• A P
  • Chicago, IL
  • United States

Student Teacher, Chicago Public Schools/University of Illinois at Chicago, Student

This conversation is closed.

Discrepancies between Science and Religion? Origin(s) of the Universe

Many profound/ground breaking scientific facts and theories were discovered post-nineteenth century by teams of highly competitive scientists that constantly tested and retested each other's ideas; refining them if inconsistencies arose. There are primary sources of information to prove this; as many prolific researches are still alive.

During the origins of religion many of these scientific tools/concepts were still undiscovered by man/woman (ex. Humans thought the earth was flat, at the center of the universe, and unchanging.) resulting in an drastically different view of the earth, life, knowledge and existence in general. Yet astrophysics, molecular physics, evolutionary biology, etc. are regularly barraged with ridicule via unwarranted and malicious non-fact presented as legitimate scientific fact. How is this justified and why do so many people buy into it? Is it choosing to be ignorant?

If modern day life is unrecognizable compared to life 2000 years ago...how can fundamental religious principals correlate to, outweigh and guide complex modern principals that were refined for hundreds of years by the intellectual elite? How does religious scripture account/compensate for knowledge that had not even been imagined or foreseen yet? If scientific theory is always up on the chopping block being revised and improved, why does religion not pertain to this? Modern day technology and fact including: nuclear energy, advanced farming ( increase food output above K), medicines and medical procedures resulted from exploring/inventing tangible solutions for complex problems. If we all referred strictly to religious scriptures wouldn't we all simply wish those problems away?

Discrepancies between fundamental religious concepts and scientific fact (i.e. origin of existence) are evident to me, however, many people disagree.

Is the willingness of an individual to accept opinion as fact without questioning it also affect their thought processes in decision making and problem solving?

  • thumb
    Apr 4 2012: Say myth instead of religion and the discussion gets closer to relevance, especially if you're talking about origin stories.
  • thumb
    Apr 4 2012: Science is but a grammar of the world. To understand the world you need grammar, yet sheer grammar does not explain the most important of it all - the meaning. Here you need religion I guess.
    • thumb
      Apr 4 2012: Would it be accurate to paraphrase your statement thusly: Science is to Cosmology as Grammar is to
      Language ? Is your underlying premise that there is much more to know about the Universe than Science can reveal?
      • thumb
        Apr 4 2012: Yes, this is what I mean, very precisely.
        • thumb
          Apr 4 2012: All rightey then. I agree with that. A practical, albeit incomplete, understanding of the Universe cannot be limited to scientific knowledge, any more than a language can be understood by knowing just the rules of grammar. That realm-I call the Supernatural- is not much cared for by the secular scientists, it is ignored by most and outright damned to non-being by others (even though sound logic prevents them proving it does not exist). I accept the legitimacy and veracity of the Holy Bible as the rulebook for the supernatural. It does not deny science. It does not deny any truth. It does deny all untruth. The cause of the alleged discrepancy between the Holy Bible ( the supernatural realm) and science is to be found unilaterally in science, because the Holy Bible embraces all truth while exposing all error. Thanks Mr. Stepien for a provocative and relevant conversation.
        • A P

          • 0
          Apr 4 2012: As you stated the supernatural is often ignored by secular scientists, and I agree.

          "Yet astrophysics, molecular physics, evolutionary biology, etc. are regularly barraged with ridicule via unwarranted and malicious non-fact presented as legitimate scientific fact."

          Example being... Ray Comfort (supposedly an enlightened and truthful person) trying to force feed his garbage to people through trickery, manipulation and defacing of Darwin's book "Origin of Species". Is this not petty and dishonest? Also, absolutely no research or verification for his claims were made-this knowledge was simply "bestowed" upon him. He also claimed that the shape of a banana was designed by "Creator(s)" in order to fit in a monkeys hands (Youtube it). He attempted to deface and discredit foundational evolutionary biology with incoherent half baked claims.

