Religion vs. Science Question:?

I'll go with the one which has a success rate of several orders of magnitude over the other. I'll let you guess which one that is.

this may be a thought that assumes ideology will result interior an analogous existence variety and that is in straightforward terms a private determination ingredient. historic previous shows that what we've self belief governs how we act and it filters into law, training and scientific direction. technological expertise today won't be able to prepare or disprove religious concerns neither is it in all probability to interior the close to destiny. If it ought to this section would uninteresting through fact the solutions would all be self obtrusive. Your thought is actual that technological expertise and faith can co-exist which they do and maximum of technological expertise is involved in operational concerns and is not any longer afflicted by way of theory structures as that is all measurable and could be examined. this is purely commencing place technological expertise the place hypothesis is rife and the dogma is greater fixated on the outcomes than the unquestionably technological expertise. I agree along with your appropriate which you're able to have the two and with an open recommendations i think of all of us can.

I'm having a moment of clarity. My Dad died horribly from cancer 6 years ago. I watched him waste away to nothing and cry out with horrible pain on a daily basis. The doctors and science failed my Dad. They couldn't save him.

The only peace and comfort my Dad had in those last horrible days was his Faith in God and prayer. These things gave him comfort when no doctor or medicine could. When my Dad drew his last breath, he was holding my hand and he smiled. I said, "Dad, you're smiling. Why?" And he said, "I love you. And I'm going home."

Science can only go so far and do so much. It is very limited. Where science fails, God takes over and does what science can never do.

I choose the room full of people praying. Because when cancer invades your body, you are going to need more than science and medicine to get you through to it's ultimate end.

1.

I choose to think outside the box by choosing not to choose either door, because treatment of a cancer should not be an either-or proposition: we need both the competent care and the benefit of prayer. The two go hand in hand.

2.

On the other hand, so what if the doctor in question is an atheist, and a murderer of unborn children (an assumption

God can still use this atheist doctor as a tool for the healing of His children: think of God's use of Darius, Nebuchadneezer, and the king of Syria for and against the children of Israel after they disobeyed, and those men and nations were out and out pagans. God still used them, just like He can stil use the doctor. (The unworthiness of the minister hinderth not the nature of the sacrament, as the Articles of Religion say) The doctor is still responsible to God for his own actions.

3.

Even then, there is no guarantee of a successful treatment through either approach. In the end our lives are in God's hands, not that of physiciaans, religious leaders, or even ourselves.

I look good in hats....so Chemo it is.

I will always go to a Doctor for medical treatment. I will always go to a holy man for spiritual matters.

I will always take my car to the mechanic when it is not running properly.

The body is a vehicle,like the car. It makes sense to take it to the mechanic.

The vehicle is not the driver, however. For driver issues, I seek a higher source of treatment.

As a Catholic, I would go to the doctor, since faith is compatable with reason. Faith tells me that all healing comes from God, and reason tells me that we are to make use of doctors.

The elite religious people of my faith are humble and don't try to manipulate God with silly ultimatums, nor do they seek attention for themselves. But medical studies show that a supporting faith community who prays for/with patients, they tend to have a better recovery.

The immorality of the doctor (killing babies) has no bearing on the good (cancer treatment) because of motive, intent, and consequences.

Lets break down your question

You do not say which room will cure you of the cancer

What you are saying is God (1st room) versus Science (2nd room)

There are equal successes and losses on both sides and yet there are still no cures.

I believe the cure lies in both rooms co-existing as one room

A person has cancer. This person is an ardent Atheist, leads demonstrations against Christianity, campaigns against prayer in school & public places, wants "In God We Trust" taken off our currancy, wants "One Nation Under God" taken out of the Pledge of Alligance. Wants no Christian Christmas displays, mocks, is arrogant, and rude to Christians. This person believes in evolution, is pro abortion, and pro gay marriage, This person goes to a hospital for cancer treatment.Room one has Christian doctors with the best state of the art cancer fighting facilities and they pray for their patients. The next room has Atheist doctors only with little or no proper equipment.

Which room would the Atheist choose?

I'll pick second room and pray from God myself as God says in the Holy Quran that God is nearer to us than our artery of life and souls.

I find it interesting that when a doctor who treated cancer patients was himself diagnosed with cancer, he chose alternative treatment (no chemo). Then he wrote a book about it and got richer, yet.