Monotheism has failed Religion and Reductionism has failed Science to help them come to terms with each other..

Your views?

How's that..?

The late American scientist Stephen Jay Gould described religion and science as being non-overlapping magisteria. . .

. . . and, no, monotheism has not failed religion.

Science and belief in God don't counter react each other. Science doesn't expell the idea of God, only expresses to our understanding how God created the world and how he created it to operate. The difference and why it seems that science "cancels" out religion or "spiritual" belief is science just says "The world was created...." and the spiritual belief states "God created the world.." Or in other words science gives the credit to something(s) other then God, but nevertheless again doesn't cancel out the possibility of God being.

You don't need a brain to keep consciousness alive or else phenomena like NDE,OBE or reincarnation wouldn't have happened.

Brain is needed only to manifest our consciousness in our lives. Now, all the preaching about one all powerful God has taken away the focus from spiritualism. People are more bothered to please their gods than understanding their own consciousness.

Science on the other hand cannot explain NDE, OBE or reincarnation because of their closed mindset. The role of observer in quantum mechanics is well known but never understood.

'Consciousness' in spiritualism and 'Role of observer' in quantum phenomena are so close that they both can explain the creation of universe using a single hypothesis. Since Religion rests on 'Belief' and Science rest of 'Evidence' the two can't understand or complement each other.

Even when it comes to that my friend, how much "evidence" do you have outside of "heresay" or what some scientist(s)" said. Not downing or "putting down" science in itself. Just asking how much of that knowledge you possess as "science" that is taken on heresay accounts... eg., "what the scientists" say without further investigation?

Science in the mostso complicate instances that can't be varified by personal experience are taken as fact on the same basis "religion" or more specifically Christianity can be viewed on.

There is no commercial interest in exploring the truth when it comes to religious experiences, NDE & OBE, reincarnation and super-consciousness etc. This is a slap on the face of scientific fraternity and they look the other way when confronted.

Sometimes, they say soul is nothing but a million electrochemical activities in the brain cells or sometimes they say soul resides inside the nanotubes present in the brain. We know its a load of bull....!!

On the other hand when some religious preacher says the universe was created some six thousand years back by god, we know its a load of bull....!!

You should stick to talking about religion Cowboy cause science doesn't seem to be your strong suit...Science is knowledge based on testable explanations...It can be rationally explained and reliably applied...Science is also theory based on evidence...The only thing that changes scientific theory is new evidence and so far there is no new evidence that changes the theory of evolution into the Garden of Eden......

There is a lot of new evidence (from awhile ago) that one species cannot change into another though. With DNA research a new term was coined "intelligent design"

lol...

Don't know specifically bout your mention of the theory of evolution or "Garden of Eden".

But a "theory" in the long run is nothing more then an educated guess. And scientists/people of such knowledge don't like that claim as the reference of the word "guess". But in the end, that's all a theory truly boils down to.

Not demeaning Science at all, as we've come a long ways from where we were once and still have a long ways to go. Just yeah, bottom point.

Absolutely true, "apes" can not evolve into "humans" just as "humans" can't evolve into "apes" or fish or antyhing other one wishes to present. Yes we may have been and probably were more "ape-like" as we adapt with the weather/surroundings ect naturally. So we may have very well had more body hair and or maybe body fat/tissues at an earlier time. As we would need it till we evolved with our inventions/creation(s) of cloths ect.

From the fact that cloths "friction" and such would tare the hair falecules and other's off, thus then later "evolution" of a more "boldened" species along with other elements such as maybe enviroment changes, ect.

your point has some merit, but it's a little more than an educated guess... scientists sometimes spend lifetimes going over the math, studying artifacts all over the world, looking for new ways to prove it right or wrong... a hypothesis is an educated guess... god/bible would be a hypothesis, because there will never be a way to prove 95% of it...

Sort of... why get so defensive? Did not demean science, put it down, or anything of comparison. And God/bible would be more then a hypothesis my friend, it is in fact an autobiography. As most to all the books in the bible peter, paul, james, ect we written by those specfic people.

'Scientific' theory is quite a bit more than an educated guess...It is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world which has been REPEATEDLY confirmed through experiment or observation...It is a well substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that is acquired through REPEATED testing...Would you like me to REPEAT that for you?...

umm.. no

If you're talking to me Cheecha, Intelligent Design is just a flimsy disguise for Creationism...Proponents like to say evolution is wrong so Intelligent Design must be right, but the truth is disproving one thing does not prove another...Show me the evidence that disproves evolution...Details please..

You are not using the scientific definition of "theory".

Sorry again don't mean demean or antyhing, but weather it be scientific theory or just a theory, it's just an educated guess. Because if it were truly a "fact" it wouldn't be either "theories", it would be a scientific fact. That's the difference between theory and fact, one is absolute without a doubt, the other is "guessing" at points... or in other hands stating things along the lines of "assumptions" it will continue to be true, but again has no absolute fact behind it.

Uh, no. A scientific theory explains how something works. It isn't a guess because it has been tested for accuracy.

Sadly, scientific laymen have their own definition of "theory" that is different from the definition used by scientists.