3217 Shares

Can you be a spiritual person while accepting modern science?

Can you be a spiritual person while accepting modern science? Topic: formulate a hypothesis
May 22, 2019 / By Arlene
Question: There are people who think that if a person is spiritual, they can't accept science. There are also people who think that if a person accepts science (ie. current thought in biology, physics, chemistry, etc) they cannot be spiritual. I'm not talking about any particular theological doctrine (ie. Christianity, Islam, Agnosticism, etc) either, just the idea that there may be a higher power. What are your ideas? Do you think it's possible to entertain the idea of a higher power while accepting modern science? Why or why not? Is the creation hypothesis falsifiable? I'm not going to upvote or downvote any comment. I'm also not going to chose a "best" answer -- I'll leave that to a vote. So what does everyone think?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Can you be a spiritual person while accepting modern science?

Zebulun Zebulun | 2 days ago
Most of the science you hear about on these pages were discovered by Christians. Genetics was discovered by a Christian priest Mendel. The Big Bang Theory was first formulated by another Christian priest, Georges Lemaitre. Radioactive carbon dating was the work of the Christian, Willard Libby, who also won the Nobel Price. Even Darwin was still a Christian when he wrote Origin of the Species. Also there are other worthwhile interpretations of Genesis that most people have never heard of. It is sufficient to say that there is no conflict between God and science. If God created the universe, then he created all of the scientific principles therein. Conflicts only arise because of misinterpreted scripture and/or misapplied science.
👍 272 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? Can you be a spiritual person while accepting modern science? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: formulate a hypothesis


Zebulun Originally Answered: Atheists: Are you capable of accepting a radical change in science, if accepted by the scientific community?
Considering the amount of crap that makes it into peer-reviewed journals, I'd initially be skeptical, since it IS an extraordinary claim. But I understand what you're asking. If sufficient evidence were gathered, and independently verified by multiple, repeatable tests of the experimental data, I's accept the findings. Does that make me an agnostic? No. I do not expect any such evidence to be found in my lifetime, or ever for that matter, simply because of the definition of god.

Sim Sim
YES, it is not only possible, but has been done. We might NOT accept all that science says, but then most of what science claims as "theories" are not proven anyway, so why accept them? Evolution, for example, is still just a theory. But Science has shown us, HOW things came about in the Universe, and this then lends credence to God and His ability to create. Early stars eventually blew up and became Super Novas, and these then caused the gases in the Universe to become matter and planets were then created. The Super Nova that created our Solar Sytem was not a random thing, because it had to be in precisely the right spot, to prevent the gases from being blown away (if too close) or being not formed at all (if the S Nova was too far away) Nothing random there. Once chance and that was it. And our Milky Way, was created with swirling arms swinging out, allowing for our Solar System to be put into one of the outer arms, away from the high radiation of the stars closer to the center of the Milky Way. So this was NOT a random happening. Our sun is not a large sun, not a tiny one, so it does the job well. And being placed where it is, 93 million miles away, it does not over heat the planet Earth by being too close, nor allow it to freeze by being to far away. The Magnetic Field around the Earth helps keep the sun's solar winds from destroying the Earth. And the Moon is placed such that it helps balance the Earth, as the Earth rotates. Keeps the wobble down. Much like a lead balance put on a cars wheel. The Earth orbits around the Sun, in four seasons, which is needed for things to grow. Seeds can be planted in fall but will NOT grow until the Spring. Weird how the seed knows this. The point is, there are just TOO many things needed for Earth to even be here, with life on it especially. Take and change even ONE of those things, and we would not be here. This is shown to us, by Science. Had Science NOT shown us these things, such as the location of our Solar System, we would not have the proof of how God did it. So Science, does interact with religion, and will continue to do so, until the time comes for PROOF of God existence, which Science will prove beyond a doubt.
👍 120 | 👎 -4

Omar Omar
This particular person? No. Not the science idolized by the billions. I showed the laws are wrong. The data are good but the laws are wrong. I accept laws that bind together and are precise and accurate..... science doesn't do that. I can work with the data, but not the laws and representations.... htt doesn't work. No one cannot accept the Higher Power and accept modern science, modern science got it wrong. there's a neo-science that gets it right and is consonant with spirituality .,.. they align... and its precise, accurate, and mathematical. ... includes the macroscopic, microscopic and the subatomic. Seems no one believes that science got it wrong. In the future the boondoggles will be seen as obvious as the flat-earth fallacies.
👍 119 | 👎 -10

Lawrence Lawrence
the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory. In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians. By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189]. The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential development in Western civilization: the creation of the university. The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge." To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public.
👍 118 | 👎 -16

Jabin Jabin
One would have to be a hypocrite to not "accept modern science". Unless someone lives in a cave, grows their own food, etc, they are accepting modern science. That aside, many religious people don't like science, but LOVE what it provides them, in other words, they rail against it, but reap the benefits. How many people turn down insulin, or don't use computers, or drive, etc? They have a problem with science that conflicts with their religion, right up to the point that the specific science benefits them. Then they are ok with it.
👍 117 | 👎 -22

Jabin Originally Answered: Is there a need for a new branch of science that explores the effects of the spiritual on the physical world?
Im all for such classes being taught as "ELECTIVES". Thus it wouldnt be forced on anybody but people still have the opportunity to learn something theyre interested in.

If you have your own answer to the question formulate a hypothesis, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.