Balancing Faith and Science

While it may be true that ordinary people tend to think in such black and white term, that you have to accept one or the other, the quote does not accurately describe the actual case of the matter.Quite simply put, there is only ONE math language. Ideally speaking, there is only ONE science language. There are MANY religions.My question is if you manage to find that happy medium between religion and science in which you incorporate both in your findings, which of the following do you say?A) Praise be to God!
B) Praise be to Allah!
C) Praise be to Buddha!
D) Praise be to Me!
E) Praise be to ___________! I can't say that I know a lot about Collins or the interview, but I definitely know that it is impossible for science and religion to complement each other without one yielding to the other one.Remember Galileo? Remember Copernicus? Remember the 800 years period when science was plasphemy (AKA Dark Ages)?Even in modern times we face the danger of science giving way to religion. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any creo-vs-evo debate.Here is a scenario. What if through emperical evidence science is able to prove without doubt that there was never a Jesus? Should christianity change its doctrine or should the scientists be burned alive?

No, but "goddunit" is never an option. Ya, in the early 1990's. And even then, they still maintained that they were at the time.You can't just go around burning people and then say sorry 500 years later. They did not accept the BBT at the time not because it implied a creator but because the theory was at its infancy at the time so there weren't overwhelming evidence to support it.Just so you know, the steady state theory (which implied that there was never a creator) never gain any popularity. If scientists were that unobjective, wouldn't you think that they would have rallied in support of the steady state? Oh, so you are ignoring the genesis account all together? Remember what I said about the relationship between science and religion and that one must yield to the other? This is a perfect example of one (religion) yielding to the other (science). I like Ra, Apophis, Anubis, and the other Egyptian gods better. Perhaps science should be the study of what's under Ra's influence? Name 10 discoveries that religion has contributed that has helped humanity. Actually, just name 1.Personally, I don't see what religion can contribute to further bettering humanity as a whole.If anything, every scientific leap forward or social progress for the better have always been resisted, or even halted, by religion. How about this, to be fair, what if there is emperical evidence that Jesus was gay, or that he was a prostitute, or that he was a murderer, or that he was anything but what christianity would define as a good person?He was, after all, fishing for men.

Philosophy refers to the essence of all human thought. Religion refers to the survival of faith. Neither can be empirically tested or skepticized. Oh geez, not the people argument again.I can't recall his name off the top of my head right now, but there was a philosopher in the 19th century who pointed out that there are only 2 ways for a person to receive a communication from god: traditional and personal revelation. Without writing a whole 15 page philosophy paper, I'm just going to ask you to believe that there are problems with both of these choices.If the ways god communicates to people are questionable, then there will never ever be such thing as true religion. The best thing you will always have are a group of people claiming to have "truth" on their side. When I say religion, I was referring to this group of people, unless you can convince me that there is another way god can communicate with people and that there is such a thing is religion without people. Well, when the theory was first proposed someone named it "Big Bang" as a way to ridicule it. It stuck. Again, anything beside the literal reading of the bible is religion yielding to science.First the Earth was flat because the bible said it's flat (I actually have the bible passage that says the Earth was flat). Then, overwhelming evidence forced the world powerfuls (religious brainwashers) to admit that the bible wasn't really saying the Earth was flat, but the wind was still blowing north and south because it said so in the bible. Oh my goodness, we found out through science that the wind actually blows east and west. So, the bible wasn't literal in that sense either. BUT the 6 days creation account was true because the bible said so. AND all hell broke lose.My problem is you non-literalists keep moving back the goal post trying to adhere to science while at the same time trying to influence science in your favor (not you you, I meant you in general). At least with the literalists we know where they stand. Then Jebus was also metaphorical and the trinity was really there to confuse peons. I hope you know where I'm going with this. No, it really seems like you are suggesting the opposite, that religion is a determining factor in what we conclude in science.I, too, also believe that there is only one truth. To quote my philosophy professor 2 years ago (yes, my profs are my idols), "...not a single person on the planet know what truth is."Don't get me wrong, I am not a relativist. I just don't believe... won't accept that you, or anyone at all, have a monopoly on truth. And how are the things you listed above scientific? Remember that we are discussing about merging science and religion. You are missing the point. It is possible (very very improbable, though) that we will find evidence that will force us to conclude that he had at least 1 single homosexual relation with another man. It is impossible to find any natural evidence that he was the Jebus was the sun god. Rationality is subjective. You know that! I believe we are on topic. Unless Collins is here, we will never be strictly on topic.Oh, so since he knows so much about science we should just throw out all the other opinions of other scientists that disagree with him?For a scientist to make a credulous claim on religious belief is like a desdamona-like person making a credulous claim on science, or what stars are made of... or how people "share" DNA.... Sure, they may know a thing or two, or they may even know a lot about it, but that doesn't mean it's absolute truth.

Ok, my hardheadedness have made me misunderstand you a little bit. So, are you saying that true christianity is about picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe out of the bible? If this is so, by what key or ledgend do we use? But you said: Religion deals with the supernatural. Agreed? If so, how can the supernatural compliment discipline that strictly deal with the natural? Enlighten me on this. You have no idea how many times I have heard christians say that people like Collins and yourself are not really christians.What confuses me is that IFF christianity is all about picking and choosing (correct me if I'm wrong) what to believe and what not to believe in the bible, what key or ledgend do we use? But I have already pointed out to you several examples of how one is forced to yield to the other.Quick review (in no particular order): Galileio, Copernicus, Dr. Frankenstein (just joking), Heliocentric vs. Geocentric, flat vs. round, and evolution vs. creation.Each time science makes a finding that contradicts a religious doctrine, one of them has to go. Sometimes it was the science and sometimes it was the religion.Are you going to say that it wasn't really christianity back then?