Science vs Religion : End of the debate.
At first glance, science and religion may seem to be in contradiction with one another. While science has been produced systematically through facts and experiments, religion on the other hand simply based on faith. Today, the gap between science and religion has become much more wider. More people are starting to depend themselves fully on human achievements, and they ignored religion. Theories are developed by great thinkers to explain "alternative" ways in explaining the "unexplainable", such as "how does universe started at the very beginning?" or "where do humans came from?". The purpose of this article is to clear this confusions for those who asked themselves "which one to choose?"
Ecclesiastes 1:13-15 :
'I devoted myself to study and explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted.'
Now, compare the above quote from the Bible with our situation right now. Many scientists are struggling with the "unification" of sciences, that is, to unify the 4 forces and therefore reveal the truth, the origin of universe itself. Superstring theory that has been claimed can unify quantum mechanics and relativity has been established, despite no one so far has been able to prove it due to the complexity of the calculations, and the lack to obtain physical evidences to the theory. The theory also predicts that the unification of all forces occurs at the Planck energy, or 10E19 billion electron volts, in which there is not enough money on earth from all countries combined together to generate this astronomical power. Conclusion? A dead-end.
Some people also rely themselves on the Big Bang theory that they think may explain the creation of the universe. Well, for this particular issue, they too, have made a fatal mistake. They predicted that there is no God since Big Bang theory explains everything, but they failed to realise how do "organisms" started to exists, in which the answer can be found on religion. An attempt to think that the Big Bang occurs by itself is also a false way of thinking, since no one can explain what happened before the Big Bang. About the existence of organisms, scientists has now been working on the field called abiogenesis. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule ) Even if they succeeded (suppose), what is there to explain the creation? Remember that long long ago when first organisms were "created", all the chemistry involved would be by chance, not by specifically controlled reaction in labs such as we would have today, and the probability of such specific reactions to take place would be diminished until it vanishes. Maybe humans can make bacteria one day, but whatever it is, there's no way they can make a multilevel organisms, particularly humans, which is required if they were to disprove religion. If they claim they can make bacteria and they say that religion has been disproved, then perhaps the mistake is in their own understandings. The Bible only says that God first created organisms, but doesn't say that we, people, can't create simple organisms. Maybe the Creationists might want to think this way. Finally, whatever the outcome, there's certainly no way for us , still, to create multilevel organisms, especially human. Here is another dead-end.
The celebrated Darwin's theory of evolution which has been thought to explain the origin of humans also encounters a dead end, in which there is still a "missing link" that no fossil of intermediate stage between human and apes has been found. Again, another dead-end.
So far, perhaps the existence of science is only to prove the Bible right, that all scientific attempts are meaningless. If you were saying that you refuse religion as there's no proof, then why don't you rather say that you believe it since you can't disprove it? Actually, there's proof to religion. What we see today in fact is the proof. Another proof, perhaps, unlike science, is an unseen one, and lies inside the religion itself. It's simply psychological, emotional, you know it by yourself. All in all, arrogant people are those who think that they know everything when they doesn't.
Here's a useful analogy :
Imagine we were once transported to an unknown place, that seems like a maze in which we don't understand anything about that particular place. We has been living there for so long, and do our own "experiments" in exploring the place. However, so far we had not found our way out of the maze. With us, we were given a book, a book that explains everything, and even the way out from the maze, but we refused to believe it as we had been so familiar as we have explored all the possible ways out of the maze. But still, we can't disprove the book yet since what the book says about truth is different from ours. Then, would we simply ignore the book given to us? The only way is to "read and try" it, am i right?
Ecclesiastes 1:13-15 :
'I devoted myself to study and explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted.'
Now, compare the above quote from the Bible with our situation right now. Many scientists are struggling with the "unification" of sciences, that is, to unify the 4 forces and therefore reveal the truth, the origin of universe itself. Superstring theory that has been claimed can unify quantum mechanics and relativity has been established, despite no one so far has been able to prove it due to the complexity of the calculations, and the lack to obtain physical evidences to the theory. The theory also predicts that the unification of all forces occurs at the Planck energy, or 10E19 billion electron volts, in which there is not enough money on earth from all countries combined together to generate this astronomical power. Conclusion? A dead-end.
Some people also rely themselves on the Big Bang theory that they think may explain the creation of the universe. Well, for this particular issue, they too, have made a fatal mistake. They predicted that there is no God since Big Bang theory explains everything, but they failed to realise how do "organisms" started to exists, in which the answer can be found on religion. An attempt to think that the Big Bang occurs by itself is also a false way of thinking, since no one can explain what happened before the Big Bang. About the existence of organisms, scientists has now been working on the field called abiogenesis. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule ) Even if they succeeded (suppose), what is there to explain the creation? Remember that long long ago when first organisms were "created", all the chemistry involved would be by chance, not by specifically controlled reaction in labs such as we would have today, and the probability of such specific reactions to take place would be diminished until it vanishes. Maybe humans can make bacteria one day, but whatever it is, there's no way they can make a multilevel organisms, particularly humans, which is required if they were to disprove religion. If they claim they can make bacteria and they say that religion has been disproved, then perhaps the mistake is in their own understandings. The Bible only says that God first created organisms, but doesn't say that we, people, can't create simple organisms. Maybe the Creationists might want to think this way. Finally, whatever the outcome, there's certainly no way for us , still, to create multilevel organisms, especially human. Here is another dead-end.
The celebrated Darwin's theory of evolution which has been thought to explain the origin of humans also encounters a dead end, in which there is still a "missing link" that no fossil of intermediate stage between human and apes has been found. Again, another dead-end.
So far, perhaps the existence of science is only to prove the Bible right, that all scientific attempts are meaningless. If you were saying that you refuse religion as there's no proof, then why don't you rather say that you believe it since you can't disprove it? Actually, there's proof to religion. What we see today in fact is the proof. Another proof, perhaps, unlike science, is an unseen one, and lies inside the religion itself. It's simply psychological, emotional, you know it by yourself. All in all, arrogant people are those who think that they know everything when they doesn't.
Here's a useful analogy :
Imagine we were once transported to an unknown place, that seems like a maze in which we don't understand anything about that particular place. We has been living there for so long, and do our own "experiments" in exploring the place. However, so far we had not found our way out of the maze. With us, we were given a book, a book that explains everything, and even the way out from the maze, but we refused to believe it as we had been so familiar as we have explored all the possible ways out of the maze. But still, we can't disprove the book yet since what the book says about truth is different from ours. Then, would we simply ignore the book given to us? The only way is to "read and try" it, am i right?
posted by ardianto86 at 10:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home