Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

quote:

---

We can't know what the right way is. It is a matter of faith and belief. In some ways though, not so different than science. However, I agree that ultimately people are hopeful that their unproven scientific beliefs will be proven to be correct.

---

Why not just be open to this from the very beginning? And yes it IS fundamentally different from science because science doesn't tell people they are going to hell if they don't embrace the current idea that's supported by evidence. If someone wants to persist in their religious dogma and are relying on it one day being vindicated, then by all means they can waste their time (after all we are free to believe whatever we want), just don't try to convince others to waste their time when there's no evidence. How about it?

quote:

---

I look to science to inform me as to how the world we perceive evolved and how we can best make use of what we have and how we can best preserve it.

---

No. If you already have your mind made up about certain religious matters you do NOT look to science to inform you, you are simply okay with the certain scientific discoveries that don't shake up your pet beliefs.

quote:

---

I look to my faith to inform me of the nature of the God who I believe is responsible for our existence and to give me guidance of how I should live my life, realizing that I can't know that I am right in the same way that I can know what the speed of light is.

---

When you believe in a religious idea like, for instance, that Zeus is responsible for lightning, you don't cling on to such an idea thinking "well, I think Zeus is true and he does cause lightning, but if we do figure how lightning can be explained without Him, then I'll give up my faith".If that IS the way you view your religion then it isn't a religion at all. If you do have a certain level of unwavering belief that you believe is true regardless of what science says, then you're automatically incompatible with embracing science, even if you tell yourself that they can harmoniously abide by each other.It is true that you can embrace evolution or any specific scientific principle or discovery and still be religious, but you can't embrace the "entirety of the scientific process" for all matters completely if you're religious because religion holds certain matters (small or great) to be "untouchable" and "sacred"...fundamentally "not wrong" no matter what science may eventually have to say.I've already been in your camp, it's called blinding yourself to reality. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

jar, you can throw around mildly malicious insults regarding the size of one's (in this case, my) cerebral capacity and also assert, despite reality, that you believe in both, but it doesn't change the incompatibility of the two ideas in a general sense. I've provided a formidable argument showing that you cannot have both unless you simply regard religion as a potentially temporary belief that can be possibly shown to be false in the future -- which will automatically make it lose its religiosity.You can believe in certain scientific ideas that HAVE been discovered and still hold on to certain religious ideas simultaneously, but you can't fully be in harmony with all possible evidence-based scientific conclusions which may conflict with your core beliefs.Let's take Christianity and look at the different extremes represented. Let's say that 1 is very mild and 10 is the most radically fundamental. Even if you choose 1, you're still clinging on to a firm and unwavering belief in SOME aspect of that religion and believe it to be absolutely "the truth" regardless of what science may reveal in the future. You can point to extremes to make yourself look immune from the same fate but the reality belies your position. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

And if science shows the whole thing to be improbable and explainable without the Christian deity, then what?

I'm sorry but what you seem to think are "a formidable argument" is really nothing that was not debated and caste aside as sophomoric back before I really was a sophomore. Bullshit. Sorry but that is simply another example of you making unfounded assertions, and as I said, when the seventh graders tried such "a formidable argument" the received a pat on the head for effort and a suggestion that they read "Language in Thought and Action".So perhaps you might be able to support your assertion. Remember, just because YOU can't do something does not mean all of us cannot do something.The very idea that you can assign levels like 1-10 to define something as "mild" or "fundamental" simply shows you really don't have a basis yet for what you want to say. Fundamental and mild are totally unrelated. It would like creating a scale with limes on one end and rocking horses on the other. It's just word salad.That's okay. It takes time and experience to develop such concepts. Keep trying.

Blah blah blah, I hit your touchy defense mechanisms and the sirens are going off.Alright, since you keep going in circles let's do this by me asking you a question and you answering.Are there any teachings that are part of your religion which you hold to be true no matter what? If so, provide me with an example. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

You really don't have a clue do you?But here are some teachings I do hold to be true pretty much no matter what. As always when someone asks about absolutes I need to give a chuckle because while I would hope all of these teachings would be true I of course and also understand that there are also instances when I would say they are false.That we should love others as we love ourselves.That we are charged to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, heal the sick, teach the ignorant.That I will likely be judged based on what i have done in this life.That I have the capability to know right from wrong and I am charged to try to chose wisely since almost never will the choice really be simply right or wrong.That when I fail I should acknowledge my failure, be contrite, try to make amends and try not to make the same mistake in the future.There are five to start with.

Are these tenants tied in with any particular faith and a deity or just ideas you hold independently?

You still seemed locked into binary thinking. Sad. Open up and throw binary thinking away.Hopefully they are tenets held by many religions. But they are also the tenets that Jesus taught.

I'm not locked into anything, I'm asking you basic questions about your religion and you're side-stepping them on purpose.Let me start over.Are you a Christian?

You keep equating whatever Christian beliefs you once held with my beliefs. Where have I said that if one doesn't believe as I do that they are going to hell? Why are you wasting your time trying to convince others that your beliefs are correct? Don't we all try to convince others that our beliefs whether it be about politics, religion or who we believe will win the Super Bowl are correct. It is part of the human condition. There you go again knocking down the strawman you have set up. How about you give me a specific of where you think that my religious beliefs inform what should be a scientific conclusion or belief. Just because we have figured out the cause of lightning and understand it as a natural occurrence, tells us nothing about whether or not Zeus is responsible for the natural process that causes lightning. You continuously misrepresent my beliefs and attack the strawman that you set up in your OP. How about an example. I have a hunch you never were in my camp, as I assume that the position that you are attacking is the position you once held which is quite different than mine.

Science does not show that, though some individual scientists might reach that conclusion.

A devout cradle creedal Episcopalian who grew up in a devout Christian family, educated in a Christian school, who helped found new churches, taught adult and child Sunday schools and have been the webmaster for several Christian church websites.So far I have not side-stepped any questions, basic or otherwise.

Wrong. Science has already shown many things that were once (and in some circles, still is) mainstream Christian held beliefs, based on the Bible, to be basically false. Science, of course, isn't out to prove anything or anybody wrong, it's just a mechanism of discovering reality -- a method we either accept based on the fact that it HAS worked and continues to work or something we reject based on wishful thinking. In that journey, science will ultimately step on the toes of some dearly held religious beliefs.For example, you could still maintain to me that lightning and storm gods have not been scientifically shown to be demonstrably improbable and that only "some scientists have reached that conclusion". But how honest would you be?Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

I grew up in a very devout Christian home as well. But then again, I didn't ask you how you're raised, I asked you what you are.

And I answered to explain what I am.I am a cradle creedal Episcopalian.Did you not read "A devout cradle creedal Episcopalian who grew up in a devout Christian family, educated in a Christian school, who helped found new churches, taught adult and child Sunday schools and have been the webmaster for several Christian church websites." as I posted in Message 27?Or maybe you are not familiar with the recognized Christian sects?