          Is this the method in which organized religion attempts to lure people? It criticizes progressive thought, scientific institutions, and people as unique individual's, and it promotes people to be submissive and obedient drones punishable by myth. The Holy Bible is claimed to be the "ultimate truth" and thus is entitled to expose error and question the world, however, dare not do the same back... This is denying truths using opinion because religion wont tolerate contradiction, no matter how logically sound. It arms itself with propaganda and malice to silence anyone attempting to expose it. This is not upholding rather denying truth?

          In medieval times speaking against the Church labeled you as blasphemous, evil, soulless and unworthy of life. Guess how many of these labeled people were scientists exercising progressive critical thought? This is not accepting of all truths, it is blatant disregard/shunning of scientific thought.

          And in current day... evolution is repeatedly attacked to the point where it was banned from being taught in some states. This is a grave injustice and a smack in truths face.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Apr 6 2012: A P :
          I think if I comment here , my post will be more relevant :
          - that guy is narrow-minded and also the most fundamentalists, however the religion make sense, just to know how to look at it . It encourage critical thinking and all the stuff .
          Why o pay attention to such idiots ? In my opinion we should take whatever is good from religion and from science as well.
        • thumb
          Apr 7 2012: Edward, what if science and history etc explain the human phenomena of religion as something most likely man made with no supernatural deity explained with any accuracy in scriptures.

          If the creation stories and myths of the old testament can not be trusted how can you trust any of it with confidence.

          Most Greeks no longer believe Prometheus created man or that Pandora was the first woman created and unleashed plagues and evils when she opened the jar (note the similarities with adam, eve and the tree of knowledge).

          Many Christians, including their heirachies, don't believe in the Adam and Eve stories literally these days. Yet culturally we cling to the bible. Why not the Hindu teachings, or the Buddhist, or the Koran etc. Probably just due to where and when you were born, human tribalism etc.
      • thumb
        Apr 4 2012: You are welcome, Edward. I couldn't put it better than you have done right above. We have, generally speaking, solved the age-long problem of who is right: the scientists or the Holy Bible. One is grammar the other is language.
    • Apr 4 2012: I think religion offers ideas about meaning of life as does spirituality and philosophy (like Buddhism).

      However they do not give you confirmed theory about meaning of life or Universe that can be confirmed independently?

      So I don't see how religion, spirituality and philosophy helps you to understand meaning. It rather gives you a possible answer from billions of possible answers and if you do need some answer even if not confirmed then that is what you are getting.

      • thumb
        Apr 5 2012: Zdenek, you are simply lazy. You want all the answers to be delivered on a plate right in front of you. Moreover, you think in purely scientific way, and you want answers. It is like using grammar to analyse semantics. You can only scratch the sufrace of the matter.

        There are no answers when we think about meaning, there are only choices.
        • Apr 5 2012: I would think that my constant search for truth through science does take mental effort while on other hand if one accepts a belief given to him/her it is pretty effortless?

          In terms of semantics, there have been numerous studies and science esp. technology makes constant progress in this area. A great example is IBM's computer with AI called Watson:


          I don't see why science will ultimately help us to understand meaning of everything while religion, in my opinion, only came up with one explanation of our meaning two thousand years ago.

        • thumb
          Apr 7 2012: Jedrek, what he is saying seems reasonable to me.

          You may find meaning in your religious beliefs. Others find meaning in completely different religious beliefs. I find meaning without gods.

          The world view behind the meaning you find is not the absolute truth. It is just based on what you believe and experience. And that is probably based on when and where you live.

          If your beliefs are based on an old religion you have to pick and choose what to take literally. That is not lazy, its highly subjective, and quite a feat of intellectual creativity.

          We know more about the universe now than the people who wrote the bible etc. If you accept evolution you have to accept your beliefs are very different to the early Christians - Adam and Eve. You might think the Flood etc are symbolic or myth, but still cling to this tribal god.
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2012: Obey, and all the others,

        Don't take what I say too literally. In the discussion about meaning you need to be aware of the limitations set by the language itself.

