How can we say that science does not deal with existence of deities?

Question

I've been hearing people say every now and then that science does not deal in any way with the existence of deities.

For a long time, I believed it and said the same. However, when you think about it, it can't be a fact.

In the past, people did not know of the causes of thunder and lightning, and thought that they were warning signs of thunder deities. Later, the subsequent advancement of science unveiled the reason behind thunders and lightnings.

People believed in the Sun as a deity. Later, it was proved that the Sun is just a mass of gases and energy. What's more, its just one of the millions of stars all over the galaxy.

So, in all these ways, science has been leading us to discoveries that fulfilled gaps of knowledge that the people of the past used to fill with that of dieties, and religion.

Indirectly as it may be, science DOES deal with existence of deities, or rather it proves them wrong.

So, is it right to say that science and religion are independent?

Answer 1

Science explains natural phenomena. If science happens to destroy mythologies in the process of explaining nature then so be it, but it's not the purpose or intention of science to prove or disprove mythology.

Answer 2

It's not that science deals with the nonexistence of deities, it's that religion poses claims that are in the realm of science (which is the realm of physical reality).

Religion claims things about the natural world (that the gods cause lightning, that once there was a man who was born of a virgin, that a flood happened that covered the whole Earth...), and any claim about the natural world can be tested by science. If it's found faulty (lightning is an electric discharge, human virgin birth is impossible and if it were possible, it could only produce a daughter, the Flood is impossible for all kinds of reasons...), that undermines the credibility of religion, but does not go to disprove deities directly.

The more claims a religion makes about its gods and their intervention in the natural world, the more vulnerable it is to further discrediting.

Answer 3

i fuly agree with you muhammed



it is still happening whether we know or accept it is or not

scientists are searching for eveyrthing, there are scientists for eveyrthing, including this, they may not all be famous, and known , or agreed with, but there are no doubvt a few who are in the middle of actualyl choosing to research and try to prove or disprove any deitys, we just dont hear about it



indirecly science always manages to prove or disprove soemthing else

its jsut a matter of tyring, failing, trying and suceeding, and trying and soemthign else being found out



this is how a lot of science has been formed, along the way, tryign to re search other thgns

Answer 4

Well, in a way. Just because religion produced unevidenced conjecture in the past, doesn't make science deal with the supernatural. Science is naturalistic. It's when religion makes claims about nature, the controversy kicks in.



If religion kept to its own turf, then we could move on.

Answer 5

Science and religion are polar opposites. It's impossible to prove non-existence so science can never disprove god. But there's no objective scientific evidence for a god either.

Answer 6

Image Worship



Descend we now from the aspirations of philosophy to the religion of the ignorant. At the very outset, I may tell you that there is no polytheism in India. In every temple, if one stands by and listens, one will find the worshippers applying all the attributes of God, including omnipresence, to the images. It is not polytheism, nor would the name henotheism explain the situation. "The rose called by any other name would smell as sweet." Names are not explanations.



I remember, as a boy, hearing a Christian missionary preach to a crowd in India. Among other sweet things he was telling them was that if he gave a blow to their idol with his stick, what could it do? One of his hearers sharply answered, "If I abuse your God, what can He do?" "You will be punished," said the preacher, "when you die." "So my idol will punish you when you die," retorted the Hindu.



The tree is known by its fruits. When I have seen amongst them that are called idolaters, people the like of whom in morality and spirituality and love I have never seen anywhere, I stop and ask myself, "Can sin beget holiness?"



Superstition is our great enemy but bigotry is worse. Why does a Christian go to church? Why is the cross holy? Why is the face turned toward the sky in prayer? Why are there so many images in the Catholic Church? Why are there so many images in the minds of Protestants when they pray? My brethren, we can no more think about anything without a mental image than we can live without breathing. By the law of association, the material image calls up the mental idea and vice versa. This is why the Hindus use an external symbol when they worship. They will tell you that it helps to keep their minds fixed on the Being to whom they pray. They know as well as you do that the image is not God, is not omnipresent. After all, how much does omnipresence mean to almost the whole world? It stands merely as a word, a symbol. Has God superficial area? If not, when we repeat that word "omnipresent", we think of the extended sky or of space, that is all.



As we find that somehow or other, by the laws of our mental constitution, we have to associate our ideas of infinity with the image of the blue sky, or of the sea, so we naturally connect our idea of holiness with the image of a church, a mosque, or a cross. The Hindus have associated the idea of holiness, purity, truth, omnipresence, and such other ideas with different images and forms. But with this difference that while some people devote their whole lives to their idol of a church and never rise higher, because with them religion means an intellectual assent to certain doctrines and doing good to their fellows, the whole religion of the Hindus is centered in realization. We are to become divine by realizing the divine. Idols or temples or churches or books are only the supports, the helps, of our spiritual childhood: but on and on we must progress.



