Modern technology = Ancient miracles?

[yahya515]

Moses destroyed the army of the Egyptians, however atomic bomb destroyed two whole cities.

Jesus rose up, people traveled to the moon. etc

these ancient miracles and modern actions are not the same , but for people who live today ancient miracles will loose their effect, so what will be special about religion for modern people?

[Phi for All]

I hope eventually people will stop thinking miraculous things are only achievable through religion.

[Dekan]

Religion was a first attempt, to explain the Universe.

 

Science explains it better.

 

So modern people like Science. They don't want Religion.

[yahya515]

I hope eventually people will stop thinking miraculous things are only achievable through religion.

they are only achievable by religion you should take time in consideration , people at that time were not able to do miracles, if for instance a prophet came today he will do things that people can't do today.

[Robittybob1]

they are only achievable by religion you should take time in consideration , people at that time were not able to do miracles, if for instance a prophet came today he will do things that people can't do today.

Does Islam allow for other prophets (other than Muhammad) to come today?

[yahya515]

Does Islam allow for other prophets (other than Muhammad) to come today?

No , I just said for instance.

[Robittybob1]

No , I just said for instance.

if it was not going to happen can you say "for instance'"? I believe there could be other prophets after Muhammad, so I find Islam rather threatening.

What would happen to someone who declared themselves a prophet today?

Edited November 13, 2014 by Robittybob1

[yahya515]

Religion was a first attempt, to explain the Universe.

 

Science explains it better.

 

So modern people like Science. They don't want Religion.

religion does not explain the universe , it deals with things that people can't do and see , heaven, spirit , afterlife , etc, things that people can do , science and technology are left for them , why people consider holy books as scientific books and put them under test? for instance the quran talks about the earth as it is flat, I do not see an error here, the earth is not flat , but it is a simple language , for example if you have a friend who as a physics professor , and you ask him about the weather tomorrow , because you want to go on holyday , perhaps he says: the sun will rise at 6 o'clock and the weather will be cold, he said the sun will rise instead of saying: the earth rotates around its axis one revolution in 24 hours and in February . ................. and the temperature will be.......... he skipped some facts and accuracy , the same God focus on how earth is good being flat at small arc and distance, people can imagine how it will be difficult if the earth is small and you walk 100 meters changing the angle 90 degrees.

[Fuzzwood]

We put a satellite on a comet 500.000.000 km away. If that isn't a miracle then I don't know anymore

[Robittybob1]

We put a satellite on a comet 500.000.000 km away. If that isn't a miracle then I don't know anymore

It will be more of a miracle if it stays there without being able to be tethered to the comet! Has it been able to anchor itself? Is it only gravitational forces holding them together?

Edited November 13, 2014 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

We put a satellite on a comet 500.000.000 km away. If that isn't a miracle then I don't know anymore

 

But it isn't, and I think it's a disservice to science to treat it as such (or as magic). Acknowledge that it's hard, and required a commitment to do it, despite setbacks along the way.

 

Something I saw on twitter earlier (attributed to Bill Nye): "The most important thing about having a space program is that it raised the expectations of society." I think it's important to realize that we can achieve things, if we choose to. Like the line from the movie Apollo 13, "it's not a miracle, we just decided to go". Or Kennedy's speech at Rice in 1962 "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"

 

As to the OP, maybe there isn't anything special about religion.

[Strange]

 

But it isn't, and I think it's a disservice to science to treat it as such (or as magic).

 

<cough>engineers</cough>

[Moontanman]

Moses destroyed the army of the Egyptians, however atomic bomb destroyed two whole cities.

Jesus rose up, people traveled to the moon. etc

these ancient miracles and modern actions are not the same , but for people who live today ancient miracles will loose their effect, so what will be special about religion for modern people?

 

 

I think you'd have to establish ancient miracles actually happened before you could compare them.. The Exodus and Moses are not thought to have happened even by modern religious scholars.

[Willie71]

Isn't the definition of a miracle something that does not have an explanation? I always found referring to the 'miracle of childbirth" puzzling.

[ajb]

religion does not explain the universe ...

The point is that the origins of religion are probably in attempts to understand or explain the world. Things that could not easily be explained were attributed to gods, spirits and so on.