        I have never claimed religion is superior to science, or even better, that it renders life with meaning. Honestly I think the days of religion as traditionally understood are over.

        There needs to be a synthesis of religion and science but the only way it is possible is through acknowledging the fact that they are different parts of a greater phenomenon, and they do not compete with each other. The grammar - language relation comes handy here.
        • Apr 7 2012: If you want to synthesize religion and science, can you explain what religion ideas will you use given that the world is full of conflicting religions, each claiming to have true understanding of the "grammar" of the world?

          Religious people of the same religion cannot even agree on meaning of fundamental parts of the bible leading to various flavors like Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists and many other less known Christian groups that use bible but interpret it different ways. Similarly with Islam.
        • thumb
          Apr 7 2012: Thanks Jedrek. Appreciate the acknowledgement about meaning.

          I agree Religion and Science are different. Just as Religion and Sport are different.

          But I would suggest all of these are human endeavours and constructs. I would also suggest that Science and history etc have come a long way towards explaining the evolution of religions and religious experience. We can see the parts of the brain active when people pray or meditate. I believe it is most likely all going on in our head with religious delusions and teachings from our culture framing these experiences and joining communities in traditions.

          Religious revelations, scriptures, and the directives of authorities such as the pope are poor substitutes for what science and other human endeavours show us about the universe.

          Religion certainly has a strong grip on the minds of many. Why, is a different question/direction.

          With respect I do think seeing religion as its own sphere separate from science, history, psychology etc is a cop out, a way of avoiding dissonance, a way of protecting faith etc.

          However, I would acknowledge we have only scratched the surface in science. What we have found is amazing. Every piece of matter (whatever that is) interacts with other matter via gravity. While I assume when a Hindu or Muslim are praying the experience is just something going on in their head, maybe Shiva and Ganesh are listening, maybe Allah is listening. Maybe there are 10 angels sitting beside me right now.

          We also agree that traditional religions have challenges given what we know now.

          Likewise, we may find and understand more amazing phenomena via science that might challenge a lot of atheists who take an overly narrow view.

          Finally religions conflict within themselves and with non religious positions in local and global politics, in legal systems and values of equality and freedoms. Think sexism in religion. Think holy lands. Think jihad. Think preoccupation with sexual relationships.
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2012: This is where you are wrong. Religion understands nothing of the "grammar of the world" i.e. science. And vice versa.

        When I show somebody my middle finger I use language, but where is the grammar? Nowhere! It is pure semantics.

        And so there is no science in religion, and no religion in science, but they both belong to one world, just as grammar and semantics, independently (more or less) belong to every language.

        There is nothing standing in the way of a meaning being different in different parts of the world. Noddig your head means "no" in Bulgaria, for example. "Cow" phonetically means "excrements" in the Polish language.

        "Meaning" can not be treated in scientific terms, like there is only one correct answer. There are multiple.
        • Apr 7 2012: Sorry I meant "semantics" so I do understand that science and religion are different in terms of how they work.

          However I do not see logical to have multiple answers about meaning that differ and all answers to be correct at the same time. That just does not make any sense.

          People invent religions and spiritual beliefs all the time and it does not mean that all of them are valid or even any of them is valid.

          I have not much more to add to this discussion.

        • thumb
          Apr 8 2012: Jedrek,

          Again with respect, trying to separate your religious experience and beliefs from what science, history and rational thought tell us is pure self deception. It seems like a way of protecting your faith and beliefs.

          Religious beliefs include claims about reality. For example, that there is a god or gods, that that god made the universe, that humans are the centre of gods universe, that humans have immortal souls, that we can talk to god via prayer, that numinous experiences are from connecting to our god, perhaps that Jesus is god, that that our religious view is the correct one.

          If your beliefs conflict with other religions, then you can probably see how self sustaining their delusions are.

          If you want to search for meaning in something that conflicts with your understanding of the the universe, that propagates 2,000 year old values and world views, go ahead. But don't pretend that religion has been immune to science and the human pursuit for knowledge.

