Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Religious Doctrine Does Not Contribute To Scientific Knowledge

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Morgan Powell on April 10, 2001 17:34:35 UTC

I'm sure that religious people can contribute to science when they use reason and other scientific methods, but I don't see the value of trying to apply religious "truth" to science. It seems a waste of time.

In trying to determine the answers to scientific questions what do we care what the ancient Jews, Indians, Incas, or Chinese thought? They were scientifically-illiterate believers in superstition. They knew nothing about black holes, protons, electrons, or time dilation. We should care what modern educated people think, not their ignorant ancestors.

The curious coincidence that some Chinese believed the universe was Yu-Chou (space-time) and modern science educators talk about space-time is just that, a coincidence. These same Chinese believed all manner of superstitions we now reject.

The fact that the Dogon tribe had a mythical story that the star Sirius had a companion and we now know it does (a white dwarf) is not significant. It doesn't mean we should talk to their medicine men about string theory.

The fact that Joseph Smith suggested that the Sun shines by borrowed light should not motivate astronomers to discount thermonuclear fusion and look for the medium of Kaa-e-vanrash.

It's as fruitless as the early Geologists who looked at Geology through Genesis-glasses. Only the minority "Flood Geologists" still do that.

It's as silly as expecting "Three quarks for Sailor Mark" to represent reality. As a scientist you can adopt the word "quark" for the 1/3 part of protons and neutrons, but that doesn't mean poets have deep scientific insight when they don't even understand algebra.

Any similarities with religious ideas will always be retroactive (coincidences will be found after science discovers the truth) not proactive (religion cannot be used to reliably predict the results of scientific studies).

Don't expect ancient myths to contain scientific insight.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins