Balancing Faith and Science

Sounds similar to the Argument from Incredulity to me.Basically you're saying that if science cannot detect something then it cannot exist. Thats irrational to me.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 07-07-2005 12:59 PM

It is possible for them to complement each other, with niether one yielding, when they agree on something.For example, there's a passage in the bible that says that god made man from dirt. This could be a religious belief. If we scientifically investigate both dirt and man, we can conclude that they are made from the same kinds of atomic particles. Science could complement this religious belief with niether one yielding to the other.A little over-simplified example but I hope you get my point.

If atheists/evolutionists get to bitch when the christians mis-identify or misunderstand them, or when the christians think somehthing wrong about them, then I get to bitch when the opposite happens.These statements are just not true from the christians that I know from my community and others (I'm not sure about the baptists in the deep south though). The vast majority of christians are not how you described.

Sounds like you've contradicted yourself. Your beliefs have no real basis behind them either and are just as irrational as you say the belief in god is.

Its these things that exist that are out of the reach of science that have lead me to believe that science cannot detect everything. So, because something has not been detected by science is no reason to assume that it doesn't exist. The existance of the things that cannot be detected by science are some of the reasons why I have made a rational decision to believe in god.I think that believing in god can be rational. What is irrational is when I take it one step further and choose a specific religion, say christianity. I also believe that Jesus is god. This belief is irrational and based on faith and what I've read about him in the bible.

I filled in the gap in knowledge with my own personal subjective feelings and interpretations of those feelings to make a rational decision about the world we live in. That decision includes the existance of a god.

Despite the impossibility of evidence of non-existance....yes.You cannot know that orgonians don't exist just because there is no evidence of them. You can assume that they don't for all practical purposes, but you can't know that they don't.

whoa, whoa, whoa.....Slow down, Turbo.I'm not claiming my position is truth, I claiming its rational.

you mean re-write the posts that I just posted today?no.Read what I've already posted and reply to those.

now THATS irrational.

subjective ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Moodily introspective.
Existing only in the mind; illusory.rational ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-nl)
adj.
Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Of sound mind; sane.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.Using these definitions, I don't see how that because something is subjective it cannot be rational.If something proceeds from, or takes place in, my mind while I am of sound mind, or have the ability to reason, then, according to these definitions, said thing (ie a belief in god) could be both subjective and rational.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 07-07-2005 09:04 PM

lol, that was the only one that I thought was not irrationalLets look at what you said again. In the first quote you've defined what beliefs are irrational (bolded). In the second quote you provided us with your beliefs (bolded), which, according to your own definition, are irrational.