Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 month ago

Do you agree that religion is the EXACT opposite of science?

24 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago

    no.............

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Not one bit, Einstein. Properly used, science and religion are both methodologies for discovering truth. Each excels in its own sphere; each fails miserably in the other's. I am not going to find the design for a clean nuclear reactor in the Bible, and you are not going to find God in a test tube.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Al
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    As far as I'm concerned, they are one of the same.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    What do you mean by "religion", and do you include every religion in the world, most of which are opposite or opposed to other religions? You might as well ask if agricultural subsidies are the exact opposite of cookery books. However, religion has to have belief in God as its foundation (just as cookery books have to have agriculture as their foundation). Christians believe in one God who created everything. Is that the opposite of science? Hardly! Scientists are confined to research and explanation of  'things', for science only has the tools to deal with matter. If God is immaterial, they cannot even begin to examine this Creator! It's a bit arrogant to claim that only matter exists, however. It certainly abounds in this universe, but once we start to consider how the matter in this universe came into existence and formed the way it did, we have to accept that there might be elements at work that are not capable of going under a microscope, or of leaving a ‘footprint’ in a Hadron collider. The laws of nature, for example. They exist though they are immaterial, but atheist Victor Stenger fails to face up to the implications of an intelligent Creator 'inventing' those laws.  

     

    He claims that the laws of nature "came from nothing!" They "follow from the symmetries of the void out of which the universe spontaneously arose." Yet atheists admit that the universe began as a tiny object which required space and time. Outside the expanding boundaries of the primordial cosmos there was neither space nor time - void-zero. According to Stenger, this is 'the void out of which the universe spontaneously arose', whose supposed symmetries gave birth to the laws of nature. But void-zero has no physical or material properties, such as symmetries, because it has no physical or material existence! By definition it lies outside the physical and material universe. It can only be described theologically, and the Bible calls it 'eternity' (Isaiah 57:15). Void-zero is the eternally pre-existent, non-physical framework in which the physical universe began and must, by definition, lie beyond the reach and remit of science. 

     

    If Stenger claims that laws arose from void-one (which lies entirely within the universe and which may be full of Higgs bosons), the symmetries of void-one do nothing to explain the origin of the laws of nature, being themselves simply an expression or manifestation of those laws. Even chaos is governed by laws, remember! Further, Stenger misrepresents Noether's theorem, which only allows you to deduce a new law of nature from the symmetry of existing laws. But if I continue to quote from the scientist whose book I'm working from I shall end up writing pages of stuff. 

     

    Strangely, scientists are postulating other universes with other dimensions - some requiring 13 to 'work' - even though the scientists cannot prove any of those ideas. Why don't they just have the courage to accept that heaven and hell are other dimensions, unknowable to us whilst we are confined to our dimensions? Science fiction writers happily write about other beings who come from other universes, with super-powers, and much of this is based on scientific thinking. Indeed, where once science fiction was ahead of science, now science is ahead of the fiction writers!  

     

    I am amazed at the acceptance of any scientific theory or hypothesis that is put forward and accepted by all and sundry as reasonable - and accepted until proved wrong - yet those who put forward the hypothesis that the God who created this universe is above and beyond it, are laughed to scorn! Those who really want to examine the reasonableness of the hypothesis of God, and atheistic objections to it, as explained in scientific terms by a renowned scientist, should get the book below.  

    ‘Who Made God? - Searching for a theory of everything’, chap. 10, Edgar Andrews (EP Books 20012) Quote in para 2 above from ‘God, the Failed Hypothesis’, Victor Stenger, p131 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Which religion would that be, Einstein?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    No, why would I do that?  Science studies what God created and religion teaches us about God..  

    Source(s): Greek Orthodox Christian
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    I don't know about the "exact" opposite. Religions are more about the emotions, whereas science is more about the actual knowing of information, regardless of how it makes you feel. Sometimes the emotions and intellect can be in line (rationality) sometimes they go in opposite directions (irrationality). There can be emotional wisdom in irrationality, even though it is preferred to find it in a rational manner.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Yes it is, religion is ancient superstition and is the polar opposite of science.

    • Ernest S
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      So you think science is a modern superstition?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    No. I do not agree.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Ko
    Lv 4
    1 month ago

    No, they are just two different kinds of knowledge.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.