We must not stop anywhere. "External worship, material worship," say the scriptures, "is the lowest stage; struggling to rise high, mental prayer is the next stage, but the highest stage is when the Lord has been realized." [Cp. Mahanirvana Tantra, 14.122](8) Mark, the same earnest people who are kneeling before the idol tell you, "Him the sun cannot express, nor the moon, nor the stars, the lightning cannot express Him, nor what we speak of as fire; through Him they shine." (Mundaka Upanishad, 2.2.10)(9) But they do not abuse anyone's idol or call its worship sin. They recognize in it a necessary stage of life. "The child is father of the man." Would it be right for an old man to say that childhood is a sin or youth a sin?



If we can realize our divine nature with the help of an image, would it be right to call that a sin? Nor even when we have passed that stage, should we call it an error. To the Hindus, human beings are not traveling from error to truth, but from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth. To the Hindus all the religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest absolutism, mean so many attempts of the human soul to grasp and realize the Infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of these marks a stage of progress; and every soul is a young eagle soaring higher and higher, gathering more and more strength, till it reaches the Glorious Sun.



Unity in variety is the plan of nature, and the Hindus have recognized it. Every other religion lays down certain fixed dogmas and tries to force society to adopt them. It places before society only one coat that must fit Jack and John and Henry, all alike. If it does not fit John or Henry, he must go without a coat to cover his body. The Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only be realized, or thought of, or stated, through the relative, and the images, crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols--so many pegs to hang the spiritual ideas on. It is not that this help is necessary for everyone, but th

Answer 7

The crux of the problem 4 many is man (having limited knowledge) tries 2 know who God is by imposing human limitations 4 understanding things 2 God's abilities. While science many disprove many myths they dont know who God is but thers evidence if u look:



Many scientific finds r true but it doesnt mean "all" their claims r true (many dont take time & energy 2 carefully think thru things b4 coming out 4 or against it). Many dont properly take in2 account all it takes 2 create a universe/life (they tend 2 focus on things "seeming" 2 support what they want 2 &/or u 2 believe).



In science we established laws of physics. We can't see actual laws of physics. Rather, we see the results & interpret & apply them in accordance with whats been observed 2 b true thru experiments/calculations. Same is true regarding God. Just b/c we can't see God doesn't mean He doesnt exist.



There may b forensic evidence 4 some micro-adaptation & 4 some "appearance" of macro-evolution but most is inconclusive @ best & pure conjecture @ worst. Finding the beginning & reason 4 it all is unattainable by scientific method alone (a billions of years old cold case). We didnt see it take place.



But things in creation show an Intelligent Being was involved or the universe & we wouldnt b here (ignoring where it came from). 4 instance:



1. We have 2 lungs & 2 kidneys - each has a near perfect mirror-image companion organ. No matter how u try 2 explain it away, making a mirror-image organ takes full reverse engineering, knowledge & understanding of its companion's functions & purpose or it cant b created (2 witnesses in nature).



2. Our bodies r highly symmetrical from 1 side 2 the other. Its impossible unless 1 has an outside overview position allowing full comprehension of the entire organism (i.e. feather color patterns).



3. We have 2 arms & 2 legs. Each is perfectly designed & precisely engineered 2 work with its mirror-image companion. An outside position is required 2 fully comprehend the whole organism & purpose 4 all parts, 2 create it 2 such perfection.



4. The "being" of a cell is confined 2 within the cell membrane & cant know or b aware of much beyond itself. A cell is magnitudes more intelligent than all humanity & has amazing powers 2 know all of an organism's functions & purpose or it isnt the "brain" behind creation 4 many millions of incredibly diverse species. If evolution had a chance of being the source of creation it would require there only be 2 or 3 "kinds" of different bodies with several related species (it would take many billions of trillions of light years longer than the universe has existed 2 have the slightest chance of producing many millions of species of such incredible diversity).



5. Many cells of an organism never contact others much beyond its tiny cell. Mostly, cells & organisms r just copies of their parents doing about the same things as all ancestors. U wont find a bird whom builds a better nest than their parents & their chicks build even a better nest. U wont find a bear improving his living conditions (or passing them 2 his young). Either a cell has 2 lives - 1 copying their parents & 1 secret life working on improvements or someone of greater intelligence than all mankind created everything.



6. Others point 2 DNA (or RNA in the 1rst organisms). But a cell needs DNA 2 function & DNA cant function without a cell. So, we have a which came 1rst a cell or DNA problem. Without 1rst having great intelligence, full knowledge & understanding of how an organism is constructed it cant be created. If an ape finds a combination lock he wouldnt know what it was & even if he turns the dial over & over again he wouldnt know what he was doing & the chances against getting it right is astronimical - especially if it had 150 or more no. 2 find in the right order & even if he got that far he still wouldnt know what a lock is 4.



