- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
jeriboy wrote:
Since science cannot study what they cannot see, for them then, it does not exist.
With all due respect jeriboy, I think you have been misled as to what science is and is not. We know a great deal about psychology, electromagnetic radiation, black holes, dark matter, anti-matter, gravitation, group behavior, alpha and beta particles, cognitive processes, nuclear reactions, structure of atoms, electricity, chemical reactions, general and special relativity, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, how the universe started, molecular biology, genetics, evolution, how the continents formed and moved, how mountains formed, distant stars, supernovae, etc. etc.None of these things can be “seen” and yet not only do we know they exist, we can describe their behavior, and make accurate predictions. Science by far has a better track record of prophecy than any prophet ever has in terms of objective reality.
Quote:JMB said…JMB 275 said…3. I think there is a tendency to view anti-religion and anti-spirituality sentiments as trendy. It’s not scientifically acceptable to admit the possibility of God, or a spirit, etc. I’d like to see an approach to science where scientists are truly open to all the possibilities despite what is popular or not. In psychology, most scientists don’t seriously consider the possibility that there is a spirit, or soul.
Now be fair JMB, it’s the above I was refering too, not all that other stuff you tossed in. You are the one who wrote the above comment, the reference I made was meant to cover it alone and not the whole universe. But most of those other things are see-able or measurable. The only two that are not is the psychology and cognitive processes, and being christian I beleive that their is a spirit inside the human body that survives death. After death we can still think and talk and learn, science dismisses this because they cannot see the spirit. that’s all I was refering too.
jeriboy wrote:You are the one who wrote the above comment, the reference I made was meant to cover it alone and not the whole universe.
Well, I was merely trying to say that it’s trendy to exclude any spiritual, or religious possibilities from scientific inquiry, not to say that it’s because we can’t see it. I don’t think that most scientists are naive enough to assume that because they can’t see it it must not exist. But maybe you meant “see” in a metaphorical sense, rather than literal. If so, my mistake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.