          The creation myths are bunk. Humans are not the centre of the universe. Epilepsy is not demonic possession.

          Even the metaphor you use about grammar and meaning is trivial and flawed. Science, linguistics, communication theory can explain humans language ability, non verbal communication etc. We can understand each others languages and gestures pretty well with some effort. Grammar helps refine meaning and communicate.

          Science and history provides the best explanations for the development of religions and religious experience. Science explains human behaviour whether it is sport, religion, body language etc.

          History, psychology, book stores tell us of humans search for meaning.

          I guess it is in the interest of your faith to see science and religion as totally separate. Just as religion makes blind faith a virtue to protect it from the encroachments of science and rational thought.

          Meaning is not exclusive of reality and science unless you try to delude yourself.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2012: You say: Religion understands nothing of the "grammar of the world" i.e. science.

          That depends on the particular relgious beliefs on an individual. I know of young earth creationist that interpret reality in a way they see as entirely fitting with a literal interpretation of scriptures.

          Most religions impinge themselves on the grammer of the world by making claims about reality. The existence of invisible gods, eternal souls, creation of the universe, creation of humans, miracles, revelations from gods, the existence heavan and hell. They say how we got here, command us how to live, and what they believe the meaning of life is. This does not sit outside the human experience and our understanding of the universe and ourselves.

          Whether you take these as literal, or symbolic or ancient balony is up to the individual.

          If you want to try believe religion is in its own bubble divorced from everything we've learnt about the universe and the human experience in the last few few thousands years you can try. But your claim is not an absolute truth. It is just your interpretation and counter to a lot of evidence.
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2012: Me neither, but thanks for contributing to this discussion, it was a pleasure.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2012: Obey,
        Judging by your ferocity, I must have said something that made you think and rebel inside. It will not be long from now until the seed that I planted starts changing your perception and questioning your convictions louder and louder.

        It is personal matter and maybe irrelevent for the public, but I am not a religious person. Do not fool yourself anymore as it is only an excuse you came up with in order to pardon yourself from thinking.

        And yes, grammar does help refine meaning and communication. It is yet another fantastic parallel between science and meaning. I couldn't frame it better.
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2012: To say religion has exclusive rights to meaning, or that science does not influence meaning is ridiculous.

      Science indicates we were not created as fully developed humans. That we are kin with the primates and share a common ancestor with are mammals, vertebrates, and probably any DNA based life form.

      Along with other schools of human knowledge like history, sociology, psychology etc it shows religion is a human construct, that usually depends on when and where you live, like language.

      The old religious texts are just primitive tribes trying to make sense of the universe in their cultural and values bubble.

      Science etc shows the growing but little we know about the universe is more amazing than the myths of religion. That we most likely have one life. That our ancestors have been living in groups longer than we have been evolved as modern homo sapiens, the group behaviours, hierachical, conforming, tribalism etc.

      Sure you can find meaning in religious viewpoints whether you believe in the Egyptian gods and afterlife or the latter day saints. After all people are people, they develop world views based on their culture.

      You can find find meaning that better fits reality, that is not confined by bronze age morals supporting slavery or inequality or rascism, chosen peoples, infidels, but instead on what improves the human condition. There is a non invisible spirit world form of spirituality, transcendence, connection.
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2012: Jedrek, could you explain the basis behind your belief that science and religion ate mutually exclusive and non overlapping? You seem to hold this view very firmly without any convincing argument or reason.

    Is there any scriptural basis for saying that science and religion are completely separate realms. I don't recall the bible having an introduction saying suspend disbelief, forget everything you know about the universe, now begin.

    I would agree that most religions or religious belief systems today have seeds in the pre-scientific past. They were created in relative ignorance compared to what we know today.

    It just seems a very convenient trick to say that what religion purports to say about reality should not be mixed with our modern day understanding of reality. This just seems to be a device to propagate the ignorance and delusion associated with religious belief for millennia. Do we have to switch off our brain to believe, to explore religion.