 

Later on religion became something to control the people.

for instance the quran talks about the earth as it is flat, I do not see an error here, the earth is not flat , but it is a simple language ...

That sounds like one error you have found in the Quran. (Which now links nicely to one of your other threads )

Edited November 14, 2014 by ajb

[Phi for All]

Isn't the definition of a miracle something that does not have an explanation? I always found referring to the 'miracle of childbirth" puzzling.

 

It's a word with a specific definition, you're right. I suppose it's wrong to usurp it's intended meaning to conflate it with "awe-inspiring phenomenon". I'm going to strike the word from my science vocabulary.

 

I'd gladly trade "miracle" back to religion, if we can have the definitions for "theory" and "logic" back.

[Willie71]

It's a word with a specific definition, you're right. I suppose it's wrong to usurp it's intended meaning to conflate it with "awe-inspiring phenomenon". I'm going to strike the word from my science vocabulary.

 

I'd gladly trade "miracle" back to religion, if we can have the definitions for "theory" and "logic" back.

+10 on this. Especially theory. I feel like a broken record clarifying what theory is to my religious family.

[swansont]

 

<cough>engineers</cough>

 

In this type of conversation, it's a very big tent.

[Strange]

In this type of conversation, it's a very big tent.

And I am proud to have been allowed in a couple of times!

[yahya515]

That sounds like one error you have found in the Quran. (Which now links nicely to one of your other threads )

I do not see scientific misunderstanding in both the bible and quran errors you skipped my question : why do people consider holy books as scientific books and put them under test? I said holy books in general.

 

As to the OP, maybe there isn't anything special about religion.

what if for an astronaut who is traveling to the moon and everything is OK according to measurements and science how he will feel OK about being harmed or dying only religion will comfort him, I do not see religion as something true or false I see it as a useful thing that deals with things like morals, society , destiny , death.

[Acme]

I do not see scientific misunderstanding in both the bible and quran errors you skipped my question : why do people consider holy books as scientific books and put them under test? I said holy books in general.

They consider them so when the holy books make claims about articles of science.

 

what if for an astronaut who is traveling to the moon and everything is OK according to measurements and science how he will feel OK about being harmed or dying only religion will comfort him, I do not see religion as something true or false I see it as a useful thing that deals with things like morals, society , destiny , death.

Presuming that only people of faith die comforted is a non sequitar.

[swansont]

what if for an astronaut who is traveling to the moon and everything is OK according to measurements and science how he will feel OK about being harmed or dying only religion will comfort him, I do not see religion as something true or false I see it as a useful thing that deals with things like morals, society , destiny , death.

 

Only religion? Religion is not required to deal with any of those things, as evidenced by the people who deal with such things every day, without religion.

[iStrangey]

I do not see scientific misunderstanding in both the bible and quran errors you skipped my question : why do people consider holy books as scientific books and put them under test? I said holy books in general.

what if for an astronaut who is traveling to the moon and everything is OK according to measurements and science how he will feel OK about being harmed or dying only religion will comfort him, I do not see religion as something true or false I see it as a useful thing that deals with things like morals, society , destiny , death.

 

i am not very religious my self however i do find it hard to see how something written 1439 years ago could 'advise' us in the decisions we make today and the decisions we make in the future. how ever if for instance religion didn't exist there would be a lot less charity donation as there are 65% of religious people donate to charity regularly as of religious causes and 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated.

Edited November 15, 2014 by iStrangey

[ajb]

I do not see scientific misunderstanding in both the bible and quran errors you skipped my question : why do people consider holy books as scientific books and put them under test? I said holy books in general.

Two reason I can see;

 

i) When the books make scientific claims.

ii) When some people start to believe the scientific claims in the book it is natural that the other people present evidence that these original claims are not correct.

[Robittybob1]

Two reason I can see;

 

i) When the books make scientific claims.

ii) When some people start to believe the scientific claims in the book it is natural that the other people present evidence that these original claims are not correct.

Scientific knowledge changes with time. So the evidence against the books works today but will that evidence too be lacking in 2,000 years time?

Do the Muslims accept that the Earth is a globe rather than flat? Hopefully if they rewrite the Koran they get that bit correct, and when the Christians rewrite Genesis they put in evolution.