A cell has little "inteligence" & DNA is much more complex than a combination lock (especially in higher life forms) so the odds against figuring out & using DNA (in the correct sequence) is many magnitudes higher than 4 a lock). RNA/DNA r building blocks common to all life - having 98% of other species' DNA doesnt prove evolution. DNA like a computer code (but more complex) requires great intelligence 2 identify & assign its proper order - its useless unless u understand it. Give a book to an ape. Its useless to him as he cant learn from whats written - intelligence is required.



7. In the fossil record we dont find millions of trial & error organisms that should exist if natural selection or fittest survivor is the source of creation (no organisms existed be4). The odds r so great against near perfection happenning 4 many millions of greatly diverse species, it couldnt take place unless 1 had full knowledge & understanding of what theyre doing BEFORE millions of organisms could be created 2 such precision. If not true millions of misfit organisms with mistakes, having only 1 or 3 eyes in odd places, 1 leg growing out of a head or where an arm should be or a fin where a leg should be should exist. Millions more misfit fossils should exist than of the perfection found in nature.



8. U won't find species like a horse mating a goat, a frog mating fish, a rabbit mating an otter, a lizzard mating a bird, a cow mating a hog, etc. Species with similar genes/characteristics rarely mate in the wild. Only a few succeed @ bearing young. Its very rare that a wild crossbreed/hybrid reaches maturity or can bear over 1 litter (usually that litter cant produce or has complications that kills off the crossbreed). Only human intervention brings more success but even that has lead 2 some bad results.



9. Evolution processes being "the" source of all creation would be like having a blind man build a car he's never heard of, seen, touched, heard or rode in. It cant be done without 1rst teaching him about the functions, necessary parts & how 2 put it all together so the car will function.



10. Look @ the huge amount of intelligence, knowledge, understanding, time & energy used 2 create & improve an airplane's capabilities (& many mistakes). If people didnt fully learn what 2 do we'd still be earthbound.



11. Creation is astronomically more complex than an airplane. The more complex an organism, the greater the amount of intelligence, knowledge & understanding needed 2 create it. It can only be done by an Intelligent Designer who already fully understands what He's doing - the sheer complexity of man is evidence of God (airplanes show we're created in God's image - God had 2 be the source of all creation or it couldnt exist let alone evolve).



12. An incredibly Intelligent Being, capable of building a universe, would know the environment His earthly organisms are 2 occupy. So, He built in adaptability so His organisms could survive various earthly environments.



13. Earth happens to be in the best possible orbit 2 support life. It has the right amount of gravity, the right axis & rotation speed, the right atmosphere (& ozone layer, Van Allen belt, magnetic field) & needed amount of water. The moon's the right size & in the right orbit 2 provide tidal cycles needed by organisms. Just 1 or 2 relatively small variants in our orbit/envirnment & most likely life would be very different & higher forms of life wouldve died off in a relatively short time, if they couldve survived.



Problem is theres many religions, built on what man wants God 2 b like. I realized they cant all b right (Theres 1 Bible - why so many interpretations & fatal errors? II Pet 1:**19-21). Religion wont teach u much about God (they cant teach what they don't know) but God knows what He's doing. Who knows more about a house, the Builder or those who move in later?



Many miss this: Jesus is the only 1 in history whom stated He's "the" way, "the" truth & "the" life & no 1 gets 2 God w/o Him (Jn 14:6; 5:39; 10:1,7; Acts 4:12) & is the only 1 whom came from God. Its fully true or theres no truth & cant be any God (He knows what He's doing or He's not God). Either Jesus told the whole truth or He's a false prophet, among many, whom should b disregarded.



Since Jesus is the only way 2 know God, "the" whole truth was complete & finished thru Jesus. So any claimed new or other religious beliefs or from self-proclaimed prophets & teachers r null & void & wont lead u 2 God. God always knew all Jesus was 2 do.



Jesus couldnt hv done nor said whats written in the NT unless He fully knew the entire OT (the NT didnt exist while Jesus was on earth). Jesus couldnt hv known the entire OT unless God was with Him. & the Apostles couldnt write the NT unless Jesus allowed them 2 remember & know what He was here 4 (Lk 24:25-27,45) - Not possible unless God caused it.



Whoever seeks Jesus Christ with all his heart & soul will find Him (u shall know the truth & it'll set u free). U can lead a horse 2 water but u cant make them drink. Why would God want u 2 live with Him forever if u dont want 2 know Him (reason 4 free will - Jn 1:12-13)? The truth of God remains forever unchanged while things of a man dies with him, including his religions/gods made in his image.



God hates us b/c of our sins - neither being a good person as judged by men or religion can save u. But God also loves us dearly enough 2 send His Son 2 die for our sins - so that thru Jesus our sins could b forgiven if we sincerely turn 2 Him - Theres everlasting hope only in Jesus Christ & His Bible. God's Holy Spirit is the Comforter not any human.



voyc4rmwldrns

Answer 8

Because its got nothing to do with eachother!!!