Is Religion Completely At War With Science, Or Are They Complementing Each Other?

I ask that you read the rest of my post. It seems self explanitory to me, but if it isn't to you, I'll answer.

Which post was that?

Well, I looked again but only saw the one sentence. You said: I guess I don't see how that applies to your earlier statement that dating, genes or whatnot disprove GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, listen...Read the entire post that I wrote concerning science, genes, and whatnot.

Post number twenty four.(added by AN)
Message 24This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-27-2004 05:02 PM

I did comment that it is not most Christians that have a problem with this.In addition I think it is important to understand that it is that minority of Christians who are literalists who are the one using Science to disprove God.They don't mean to do that, of course, but it is as if they take the Bible from the Church pew where it belongs and put it in the street in front of a bulldozer. When it gets ground into the blacktop they blame the bulldozer operator. The bulldozer isn't the least bit interested in the book or the church where it came from. If they stay away from the street where they don't belong then there is no problem.

This one? I did read it. But I still don't understand. It's probably because I'm old and slow so go easy with me.You said: I just don't for the life of me see how any Christian could see dating, genes or what not disproving GOD. I also cannot understand any Christian, or any person for that matter, trying not to think about such things. And I'm honestly baffeled when Christians find anything like Evolution hostile towards them.I have to admit, I simply don't understand such folk. It does puzzle me mightly.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that I understand what you mean, and I can agree. It seems to me that literalists(whatever they are) are affraid of being wrong. Only a speculation, of course.

I can find hostility in it because it threatens what they belive. Some people cannot either seperate or combine the two enough to suit them. Many are so comfortable in their religion, no matter what it is, that they do not want anything to contradict their legends and stories. It would be like taking a person from an undiscovered tribe in Africa and showing them how animals are related and how humans 'evolved'. They would be reluctant to even acknowledge the information shown to them because they are so rooted into their beliefs.

I don't think your african tribesman would have as much trouble. I've tried to explain to my daughter why she shouldn't be so hard on the fundies. They have been told, over and over, that if the Bible isn't literally ture that the whole thing is wrong. They have been told that to suggest such a thing means they are doome to eternal torment. Geez! Of course the ideas are threatening.The tribesman would not be burdened with such nonsense. False as it is both scientifically and theologically.The literalists (those who have some idea of a 'literal'** interpretation of the Bible) have been lied to or lying for all their lives. That is a huge handicap to overcome.** literalist is a word that I prefer over fundamentalist and certainly over any other religious word. It is meant to mean those who take the Bible, particularly Genesis as being an accurate description of the actual unfolding of events. I include both YECers (6,000 year old earth) and OECers. I don't think you can include IDers in there though since most of them do actually accept most of evolution.

So which came first? The Creator or the creation?
God or Dirt. Basic chemical elements or a divine intelligence?I respect that you are asking questions. None of us may have the answers that you seek, but some of us feel comfortable with Faith in God. Is the ultimate source and authority for the verification of human wisdom found within human wisdom? Conversely, is God a higher divine consciousness that is inconceivable by definition yet who chooses to relate to humanity?Is the unknowable knowable by faith or by scientific verification?
Of the two, which is the most important criteria??

Phat, if it's UNknowable, it's uh, UNKNOWABLE???? right? If it can be known by faith, science, fortune cookies, or whatever then it isn't unknowable.As to faith the question is faith in what? In existence or in books written by men? hint, the Bible as well as Koran, Vedas, Book of Mormon, etc are all written by men, are all in human languages and using human concepts and are knowledge, hence knowable.lfen

How on Earth can science disprove God?I am inclined to point to the immaterial pink unicorns that us philosophy students like so much. If a pink unicorn is an immaterial being, how on Earth can we "disprove" it's existence? If the unicorn is inside a room, how on Earth can we prove that it's actually not there? Since immaterial matter theoretically does not have any affect at all on the physical world, how on Earth can we use science, which is designed only to test out the physical world, to probe the immaterial pink unicorn.Now, apply that to God. How on Earth can science disprove something that isn't suppose to be physical in the first place?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

I could have sworn that you said before that you're not married and don't have any kid... must be me getting early senile...

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

My point is that God, being unknowable, can choose to make Himself known to us even if we are unable to find Him. Darned if I can convince anyone else of my strong belief, however!Edit to add: Lam, you stated it better than I could in your post. How can I prove concepts of thought akin to belief? Ideas are words as are beliefs, but they are not subject to validity until agreed upon, and then only unofficially in the arena at large.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-07-2004 03:54 AM