The
comparison between religion and science is a bit of an unfair way of knowing
because. The basic definition and claim of knowledge is that such a claim of
the mind which can be reached experimentally for all, apart from which any such
claim would be merely a claim of knowledge, i.e. knowledge is a concept of the
mind of knowledge any verification outside of is possible.
While How can religion be free from such a
definition of knowledge? Therefore, it is not possible to call religion
knowledge without creating some kind of experience in religious knowledge.
Because Religion is based on beliefs, while belief means acknowledging facts
that cannot be reached by any known source of knowledge.
Whereas
the scientific knowledge of science is based on experience and observation,
that is, the knowledge of material and perceptible things is not without
experience and senses. But the important question that arises here is the
concept of reality, what is reality, whether it is in a religious sense or in a
non-religious statement, but in relation to the fact that reality must be
beyond three things. That is to say, the reality, the place, the place and the
transcendence of time are the only things that try to put knowledge into
practice.
But
when the demand of intellect and consciousness is that it perceives the truth,
how is it possible that the intellect can reach the reality beyond time and
space in a scientific way? Therefore, what is clear to the intellect is that
these sensory and intellectual knowledge are correct, but these two sources of
knowledge are not complete, the incompleteness of which is self-evident to both
of them. Besides, having another path becomes one of the possibilities and this
path is the path of conscience.
No comments:
Post a Comment