Alright, the argument dealing with Science Vs. Religion has always irritated me ever since my dad sat down with me and gave me a talk about how he saw things. The way he explained it opened my eyes to something that was so blatantly obvious I could never understand why I hadn't seen it earlier; and even more befuddled that the rest of the world was so blind.
For years, decades, perhaps centuries, there has been a large debate between the religious community and the scientific community. The debate was largely filled with bickering between the two groups about how the other was wrong because of something they had discovered or read or believed in or what have you.
A lot of times it would go like this (I will be using the Christian religion and other applicable cases here):
Religious guy: God created the heavens and the earth, and everything you see around you.
Science guy: God couldn't have created everything; we know for a 'fact' that the universe was created because of the [insert preferred scientific theory such as the Big Bang here].
Religious guy: You don't have any absolute proof; you weren't there, you can't show me, so how can your argument stand any better than mine?
Science guy: Your argument is based on the ramblings of insane men dead thousands of years ago; and besides, according to your Bible, the universe and all of mankind was made in seven days!
blah blah blah, so on and so forth
Now, my question is, why does this argument even exist? I can understand why people have different religious views (and I respect this), and I can understand why some people choose not to believe any religion (I respect this as well); but why does the line get drawn at the border of science and religion so often? What is to say that the two do not support eachother?
For example, one of the arguments for science is that the earth and mankind was not created in 7 days; it had to take hundreds/thousands of years for man to evolve from primates. My question is: who's to say how long a day is in God's eyes? God, who is everlasting and all powerful, quite likely doesn't view time the same as we do, because it doesn't affect him. For all we know, the creation of all things did take 7 days in his eyes, but to us, it would be millennia.
That said, who is to say that God didn't use the Big Bang to carry out his will, or evolution the same? Why do religious believers have to say that humans just *were*? Nowhere have I seen where it said in any religious text that *poof* mankind appeared. It always said we were created - why does it have to be without any scientific proof? Even walking on water can be possible if you look at science - it just is not something that your 'average everyday man' can do =P
Now, I know I'm predominantly showing Christian beliefs and other similar religions; but I'm sure that all religions can use science to back up a good majority of what they have as their beliefs. So why do so many people claim that science and religion disprove eachother? What is so contrary between the two?
I hope I expressed myself clearly and concisely. I open the floor~
For years, decades, perhaps centuries, there has been a large debate between the religious community and the scientific community. The debate was largely filled with bickering between the two groups about how the other was wrong because of something they had discovered or read or believed in or what have you.
A lot of times it would go like this (I will be using the Christian religion and other applicable cases here):
Religious guy: God created the heavens and the earth, and everything you see around you.
Science guy: God couldn't have created everything; we know for a 'fact' that the universe was created because of the [insert preferred scientific theory such as the Big Bang here].
Religious guy: You don't have any absolute proof; you weren't there, you can't show me, so how can your argument stand any better than mine?
Science guy: Your argument is based on the ramblings of insane men dead thousands of years ago; and besides, according to your Bible, the universe and all of mankind was made in seven days!
blah blah blah, so on and so forth
Now, my question is, why does this argument even exist? I can understand why people have different religious views (and I respect this), and I can understand why some people choose not to believe any religion (I respect this as well); but why does the line get drawn at the border of science and religion so often? What is to say that the two do not support eachother?
For example, one of the arguments for science is that the earth and mankind was not created in 7 days; it had to take hundreds/thousands of years for man to evolve from primates. My question is: who's to say how long a day is in God's eyes? God, who is everlasting and all powerful, quite likely doesn't view time the same as we do, because it doesn't affect him. For all we know, the creation of all things did take 7 days in his eyes, but to us, it would be millennia.
That said, who is to say that God didn't use the Big Bang to carry out his will, or evolution the same? Why do religious believers have to say that humans just *were*? Nowhere have I seen where it said in any religious text that *poof* mankind appeared. It always said we were created - why does it have to be without any scientific proof? Even walking on water can be possible if you look at science - it just is not something that your 'average everyday man' can do =P
Now, I know I'm predominantly showing Christian beliefs and other similar religions; but I'm sure that all religions can use science to back up a good majority of what they have as their beliefs. So why do so many people claim that science and religion disprove eachother? What is so contrary between the two?
I hope I expressed myself clearly and concisely. I open the floor~