Religion or Science - How do they compare?

This reminds me of an interesting blog post that I read recently.
Is There Evidence for Easter? A Scientist’s List. written by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD His blog ends with this question:

quote:

---

So, we are left with an invitation. Will we too believe? Will we be curious? Will we respond with trust?

---

If you say that science trusts nothing, you need to differentiate between science and some scientists, such as the one who wrote this blog.
Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD is a physician, scientist, and Assistant Professor of Laboratory and Genomic Medicine at Washington University in Saint Louis. Science and Faith exist in peace in my own mind. I utilize science in order to hone my diet and manage my addictions, but I also realize that I need Faith in order to overcome some of the cognitive dissonance found in daily living.

I was unaware that he needed help. Please explain.

And it depends if you know who the Groom is and who the Bride is.
Bowling isn't really that fulfilling.

Remember that by definition religious "understanding" does not require nor even seek evidence in the way that science has to do. Belief involves chosen ideology that supports dogma. Granted that we will be unlikely to arrive at a consensus as to what is obvious without resorting to embracing either belief or evidence as the gold standard.

Not at all. What I am saying is that you cant expect evidence or the scientific method to corroborate your faith.

Good advice!

I started out by picking a sermon by Dr.Dan Olinger titled Absence of Contradiction, Part 1.He picks a list from infidels.org, taken primarily from the KJV, and found 69 contradictions with which to provide a basis for this particular sermon. I expect some bias from this preacher, but am giving him a fair listen.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I attempted to find a transcript for the sermon that I picked, but found that transcripts cost $50.00!!! I then went to the church website but so far have not found any transcripts anywhere. This makes it rather difficult for us to discuss these things.

Apart from becoming more aware of the differences, how did they in any way become more like God? And do we even have a clue as to how God was? All we have are human stories.

so who is "us"?

So because the book says so, you would conclude that at least in that case, God considered some audience somewhere as his equals??? You could start a whole new religion with that kind of thinking!

Because those were Bronze Age goobers who had limited knowledge of reality. Todays goobers have a better grasp of reality in most cases. We have established that the book was written, edited, and redacted by humans. I maintain that today's humans are as capable of writing about God as any were back then. There is no sin at revising the teachings in light of new understanding. We do have a few major questions to guide us...namely:

Did God exist before humans or did humans make God up?

Is God simply some character that makes mistakes and needs correcting? Though a case can be made for this based on the old book, I certainly would write that type of absurd thinking out of any revised book. What good is a God if humans themselves can correct Him?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

Speak for yourself. I see no evidence that mainstream science has rejected the resurrection. Perhaps you don't.It's your loss.What would really be cool is if you decided to be a real contrarian and argue for His existence for a change!

Well, you do have a point. Faith is faced with the same dilemma over in the fossils thread. She tries to make the argument that there are facts that support creationism but is embroiled in an endless argument over what facts they are.All that I will defend...a point that has been challenged many times---is that No God is not the default position.

People have no reason to need such creatures (or imaginations). Arguably, many people do in fact think yes. While unicorns and fairies are not part of the popular imagination, God, Creator of all seen and unseen is. Moreover, many believe that such a character can be communicated with through the human character of Jesus Christ, which many also believe lives eternally. My point is that there is no majority that thinks or imagines No. Despite tangles fervant hopes to the contrary, Christianity is not dying a slow death anytime soon.In fact, evidence suggests that the reality of the next decade will provide even more reasons to have a reason or a need for a Creator. Humans can't seem to get out of their own way. The U.S. debt is an unsolvable crisis Once people begin to face the pains of the future and see the reality of China crushing the US role as global superpower, I predict that at least in the US, Christianity will see a huge upsurge, and the public will again turn to the church to help them get what government will no longer be able to provide.Science will never die, thankfully---and we will need that also. With limited money, people will find that logic, reason, and reality won't satisfy their demands and that prayer will again be the preferred solution...as well as social communion.