Holy books and science

Don't you go and instantly post "ZOMG ATHIEST DIE THERE'S SCIENCE IN TEH BIBLE", becuase this isn't the topic.
Rather, a question.

Should Holy books, Most of which are a Diety's final revelation to humankind, contain science? Are Holy books simply a source of philosophy than scientific study?

This is something I have wondered long and hard, I don't want to be Blunt, so I'm not posing any analysis or critique (Becuase I am ever so bad at it).

So, what do you think?

Well, everything contains science. Sure, there's scientific things in the Bible (http://bible.cc/job/26-7.htm, earth hanging upon nothing which is true) but that doesn't make it a scientific book.

I don't fully understand your question, though. Are you saying that Holy books should contain science, as in actually having scientific formulas written out? Or should it have a special portion dedicated to "scientific studies?"

i think he's saying, can a holy book be used as a scientific source. the answer is a profound no. holy books are about dispensing philosophy and history.

"Holy" books should not be treated as science, however they shouldn't be ignored because they are religious.

Additionally, if a God were to send its final message, wouldn't it have the cure to cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases so people will acknowledge it as truth?

Holy books are not sources of scientific fact. If they happen upon scientific truths, that is purely accidental. In this sense, though, they should be treated like all forms of pre-scientific literature.

What I mean, as to add to this topic,, is if Religious books were true, then wouldn't thay contain at least some science?

It depends if your referring to the parts that were just meant to tell what happened and aren't meant to be taken literally, or the ones that are actual historical accounts of events written by witnesses (i.e. Old Testament vs. New Testament). If it's the former, no it's not meant to be taken as scientific fact since it didn't really happen that way. As for the latter, some parts do contain scientific fact, but shouldn't be used as evidence since we don't know how much happened through God's divine powers an how much could actually happen.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

It depends if your referring to the parts that were just meant to tell what happened and aren't meant to be taken literally, or the ones that are actual historical accounts of events written by witnesses (i.e. Old Testament vs. New Testament). If it's the former, no it's not meant to be taken as scientific fact since it didn't really happen that way. As for the latter, some parts do contain scientific fact, but shouldn't be used as evidence since we don't know how much happened through God's divine powers an how much could actually happen.

Did I exclusively mention the Bible?

No, but I don't have enough knowledge on other holy books to comment on them, otherwise I would. Am I not allowed to contribute?

It was just an example, chill out.

Originally Posted by Triforce of the Gods

It was just an example, chill out.

No, no, don't worry. You can say what you want it dosen't matter at all.
But if somethings aren't meant to be taken literally, then what are?

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Did I exclusively mention the Bible?

Did you ever exclude the bible from the conversation? So we're only aloud to talk about other holy books like the Quran? Honestly, TotG is correct, most people are not familiar with any other holy book besides the bible. So should those people, the majority, be excluded from the conversation?

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

No, no, don't worry. You can say what you want it dosen't matter at all.
But if somethings aren't meant to be taken literally, then what are?

The parts that were written by eye witnesses, while the ones that were written by the people "inspired by God."

Originally Posted by Stεvε

Did you ever exclude the bible from the conversation? So we're only aloud to talk about other holy books like the Quran? Honestly, TotG is correct, most people are not familiar with any other holy book besides the bible. So should those people, the majority, be excluded from the conversation?

Why should I exclude anyone from this discussion? I never said anything on that line.

It depends on what said holy book says.

Most holy books don't claim to be books with science in them.

As an example, the Qur'an doesn't clash with science as long as you don't take it literally, since the Qur'an does outright have a verse that states something along the lines of "verily, parts of this book are poetic."

Most holy books should not be scrutinized for scientific facts; instead, they shouldn't clash with what is true.