Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Religion vs. Science
Biology 103
2002 First Paper
On Serendip
Religion vs. Science
By Student Contributor
I grew up with the impression that science and religion were incompatible. Maybe it was because I went to Catholic school, and my religion teacher thought I was trying to be sarcastic when I asked things like, "If the pope is infallible, why did he say that Galileo was wrong about the sun being the center of the universe?". When she answered, "Because the pope didn't know any better", I said, "Isn't he supposed to know better if he's the pope?", and the teacher told me to stop asking dumb questions and said we'd get into it later (which of course we never did). So out of fear of flunking fifth grade religion AND science, I adopted the policy that what was taught in Science class applied only to science, and ditto for Religion.
Nine years later, I realize that maybe my questions weren't so dumb. Some people spend their lives trying to bring out the similarities between religion and science, while others spend their lives trying to tear the two apart. For my paper, I wanted to explore possible reasons why these two opposing sides have never been able to find common ground enough to unite upon (fade in War: Why Can't We Be Friends?).
One reason religion is unwilling to familiarize itself with science because science offers simple, valid, irrefutable and, above all, logical explanations for some of the "miracles" described in holy books. The Nile, for example, is known to turn red when it is overgrown with bacteria. Sorry, Moses. Carbon dating of fossils tells us that there was life on this planet long before the estimated time of the creation of Adam and Eve. Sorry, God. You can see where the religious leaders might get a little worried that their congregations would begin to fall away from the belief that an invisible man in the sky makes miracles happen, if too many explanations which appeal to their more rational way of thinking were to come up.
There are those, of course, who would argue that the Torah and the Bible are not meant to be taken literally but figuratively; that Adam and Eve are representative of all men and women, that the story of the Creation in seven "days" it meant to be a more figurative term for a longer amount of time (substitute the word "eon" for "day" in the Creation story and you'll get what I mean). That's nice and all, but it begs the question, where does the line between figurative and literal translations end? For example, the story of Esther, which, as opposed to some other stories in the Bible, is very specific when it comes to times, dates, names and places - not only that, but the story is historically supported as it is written. Should we apply the figurative translation to something which is so obviously meant literally? Of course not. So when does the figurative translation end and the literal begin? This is one question which scientists and theologians still have not been able to come up with a satisfactory answer to.
Another difference which I have found between science and religion is the definition of "truth". To the scientist, who is more skeptical, truth is ever-changing - the more one sees of the world, the more observations one makes, the closer one comes to the truth. In laymen's terms, the truth is out there. It is the goal which may not ever be attained, but that certainly won't stop the scientist from coming as close as she can. The scientist does not define "truth" by what it is, but rather by taking away the attributes which truth is not. In this manner, the definition of truth is always changing and never finalized. The theologian, on the other hand, defines truth as that which is printed in the Holy Texts, that which comes from the mouth of God Himself (although personally I believe that if there IS a god, she would have to be a woman, but that's another paper topic). Truth is absolute, definitive, unchanging and final. You can see the truth, touch it, feel it.
Although there are undeniably many differences between the issues encompassed by science and religion, few people ever take the time to realize how similar in nature the two really are. Think about it - both science and religion have their own set of books from whence all their information is drawn, instructors (if the professor will forgive me for comparing him to a pastor), philosophies of life and death, instructions and jargon. It's actually a little creepy to think of how similar these two spheres really are, for science is a religion in and of itself, and religion is a type of science. Both are learned practices; no one is born with an instinctive knowledge of the divine just as no one is born with an automatic knowledge of biochemistry. Perhaps the reason why these two fields can never seem to quite get along is because they are too similar in their nature while being dissimilar in their specific outlooks.
Science and religion are related to each other in ways both strange and familiar - for example, we can imagine that there are people raised in religious backgrounds who find science to be more practical and logical than the Invisible Man in the Sky, but what most people don't realize is that a majority of scientists are religious, not atheists. My former employer was a chemist, and I remember he said once that he and most of the people he worked with found that their faith in religion is strengthened by their work rather than diminished by it, for the detail and intricate design which is found in science and nature led them to believe that there has to be some divine power which holds the world together in the delicate balance in which it exists (Dr. Don Jones, San Bernardino, California).
