Are there universe laws that exist

How can theism and science coexist?

Knowing whether religion and science are compatible is enough to know whether science and religion give the same answers to: How and why did many religions arise, have evolved, and have disappeared? Does religion make us moral? Is there a causal relationship between religious rituals such as prayer, sacrifice or adherence to a taboo and an expected benefit or reward?

Belief and rationality are two types of belief that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is a belief based on reason or evidence. The word belief refers to a belief that is absent despite or against reason and evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. Religious experiences of awe, gratitude, repentance, etc., establish the beliefs implied in the believer's sincere accounts of such experiences, provided they can evoke those beliefs. But it may well be that the beliefs are part of the cause of the experience rather than the other way around. The problem of believing in divine revelation is how this might apply to disputes between two religions, both based on the role of divine revelation, and whether a belief is really based on religious experience or really on inspiration. Outdated religions that no longer have active followers are evidence that belief is not an eternal truth.

Religions are a historical fact in which utterances like “There is a God” are meant as well as “There is a star ten times as massive as the sun,” and there are many beliefs that are represented by faith alone, such as rational thinking would force the mind to reject. Examples of conflicts are the controversy between creation and evolution, as well as controversies over the use of birth control, the separation of church and state, the rejection of research into embryonic stem cells or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia and blood transfusion. A detailed 1998 study, "Child Deaths From Religiously Motivated Medical Neglect," Pediatrics, 101, found 140 cases of child deaths from religious medical neglect. Most of these cases have involved religious parents who rely on prayer to cure the child's illness and withhold medical care.

Even the most docile forms of Christianity present insurmountable barriers to AIDS prevention and family planning in the developing world and to medical research. The US House of Representatives effectively voted on February 27, 2003 to ban embryonic stem cell research. Research on embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of human embryos at the 150-cell stage. However, there is not the slightest reason to believe that such embryos have the ability to feel pain, suffer, or experience the loss of life in any way. It is indisputable that there are millions of people who have these skills and are currently suffering from traumatic injuries to the brain and spinal cord. Millions more suffer from traumatic injuries to the brain and spinal cord, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, stroke and heart disease, burns, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Purkinje cell degeneration, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and visual and hearing disorders Loss. Those who oppose therapeutic stem cell research for religious reasons form the biological and ethical equivalent of a flat-earth society. But shouldn't we let people think how they want? Freedom of belief is a myth. We can no longer freely believe what we want of God to accept as unjustified beliefs about science or history.

Look at the sacred texts that give rise to the idea of ​​faith. Koran 9:73 and 9: 123, for example, command the believers to "wage war against the unbelievers". In Deuteronomy 13: 6 et. seq. God commands his followers to murder without pity a neighbor, friend, or family member who questions his authority. And in John 15: 6, Jesus suggests that the believers deserve to be cremated. The pious priests of the Spanish Inquisition made various torture techniques famous. Incidentally, such slaughter continued into the 19th century, until the last Auto-Da-Fé was executed in Mexico in 1850. Self-appointed Protestant “reformers” were of course no less committed to the faith and consequently also committed to the faith no less brutal. Heretics were still turned to ashes, scholars were tortured and killed for outrageous sanity, and fornicators were safely murdered. Religious moderates will, of course, argue that it is not belief, but man's lower instincts, that provoke such violence. But could even the most obsequious religious believer claim that the witch hunts or the Crusades took place and continued without their mythical foundations? Ordinary people cannot be induced to burn brilliant ancient scholars alive to blaspheme the Quran or celebrate the violent death of their children unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe.

Religious moderation is the product of ignorance in Scripture. Some fundamentalists at least accept the original intent behind the less pleasant verses in their Bible or Koran. The paradoxical liberal Christian hermeneutics, on the other hand, seems to imply an immutable God in development, or an omniscient God who was somehow so dramatically less inspiring in Deuteronomy than in Matthew that contemporary Christians are perfectly entitled to ignore the former and to the latter increase. By disregarding the letter of the texts and at the same time tolerating the irrationality of those who do so, religious moderates betray faith and reason in equal measure. Moderates are betrayed by at least two myths: first, that theism offers benefits not found elsewhere, and second, that individual tolerance of unjustified beliefs is compassionate. Exactly what moderates compassionately think of cultivating recurrent persecutions and massacres is incomprehensible.

Believers in God do not want the hypothesis of God to be treated as just another scientific hypothesis, judged by the standards of science in particular and rational thought in general. Their belief is wholly beyond reason and is not a matter of test for such worldly methods. However, there is no evidence that a religious belief that rejects reason would serve us in our search for the truth. If faith is the only way to know the truth of God, how are we supposed to know which God to believe in? Rational arguments cannot reach the believers because the believers had declared that this cannot be done by his own decree. In debates beyond reason there are no rules and everyone can say something. The insane asylum shows that belief proves nothing. What is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal god outside of time and no god at all? It is absurd to cite an imaginary definition of attributes as evidence of existence in the real world. Faith is belief in spite of, perhaps even because of, lack of evidence. If there is no way to refute my or your assertion, no conceivable experiment that would speak against it, what does it mean to say that Zeus or Shiva exist? My or your inability to invalidate the existence of Zeus or a Hindu god or your imagination is by no means the same as proving the truth. The Church contends that the acquisition of knowledge, even if it is not sinful, is dangerous as it can lead to pride of the intellect and thus to a questioning of Christian dogma. The lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, but what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof rests on a person who makes scientifically unverifiable claims.

The success of science is the proof that the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it.

reference
- Sam Harris. 2004. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.
- Wikipedia