Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

science and religion should always be separated.

No!!

Religion will never adhere to basic scientific principles. Except, Buddhism that does seem to agree with science.

I believe.....all should be published for the consideration of the reader...freedom of the press...let the people decide....Metaphysics and physics also coincide with some religions.

Do not take science in consideration is the same as ignore the universe around us, as it is the object of study of science. So a religion that ignores the universe will be limited in someway ?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Do not take science in consideration is the same as ignore the universe around us, as it is the object of study of science. So a religion that ignores the universe will be limited in someway ?

Does Christianity ignore the universe? Like the Earth has only been around for 6,000 years.

my blief (religion) doesn't contradict with it at all. infact all that sci is doin 2day is provin wats in the Quran rather than contradictin it so i wud say ...YES ,it shud interfere . eistein said once:

"science without religion is lame n religion without sxcience is blind"

so....whoz 2 say No now ?

does it agree with the evolutionary theory?

Originally posted by maham
my blief (religion) doesn't contradict with it at all. infact all that sci is doin 2day is provin wats in the Quran rather than contradictin it so i wud say ...YES ,it shud interfere . eistein said once:

"science without religion is lame n religion without sxcience is blind"

so....whoz 2 say No now ?

He also sounded kinda Bud-dish....Is that a real word??

Albert Einstein
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.


He also said....

Albert Einstein
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.

Einstein was more Spiritual, not denominational


But I like this one....

Albert Einstein
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

As someone who studies science, I'm definitely inclined to say that religion should stop interfering in (among other things) science. Restraints should not be placed on scientific research due to a specific religion's views on a matter.

I'm not saying scientists should be given carte blanche to do as they please. Ethics should be a part of science, religion is unnecessary in science and is often incompatible with science. Ethics and religion are not equivalents.

I think religion should not interfere in trying to decide what is true or not scientifically, in other words, trying to do science job, but a religion can agree with science. A religion that contradicts science is limited in its own field, as it is not about the universe, a better word would be existence itself. A religion that is not about existence is just a fairy tale.

Religion can't stop science......Science is always being published.....How can it put restraints on it...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Religion can't stop science......Science is always being published.....How can it put restraints on it...

An example would be political lobbying in the States resulting in restrictions imposed on cell lines used in research towards therapies for neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.

I have respect for all life, and so no I wouldn't be for using parts of embryos for research......though I did read that the same kind of research is being used using umbilical cords.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I have respect for all life, and so no I wouldn't be for using parts of embryos for research.....

What if the alternative to the aborted embryo being used in research (that could help alleviate suffering and save lives) is simply destruction and disposal of that embryo?

Life is life...and so....... no...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Uuum, religion was the very first attempt at science and to explain how we came to be, why do certain things happen.

religion IS primitive science

Good point...

The problem occurs when science begins to tell religion that it is wrong. Religion is in support of science, up until that point.

Like during the Middle Ages, Reformation periods....Inquisition...poor Galileo..

But that was when Church and State were joined..at the hip hop dance.

^^^

religion is just primitive science. Nothing in the last 5000 years has been scientificly proven to contradict the basis of most religion, an all powerful creator. The problem is that religious nuts get caught up in the dogma of the old science used in their teachings instead of ebracing the knew knowledge we gain to further their belief in thier core concept, an all powerful creator.

Okay.....we know that it is impossible for all human kind to be bred from one mating pair (adam and Eve). Within 6 generations, their offspring would have been so imbred as to be unviable......unable to reproduce. Instead of these nutjobs clinging to ancient uniformed theories........they should embrace knew knowledge. Evolution..........if one believes in god, imagine how much more grand and powerful he must be to have created the system of evolution and keep in constantly moving and changing for all these millions of years. Truly a grand creator he must be.

I don't make fun of religion for their fundemental beliefs.........I make fun of them for refusing to accept any knowledge gained in the last 5000 years. Instead of using this knowledge to further their beliefs, the bury their heads in the sand like an Ostrich.