Although this paper is only a small portion of the massive study which ensues on the comparison between religion and science, I hope that I have put a new spin on the comparison, for I would hate to have written anything too hackneyed and be considered unoriginal. I hope perhaps to continue the comparison in a later paper.
|
12/07/2005, from a Reader on the Web In the Bible, God is the Great I AM; meaning, HE/SHE/IT exists whether you (or anyone) believe so or not. (And gender is irrelevant) So, too bad for you, not for God. Also, to answer your long-pondered childhood question, you must first understand that religion and God are not one in the same. Religion is fallible, God is not. Popes are fallible. Religion, like school, is meant as a tool for learning and understanding; this does not mean that the values of a certain religions are the end-all, be-all of truth. Like any establishment, there are inevitable selfish politics and bureaucracy involved. As far as science goes, the Pope was not the only one who believed the world was the center of the universe--it is just the same as the belief that no species alien to our own exists; it is the self-centered nature of humankind that makes us fallible. And the denial of God is just as selfish--we don't want to be responsible for our actions. We all will be, though, like it or not. May God bless you regardless.
|
An argument that people make in the defence of heaven is that "Well what about all the energy that is your soul, it has to go somewhere."
Infact this is true. The sould is a series of Electro-Chemical signals in the brain that define our perosnalities, and when we die they do go somewhere... In the ground, just along with the rest of our bodies. Energy converts in to heat, which is then defused throughout the atmosphere. The human soul is nothing more than a fairy tale ... Michael, 28 March 2006
Well written paper i must say. The guy before me is a bible hugger who obviously has no sense of logic in his body.. why would you just believe something placed before you, without even questioning it?? anything and everything can be proven by logic and reasoning, you're "god".. well haha thats just a joke. I believe everyone should believe in themselves and keep an open mind, dont shut ideas down because they offend you're religion ... Kyle, 15 April 2006
Science vs. Religion is an interesting subject. Everyday something explained in the bible as god's work has found another solution. An interesting thing about evolution is that it is one of the few things in the bible not recorded by man. Not many people realize this. There needs to be a neutral faith between science and religion ... Jake, 24 September 2006
Honestly i think you are on the right way to find the logics of life. GOD ? wtf is that? Indeed a made man convention for unexplained (till then) questions... Believe in science, believe in logics, believe in yourself...Just because we don't have a god ruling us does it mean we are fallible? c'mon... :S ... Rui, 30 September 2006
no matter how much you try to justify that god is the almighty PROTECTOR never the less open your eyes if god is so great then tell me how he can let people die over him. Also answer me this, how every religion says that god loves them the most and that they are the most worthy of his love and that they are gods children then tell me how if god is the one who is trying to restore peace to the then how come there are more wars and more blood shed by religious people who say that they are gods children then any scientist fighting a war over their inventions. God is NOT real or he would never of let his people fight over him in that way ... Franco, 7 December 2006
In response to the Religion vs. Science paper, I would like to point out that religion does not necessarily set forth the irrefutability of the words themselves in a holy book, but of the message that it contains; thus religion, like science, is the search for the truth that is out there. As the writer points out, science and religion are not so separated as many would like to believe.
