Compatibility of Science and Religion

[Ramini]

---

@miyay

could be in a way...pero sa akoa man gd..in my biased opinion especially religions that prefer an anthropomorphic god are the wrong conduit..this kind of religion can be considered a conduit..pero it's not a healthy one kai in my opinion wla man ka gi encourage to leave the conduit or as hellblazer say..crutch..so that you can be able to walk with your own two legs..most of these people know how to "walk" iwth their own two legs..or in my last post..they're ready to learn to reach the higher levels..without the crutch or conduit..ang nka sad lang kai sa anthropomorphic religion wla na gi encourage..but instead you're encouraged to rely on the conduit or crutch..which is the only way daw to the path to the next level..in my opinion, an anthropomorphic religion is just not healthy for us who has the potential to be more than what we're aware of.

[cromagnon]

- our body has its' own pharmacy inside , that can heal all kinds of disease that some medicine cant.

- it just takes positive thinking.

*if u think u're sick u are.

[redline]

^if u sick and tired go get your gun aim to ur head and pulll the trigger. hehe! jowk!

anyway for me science and religion are totally different equations

[chad_tukes]

as i've said before i've regarded religion as a conduit for man to reach a much higher awareness, understanding or mastery of oneself..either consciously or subconsciously pero sadly gamai ra ang mga tao nga dli na kinahanglan ug "conduit" to access these higher levels..this is just me ha.

are you a theosophist (or embrace theosophy) sir? just curious.

[chad_tukes]

You're praying that the medicine would work not asking any supernatural being that your medicine will work. In any case, if you would ask any deity to heal you... you don't need medicine. Thus, they are not compatible. They have different state of healing... one is your faith and the other is fact.

you make a very good point but science would argue that the healing part is psychological in nature. of course, religion wouldn't accept that because it would contradict what they believe in the first place.

[chad_tukes]

i think even if evidence is staring at them in the face or if even their god will say that it was evolution and not him..bacn debatihon pa nila ilang ginoo..militant theists are nothing more than robots who has a set of directives or programming and if naai something nga mu conflict sa ilang programming they'll automatically regard it as opposition and is dli nila ma quell ang opposition ma short circuit lang ug kalit..so maskn nag naa na sa ilang nawong ang evidence..they'll still dismiss it as irrelevant and immaterial..too bad for these people.

But in my opinion.. i think science won't be able to cancel out religion kai daghan nag na explain nga mga phenomena or whatever..but it's the people who will abandon religion..in my opinion religion is like believing in fairies..and like what they say..mamatay ang usa ka fairy everytime naai usa ka bata nga muhunong ug tuo nila..as long as daghan pang nanauo anang relihiyon then it will always be there..in science whether you believe in it or not..the principles and the laws of physics and whatever will still run its course.

the choice to make science and religion compatible is subjective; a state of mind. it can be controlled in such a way that one can welcome religion while believing in scientific theories. some would heed evidence and proof while others tolerate non-scientific beliefs.

[Malic]

so how should we approach them?

[Malic]

"Religious doctrine gives a theory which conflicts with reason and fact, while science can give for the facts no reason which is in any way noble or elevating.

-William Q. Judge 1893

[Ramini]

are you a theosophist (or embrace theosophy) sir? just curious.

dli sir oi..im no theosophist..but i don't believe in an anthropomorphic god..

[miyay]

@miyay

could be in a way...pero sa akoa man gd..in my biased opinion especially religions that prefer an anthropomorphic god are the wrong conduit..this kind of religion can be considered a conduit..pero it's not a healthy one kai in my opinion wla man ka gi encourage to leave the conduit or as hellblazer say..crutch..so that you can be able to walk with your own two legs..most of these people know how to "walk" iwth their own two legs..or in my last post..they're ready to learn to reach the higher levels..without the crutch or conduit..ang nka sad lang kai sa anthropomorphic religion wla na gi encourage..but instead you're encouraged to rely on the conduit or crutch..which is the only way daw to the path to the next level..in my opinion, an anthropomorphic religion is just not healthy for us who has the potential to be more than what we're aware of.

ot: maybe because religion is the path of least resistance. but i think sooner or later, in its stage of evolution, the soul would be more conscious of itself and let go of the crutch.

onT: science as we know it now is also evolving. and without a little dose of conscience that religion can give it, makes for a mad world indeed. imo