To talk about this affirmation first we have to look at the meaning of understanding. Faith based believers and scientists would probably differ in their definitions and therefore disagree right from the start.
A religious person would probably say that understanding the world means knowing how to become good person, how to live a good existence and match God’s program. A scientist would probably argue, saying that learning the world has a wide understanding and very good comprehension of how the world works including theories like advancement and understanding why and exactly how things arise. Another minor problem with this statement is its inference that one can not be a religious believer and a scientist when ever in fact there are numerous religious scientists who seem to have scientific research and religious beliefs existing well in their lives.
If we happen to be defining understanding as understanding how to live a good life, however believe that the Bible and Religious Believers do understand more about the world than Scientists do. Religious Believers have a much better understanding of how a universe and mans place in it was build, but it’s hard for people to understand correctly because it’s not in scientific conditions, it’s in myths and metaphors. You can’t find it with our readily available scientific instruments, it’s anything you experience. Religious Believers have direct guidance from their Holy texts, at the. g. pertaining to the Judaism faith, the Torah on how to live their life.
They can be taught, by the Ten Tips, that they are to not steal, to never commit adultery and not to murder. 1 criticism of scientists is the fact a number of assumption are made to offer parameters to the experiment. Also perception can be fallible, as we expect to discover things, and so we see all of them.
We don’t expect to find them, and so we miss them away. In response for this, in the parable the unseen gardener; in which the religious who trust trusts the fact that gardener arrived but couldn’t be seen and the other (scientist) believing that there couldn’t be a novel reader because there was not a empirical proof of this. This kind of shows that even though there was zero evidence of the gardener or perhaps God they will still maintain a belief, whereas the scientist needed to be proven. Several claim that believers only wish hope.
Faith based Believers wish for the returning of their “invisible gardener”, whilst New Atheists (Richard Dawkins and his followers) have no anticipations of a new life following death, thereforelive their lives without anxiety about an immutable God smiting them straight down. In this scenario, one could argue that the Religious Believer is playing it secure, however they even now understand the universe better, oftentimes they see it as an almighty being’s creation. In conclusion, I believe that, although Scientists have proof of the age of the entire world, and that they have proven various facts from the Earth, They do not have nearly as good guidance while Religious Believers do on understanding life.