In response to the response, I'd like to point out that the assertion that 'He/She/It exists whether you believe or not' is hardly irrefutable, and should be backed up with an argument to support it; additionally, denying the existance of God might mean that we will not be HELD responsible for our actions by a higher being, but does it not also mean that we are intrinsically MORE responsible for our actions, in that there is no creator to blame for 'making us the way we are'? ... Istadan, 24 April 2007
I was raised Catholic and told I must believe or I would go to Hell, by friends, priests and family members. Even as a child I did not believe that was true. I have thought about the Catholic teachings today and I cannot concieve them to be truthful or logical (that doesnt mean they're wrong). I'm now agnostic because I believe it is the most humble belief and the most truthful. Like Darwin said "...the whole subject of God is beyond the scope of mans intellect". All I know for certain is that physics governs the universe, whether or not a higher power had a hand in it is up to your beliefs. I'm trying not to sound pessimistic but every religion I've studied is just writings in books to me, nothing tangible. I respect everybodies beliefs including atheists because as we know it there are no right or wrong anwsers in religion ... Craig Mcauliff, 31 May 2007
Actually, the pope was right. Galileo's theory of the sun being the centre of hte universe is not true and visual gravitational evidence from Hubble proves this. It is the centre of our solar system, but other galaxies such as Andromeda etc do not orbit our sun ... Julia, 24 June 2007
Greetings, My name is Larry Thomas and I am currently writing to you from Wiesbaden, Germany. I am currently looking for someone within the religious and the academic community to review several works that I have put together on a site listed in this email. The total work itself is a combination of several fields such as,Philosophy, Neurology,Theology, Cosmology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Astronomy, Religion, History, etc... just to name a few in advance. I only ask those who are willing to review this work so that if any are kind enough to offer feedback to some of the theories contained within it then, it would be appreciated. The written work is posted on a free website which has its annoying ADs, so pop-up blockers should be set at max on your web-browser to avoid them. The address of the material is posted at www.ascensionq.20fr.com or it can be Googled under the title "Ascension Q" ... Larry Thomas, 24 November 2007
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
About Student Papers
| This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated. |
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
A Random Walk
New Topics
-
3 weeks 3 days ago
-
3 weeks 3 days ago
-
3 weeks 3 days ago
-
8 weeks 6 days ago
-
9 weeks 2 days ago
Comments
Science and religion are incompatible
Most people think that religion is synonymous with the Bible, but they really two different things and poles apart. Science will never be compatible with religion, but science can however be compatible with the Bible and related extra-Biblical writings. The fact is that religions have so skewed the meanings within the Bible that any intelligent person will hardly venture to discuss it, let alone read it.
Not your typical ignorant Catholic
I grew up as a Catholic, being told all the same things that every young Catholic is told "faith in God and blindly believe". However... As I got older I started to question many aspects of this religion... Many people, including my family immediately lashed out in defense when I asked things like "why does God allow the poor to be poor?" So I had to search for the answers myself. I absolutely laugh at the people who don't believe in evolution.( me doing a chemistry degree, you kinda go into depth with this and even more)... But what truly opened my eyes back to my religion was many things.
1. The seven days of creation correspond to seven steps of the beginning of time studied by scientists. The old testement was said to be writted around 1600BC ( correct me if I am wrong). Now heres a question for you. Back then, how on earth were you going to explain the creation of the world scientifically? Im sure if God said " the world was created by a particle the size of An atom that was highly condensed. It exploded to create the universe which is ever expanding. Then for the creation of life, i used these things called protons and electrons and neutrons to create elements that when combined, created the sugar backbone and the A T C G pairing which is the basis of DNA". I could go on but you get the jist. The reason why it was so metaphorical back then is due to the education level of the people. It needed to be simplified so they would understand.
2. Jesus was a real person. For those who believe that Jesus is fake Nd the bible is fake n yada yada... It is lucky to find 6-12 accounts on historical figures such as shakespear or caesar. Jesus had 5000. He was a living breathing person. Go research a little more into it if you do not believe me.
3. Jesus Fufilled every prophecy about a saviour from the old testament, which was written around 1000 years before his appearance. One part of the old testement prophecised the way he would die... It is a full medical account of what happens in the crucifixion... Written 500 years before it was invented.
4. The probability of life to occur was 10^-40. if you guys dont know, that is a very very very very small probability. Could it really have been fluked? Compared to the biggest star discovered... Earth is smaller than microscopic... The more i look into my degree, the more i see how incredibly smart and logical everything is... Even down to calculating the force, velocity and acceleration of two atoms oscillating against each other. None of this can be fluked. Everything fits together as if it was made for each other.... In a way, now its hard for me NOT to believe God exists... Whether it be the guy in the white cloak n beard i grew up knowing... Or this incredible creator that I get to see work at a molecular level. Sorry if there are grammatical errors, if some is left unsaid (there is ALOT more to say believe me) but i think i covered some points...(it is 2:30am)
Well, I'm skeptical
1.