    It just seems like an elaborate device to protect something that can no longer be sustained if we are open to science, open to the question - what if I'm wrong - what if this book I'm reading is not divinely inspired.

    Is the implausibility so great in 2012 that religion can not sustain itself without separating itself from what we know about reality?

    When I was a Christian, there was not teaching that reality and religion should be treated entirely separately, or that science and religion don't mix.
  • thumb
    Apr 6 2012: A lot of the earlier posts try and position religion and science as separate.

    The purpose of science is not to find meaning it is to explain the universe around us.

    Human are meaning seeking animals. We find meaning. Often this meaning is tainted by religious views founded by peoples who new much less about the universe than we do today. You don't need traditional religion or any supernatural beliefs to find meaning.

    Science informs us about the universe, how it works, about us, how we work, and our place in the universe. This understanding should influence our search for meaning.

    A high school graduate, you and I, know more about the age, scale, complexity and reality of the universe than Jesus or Muhammad ever did. These may have been brilliant, charismatic people, with powerful insights into the human condition, but don't confuse this for absolute truth. Don't confuse this with their belief that the we are the centre of the universe, were created by their tribal God etc.

    Take on board what we know about the universe today, our place in it, our origins, cultures etc and you are opened up to a new world of meaning free from religious dogma, tradition and myth.
  • thumb

    R H

    • 0
    Apr 6 2012: I would like to offer that the 'kingdom not of this world' and the empirical and scientific method evidence regarding this world are not mutually exclusive. Religion, to me, is the formulization of 'faith' and is subject to much manipulation and interpretation. Scientifically achieved statistics and results are also subject to much interpretation and manipulation - my 'evidence' for this follows your citing that 'science is on the chopping block for constant revision' and therefore we're asked to 'believe' in results that are later found to be incomplete or alltogether erroneous. We believe what we've 'discovered' is 'true', but found later not so. Even specific scientific benefits - such as medicines or energy usage - which have tremendous benefits on the one hand, have arguably equal disasterous ramifications on the other (ie, death causing side effects, atomic weaponry, mass exploitation of peoples for resources, etc.). My main point would be that faith based belief is as sound logically and as reasonably as any other. To think that our scientific observations from this little planet in a minor solar system in an obsure galaxy in the 'known' universe has been able to conclude definitively all know life forms and dimensions have been accounted for conclusively is no more 'reasonable' than to believe that there is an alternate dimension of life that some claim they can describe through visions of the human spirit. I would also add that I think science and faith want the same thing - the understanding and perfection of mankind. Maybe if both sides released their anger and self-righteousness, they could work together and have real progress for humanity.
    • A P

      • 0
      Apr 7 2012: I agree with you. Human's being the only sentient life we currently know about gives us no scale or insight to even try and gadge our understanding of the universe. It is, like you said, effectively all opinion.

      Albeit our understanding is at best limited, no matter your views, the APPROACH taken to try and make meaning is where the difference lies. The demeanor of both sides is also different.

      Science/Scientists, in general, understand that the more we try and find out, the less we actually know. And things we already know/accept are likely to be skewed or wrong. We have not yet discovered the meaning of waht we think to be fundemental the prinapals in which the universe operates. Things such as dark matter, black holes, the origin point of the universe... the list goes on and on and on...

      Religion, in general, is perfectly content with what they know and see it fit to look no further. This is a problem. Breaking a persons comfort zone can create hostility because of the threat to their very livelyhood. Trying to say their understanding's (which are becoming increasingly unlikely) is so harmful to them that concious denial begins. It is simply impossible for them to be wrong, and they are convinced. Being insignificant beings with a single short life, with little purpose as we know, is and impossible answer...

      This subcouious mentality hinders and skews peoples ability to think logically.

      This conflict was not picked by the curious exploring alternate meanings to the universe (Religion being there long before science) . The conflict was picked by the religious institutions (and select individuals) not wanting this change
    • A P

      • 0
      Apr 7 2012: So I guess my whole point was...

      Although both may be wrong, at least science tries to explain the steps involved in getting from point A to point B (A.1 A.2 A.3 ..... B), and that point B is most likely not the end (it likely infinite).

      However, on the other side, point A goes straight to point B (No steps or exploration needed) ;point B is the final happy blissful end that you can get to if you follow our "rules" (Control technique).

      These finite parameters make people happy, and also make them ignorant. This gives even more reason to believe that the likelihood of their explanations are incorrect.Believing that there are no finite parameters of the universe provides for a less skewed (and more open) look on knowledge and the meaning of life. With this freeness, it is also logical to conclude that thinking in narrow and preset parameters for the meaning of life is highly improbable.

      Don't fear the concept of infinite!
      • thumb

        R H

        • 0
        Apr 7 2012: Thanks for responding. I looks like we agree to disagree. I'm not qualified to be an apologist for the religions of the world, nor do I believe they've done a good job of stating their case in our new world of technological advancement. But I do see an underlying disgust for religion by science, understandibly so, not only because of a perceived lack of logical progression (logic and reason being the foundation of scientific thought), but also because of the terrible exercise of religion by the unscrupulous throughout the centuries. I think the prevailing view of religion by the critics of religion reflects this unhappy state. I would agree with one point that religion can be like a drug, whereas one can escape the pain and/or effort of reality and 'reasonable' conclusions for the comfort of a self-induced spiritual euphoria. Scientific reasoning can also have the same, but arrived at from the opposite direction, effect when it discounts possible realities outside of its reasoning and evidenciary capabilities. 'Official' statements notwithstanding, there are many thousands of respected scientists who hold strong religious convictions, and many religious that are respected scientists. It's easy for both sides to treat the other like a tabloid, highlighting the most egregious points. But for me, the days of division must end. There's too much at stake. I think both sides are beginning to see that as we enter now into what many have said is a 'transformative' era of the human experience.
  • Apr 5 2012: The conflict between science and religion goes back millennia. I do believe the two will eventually come to terms, but not through the unthinking prejudices of either side. The 7-24-hour day creationists are wrong, period. For me, I think the study of evolution is basically an exercise in reverse engineering; finding out how God created the Heavens and the earth. Stephen Gould, "America's Evolutionist" is perhaps my favorite science writer; I have 8 of his books in my library. One of them, sorry, can't remember the title, advocates "non-overlapping magisterium", or "NOMA" as he calls it. ("Rocks of Ages"? Maybe; not sure.) In other words, science has its turf, the natural, and religion has its; the supernatural, and they should basically stick to their own knitting, with respectful discourse when their fields bump up against each other. Let me close with the words, (paraphrased) from "Darwin's Bulldog", Huxley, as he defended religion and science: "Will science ever prove that the words of Micah, are inapplicable and useless? Micah 6: 8 reads, "what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?"
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2012: To say science and religion are two completely separate realms is obviously completely wrong.

      I'm not sure what Gould's intent was. Perhaps to try and stop science being seen as a threat by the religious. It seems many religious have latched onto it fervently.

      Others such as creationists see the two as conflicting and overlapping and try to stop evolution being taught, or to get the intelligent design taught along side.

      Science, the humanities, and rationale thought - the broad base of human knowledge across physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, psychology, history, sociology, geology etc - have shown the creation stories in most traditional religious views are wrong. That man was not created, but evolved.

      It has shown you can not take religious scriptures on face value. That humans have constructed more gods and religions that are now extinct then are actively believed in today.

      Just through simple logic an evangelical Christian believes all the others are deluded, deceived, or mistaken. I agree, but go one further.

      Obvious the degree of dissonance will depend on the religious belief. If you believe the sun is a golden chariot, or has a resting place after travelling through the heavens - your belief is myth.

      If you believe human sacrifice will help ensure the sun rises - myth.

      So now a growing number of religious people believe in evolution or the big bang facilitated by some god. Many still believe there is an interventionist god, that can be accessed by prayer, that there cultural religion has the correct overarching interpretation. Still quite dubious.

      Others have a more non specific or deist approach or some entity guiding evolution and spiritual realm. This is the least conflicting but highly speculative.

      Sure there are insights in old religious writings, but the sooner we see them for what they are the better.

      I believe in freedom of religion within limits. But you are not free to ignore how human knowledge challenges religious beliefs.
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2012: I ran out of space to say that atheists should still leave the door open for unusual connections, forces, discoveries etc that science may discover in the future. Just that a religious lens distorts reality.

      While we know of atoms and stars and galaxies and bacteria and evolution, plate tectonics, I'd also suggest our armchair scientists have a simplistic view compared to the cutting edge scientists.

      While we take for granted planets, stars and galaxies and simplistic views of atoms, what actually is matter. What is energy. Is one a concentrated form of the other. Let alone dark matter and energy. What is gravity. What is time. Our understanding is not as great as the overall body of human knowledge.

      And then there is plenty we don't know as a species. What is outside the edges of the big bang universe we live in etc.
  • thumb
    Apr 4 2012: I can't cite the papers as i can't frikkin find them though i've been trying hard for a couple of years.

    I can only give links to some of their data and a physorg article


    The link below is a documentary for the plasma cosmology but has Dr Arp discussing the anomalies he found.


    The links below are for Dr Michael Hawkins,i have to find the articles where he suggests the blacholes are dark matter as i never bookmarked them, now i wish i did.




  • thumb
    Apr 4 2012: Science is a tool developed by us to ask questions of our physical universe.Religions are faith based,the two don't meet in the middle unless you alter one to suit the other.Is this what you are asking?

    I'm just going to high light something i found interesting.There was a astronomer back in the 60's who found some observations of quasars that was odd so he proceeded to track down more if there was any out there.What he came up with was quite abit more than just a few anomalies,so he forwarded his findings and conclusions and was discredited for making outlandish claims.Fast forward to 2010 when a another astronomer published a paper on another anomaly on quasars after studying over 900 quasars over a 28 year period.What he found is that quasars at 6 billion lys and quasars at 10 billion lys(Lightyears) have no time dilation effect or the time it took for their light to reach us is exactly the same, in other words we are observing them at a parallel distance.

    Two years on this astronomer is suggesting that dark matter is actually 3 km wide blackholes spaced at 40 lightyear intervals in a big halo around our galaxy due to the theory of microlensing of the light of those quasars he had been observing for the last 28 years except the numbers of these blackholes would have to number in the trillions upon trillions.There is another suggestion he could of made but one can see why any astronomer would think twice about taking that road due to the first astronomers discreditment.That quasars don't follow the hubble law and that we have to revise the law and that the universe might be smaller than it is or quasars are outside the natural laws we have observed.

    The first astronomer is Dr Halton c Arp who postulated that quasars are proto galaxies born out of galaxies like our own.The second astronomer is Dr Michael Hawkins of Edinburgh university.This should of been picked by the media,as far as i know it hasn't.
  • A P

    • 0
    Apr 4 2012: Scientific fact [a concept that can be verified via reproducible experiments yielding congruent results] is constantly scrutinized, reevaluated, and refined by highly educated and intelligent members of the scientific community. Before receiving recognition and validation for their discoveries a majority consensus of agreement is required. The process of establishing and proving a scientific idea as fact is a highly extensive process .

    Religious belief [Moral and ethical codes instilled by a single supernatural power and/or multiple powers that govern and explain the physical world, biological world, and metacognition of individuals] is based largely on a singular text intended to be interpreted literally in its original form. A hierarchy of individuals/a select cohort governs each religious institution and there is a direct correlation between their power and credibility (faith based, scientific process is N/A). The meaning/interpretations of religious scripture is determined by these individuals/select cohort using non-fact [An event(s) un-reproducible via experiment that yields inconclusive results; thus being an opinion]. The origins of religion are regularly disputed, and the events/support for these disputes are also based on non-fact. There is a lack of primary source information; secondary source, tertiary source, personal experience, and generational folklore compose the overwhelming majority of support for these arguments.