The Relation Between Religion And Science,

Religion And Science

There are many types of narratives and editing principles. Science is driven by evidence gathered from experiments, as well as from the fabrication of existing ideas and the replacement of new, bold ones. Some programs – religion, nationality, ideology, or art – are based on personal experience (faith, inspiration, contradiction, etc.).

The narrative of the experience can interact with the obvious and vice versa.

For example, belief in God encourages some scientists to view science as a way to “look at the cards of God” and to draw closer to Him. Another example: pursuing scientific endeavors promotes self-esteem and nationalism. Science is often tampered with to justify racial and ethnic claims.

The basic components of all stories are known for their effects on the environment. God, in this sense, is no different from electrons, quarks, and black holes. All four constructions cannot be seen directly, but the fact that they exist is found in their results.

Admittedly, God’s effects are seen only in the social and psychological (or psychopathological) realms. But this visual barrier does not give him anything less “real”. The existence of God in a logical way explains the meaning of many unrelated events and, therefore, complies with the laws governing the formation of scientific theories.

The place of God’s thought is clear and unique, in the minds of believers. But this also does not make him less real. The content of our minds is as real as anything “out there”. In fact, the distinction between epistemology and ontology is blurred.

But is the existence of God “true” – or is it just a matter of our need and thinking?

Truth is the measure of our model’s ability to predict events and predict them. The existence of God (in the minds of men) succeeds in doing both. For example, the idea that God exists allows us to predict the many ways in which people claim to believe in him. The existence of God is, therefore, undoubtedly a fact (in this legal and solid sense).

But does God really exist without human thought? Are you a person with a purpose, independent of what people may think or think of Him? After all, if all emotional creatures were to die in a catastrophic catastrophe, the Sun would still be alive, changing as it has always been.

If all emotional creatures were to die in such a catastrophe, would God still exist? If all emotional beings, including all humans, stop believing in God – will you survive this condemnation? Does God “out there” promote belief in God in the minds of religious people?

The known facts are independent of the presence of observers (although Copenhagen’s description of Quantum Mechanics contradicts this). Beliefs depend on the presence of believers.

We know that the Sun is there. We do not know that God exists. We believe that God exists – but we do not know and cannot know, in the scientific sense of the word.

We can design deceptive tests (incorrect proof) for the presence of electrons, quarks, and black holes (and, therefore, if all these tests fail, it proves that electrons, quarks, and black holes exist). And we can design experiments to prove that electrons, quarks, and black holes exist.

But we cannot create even a single temptation to deceive the existence of a God who is outside the minds of believers (and, therefore, if the test fails, proves that God exists “out there”). Furthermore, we cannot design a single test to prove that God exists without the minds of believers.

What about the “argument from the design”? The universe is so complex and diverse that it certainly encompasses the existence of higher intelligence, a designer and creator of the earth, some of whom are known as “God”. On the other hand, the earth’s richness and diversity can be fully calculated by using modern scientific concepts such as evolution and the big bang. There is no need to present God in mathematics.

Still, God may be responsible for all of this. The problem is that we cannot design even a single temptation to deceive this idea, that God created the Universe (and, therefore, if experimentation fails, proves that God is the creator of the universe). Furthermore, we cannot design a single test to prove that God created the earth.

However, we can design a lot of research to deceive the scientific ideas that explain the formation of the Universe (and, therefore, if this experiment fails, we lend these ideas strong support). We can also design experiments to prove scientific theories that explain the structure of the Universe.

It does not mean that these ideas are completely true and cannot be changed. Not at all. Our current scientific ideas are partially true and will change with new information gained from experimentation. Our current scientific ideas will be replaced by new, authentic ideas. But any future scientific ideas will be false and tested.

Knowledge and belief are like oil and water. They do not meet. Knowledge does not lead to belief and belief does not produce knowledge. Belief can express beliefs or opinions that are sound. But belief does not lead to knowledge.

However, both the known and the individual’s beliefs exist. The first is “out there” and the last is “in our minds” and that’s it. But they were not real at that.

Leave a Comment