If the bible was being metaphorical, why did it never point this out? I mean if God had been trying to get people to understand, why did he never say so? And why did he not spend years explaining it, why is it all in a short book, full of what appears to be myths and legends, and not spread out over volumes and volumes in detail.... etc. He's GOD, if anyone can do it he should be able to.
Anyway the main reason this argument doesn't stand up is because almost every religion has it's own creation story, and each and every one can be likened to what we actually think happened, but not one has ever said it in any specific enough way, they all come down to: "the universe appeared, but that's what OUR story says, it's just being metaphorical with all the rest of the talking snakes, population springing from two people, the flood, the rape and the pillage!" i.e. Many stories contain a creation of the world story, what makes yours any more legitimate and less ficitional than any other. Like Discworlds for example, they split an ohm and consequently created our universe. Personally I can't see any credibility difference between the bible and terry pratchett (but the latter is better written)
2.
Jesus may have been a real person, there is some evidence he existed, it is certainly not "5000 accounts" it's more like 6. 6 RELIABLE accounts. And anyway these accounts say there was a man called jesus going around and preaching at the time, it does not agree with the miracles or really say anything else about what he was doing or why he was there. Some accounts don't even mention him by name.
3.
Well I don't know much about the prophecy, but I wouldn't use a dubious book's prophecy and a later dubious book's account of it being fulfilled as good evidence. And a lot of 'prophecies' tend to be very vague and unspecific, which allows for easy fulfillment.
4.
Yes that is roughly the probability of life or rather some special amino acids (this is not my best area) occuring in an ocean. But life did not just 'happen' the point where life stops is a blurred line even now, it would have been an incremental and slow process, rather than IMMEDIATE LIFE. But as it happens, the Earth was around for a very long time. There was a lot of chance for this to happen. "Oh but not enough!" I hear you cry, well actually the interactions that could have started off the process of life were happening in billions and billions of different places throughout the sea all the time. Taking all of these factors into account, it'd be about a year or so before the first step was reached.
And the more I look at all of this the more compelled I am a god does not exist, there has been no visible input from him AT ALL, since the start of existence (if there even is a start), and I mean any god not just the christian god. At the start of the universe is the only real time a godlike being could have had any effect, and there is still no evidence that he did. It is one possibility that some superbeing started our universes appearance but there are an uncountable number of other possibilities, and nothing shows yours has any greater weight than another. If you still think the intricacies of the universe are your god's work, why not any other god? why must it be the christian god?
Blimey that was long oh well.
Well, I'm Skeptical
You should be skeptical of religious people.
1. It's a cleverly written cryptogram: If you use the following interpreting method (unknown to religious people) you will get a very different picture of the Bible and related extra-Biblical books:
First part of the synonymous-tautological compound verses:
“I will open my mouth in parables” Mt 13:35
“I will incline my ear to a parable” Ps 49:4
“I will open my mouth in a parable” Ps 78:2
Second part of those same verses:
“I will utter things which have been kept secret ...” Mt 13:35
“I will open my dark saying upon the harp” Ps 49:4
“I will utter dark sayings of old” Ps 78:2
So then we know that 'things' from Mt 13:35 is a parable and/or dark saying:
“I will utter things...”
“I will utter dark sayings...”
In the same way we know that parables and dark saying(s) are synonymous because:
“I will open my mouth in parables” Mt 13:35
“I will open my mouth in a parable” Ps 78:2
"I will open my dark saying...” Ps 78:2
"dark sentences" Dan. 5:12 = dark saying(s)
"hard sentences" Dan. 8:23 = hard saying (Jn 6:60)
2. Jesus, not his real name; we really do not know his real name because Hebrew Yahushua (English Jesus) is representative of his role as Saviour, just as all his other names are attributes of his character.
