Objections to religion.

Objections to religion.
Since the 19th century, for the natural sciences, it has accumulated against religion that they have become a real obstacle for people on the path to God. Only visible and tangible were considered realistic. Physics has long-buried this primitivism. There are still people who want to see everything. They only recognize what they see. As if humanity did not have a whole other range of cognitive paths. Maybe the time will come, the time will come when people will not believe only what they see. We can’t see everything. We do not see whether the water in the soup is salty or sweet as we do not see whether the iron is magnetic, whether the wires are charged with electricity, or whether there are electromagnetic waves in his room. There are things of the spirit that cannot be seen and touched, although they undoubtedly exist. There is no worse prejudice than that really is only what can be ascertained by the natural sciences.

Academician Charvát wrote. When someone demands strict proof of God, it is as if he is asking for something daring. May God be God in some evidence. Are we not treating God then as a physical object? Maybe by proof to reach God? Is it possible to grasp God by evidence ?. For the natural sciences to know means to mean at the same time points to control, submit, get into one’s power, or use. This is how we know the laws of nature, subdue them, hold them and use them. And all this kind of coldly and impersonally. Knowing God is something completely different. We cannot know God by controlling Him, by submitting Him. We cannot know God impersonally and disinterestedly. We can know God only as a living person, with confidence in openness and love. To prove the existence of God is, therefore, something other than to prove something in geometry. Above all, one must know God for oneself and get to know him as a living person. When I proved God logically, I still lacked something important; I may not have found him as a human being yet. He can remain indifferent to me. I can know a person if I have not seen him for myself, and I often do not note his existence. Only when I start to like a person can I feel that he exists.

The natural sciences give us cold and factual knowledge. And they give us, especially the ability of details. However, the amount of detailed knowledge about the material world that science offers us is not enough for our lives. A pile of more information doesn’t have to be worth more than a pile of bricks from a collapsed building. The natural sciences do not know the beginning of things. Therefore, they cannot give us exact data about their origin. Science takes things as given. And we’ve been asking ourselves questions for ages. From where? and why? Where is the man from? And why is he human? A certain intoxication of science and technology has long blocked our path to God. The embarrassing arguments against God by satellites are known. If we are rightly proud of our science, which has revealed the complex laws and ingenuity of the world, we should realize that we are only syllabifying existing things here; we are telling them. But we have not invented this ingenuity or these laws.