
TheConstantGardener · 56-60, M
Religions should but their beliefs should not.
MrBrownstone · 46-50, M
No
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 46-50, M
What if we [i]call[/i] it science? Then we can say it is above scrutiny. Works for atheists