3. The Bible calls us gods: "I have said ye are gods and you are all children of the most High, but ye shall die like men" (Ps 82:6 & Jn 10:34).
It's saying that we are simultaneously in two states: "ye are gods" (quantum superposition) and "die like men" (quantum collapse/evolutionary world). Neither does it say that a good God created it, but that it's the creation of a superbeing "the god of this world" who is a "liar and the father of it"--making this reality a lie/forgetfulness.
But you won't hear this in any church, synagogue or mosque.
:D
I like candy :)
Holy Wars and Science Wars
There have been a number of holy wars but I am unaware of any science wars. It seems to me that is an important difference.
I agree with all you and that
I agree with all you and that you all make good points .
Seriously?
I personally believe that this is the most useless arguement ever, people will stick to their beliefs whether they believe science is right and religion is wrong or whether they believe religion is right and science is wrong. I think that the Bible is definately a way to control the masses......Jesus didn't write the Bible......His followers didn't either.....Some Roman guy wrote it....It's all just faked.
Don't dwell on science or religion....just live your life as you would want instead of fearing God's punishment.....Just like no-one knows whether God (if he/she/it exists) is a he or a she or just some entity, you people just want something to believe in....It has been used as an excuse over the course of history to start wars such as the crusades or WWII when Hitler used Jews as an excuse to start a war.....When will it just stop?
A Roman guy did not write the Bible
A Roman guy did not write the Bible. In fact there were many writings all over Europe and the Middle East and what one group may have had in their bible may not have been what another group had in another bible. I am blanking on the name of the Roman Emperor who saw the sign of a cross in the sky and he believed that if he prayed to the Christian God he would win a war that would happen the following day. He did win the war and so he wanted everyone to follow Christianity from then on out. He found that there was too much discourse of which bible would be the right one so he called forth all the high ranking religious leaders in the land and made them come together to write the Canaan. Many stories that beliefs that different groups believed were left out. This is the bible that many people follow today. Many new stories and accounts of Christ and his apostles are still being found, though they are not in the bible, they give more information about what happened in that time-frame. I myself am not religious, but I find history fascinating. I don't recommend you bash something you have not studied or know a great deal about. Personally, I wish there was no religion or that people followed the path of seeking knowledge, but religion has had a great deal of benefit in the world, especially in the middle ages for helping bring people back from the dark ages. Though then it grew to be too powerful and went south from there.
I believe in radical logic;
I believe in radical logic; that I can't prove the existence of or absence of a God or higher being. As a species, we have no knowledge other than relative to what we perceive. While I am tolerant to all religious beliefs, I do not see the need to believe in a God. If It is truly a a being who is infinitely kind and forgiving, why would it care about what human's believe in; it would seem a rather vain being to do so. At the end of the day, we don't know whether our world is a reality, and the best evidence I've heard to prove so is that "it's obvious", but it makes sense to me to o along with the high probabilities. Science can accurately predict the outcomes for most everyday situations with minimal error, so why not go along with it? What has religion ever explained correctly? With the cases of science contradicting itself,
It doesn't. There are different theories which may not be generally excepted as science anyway. Evolution is environment specific and highly based on chance; it's easily possible that a mutation didn't occur in one area the same way as in another; thus different species of animal exist today. The bible also doesn't teach the truth, rather expresses the writer's opinion. Ps. Sorry for any typo's or cases of poor grammar; it's a rubbish excuse, but I am typing from an iPod and my big thumbs make it easy to hit the wrong letters.
It's all flawed.
I'm 16 and another inexperienced person just stating my ideas so feel free to change my mind because truth be told? It's really not about beating other people when it comes to your own personal beliefs as much as it is finding the most logical reasoning.
If you ask me, the difference between science(the search for truth) and religion(supposed truth) is that SURE science is flawed, much like religion, but science is merely trying to put some SENSE into this world and if it turns out that a law doesn't exactly hold true anymore it can be disproved. This isn't a bad thing and it doesn't mean scientists are stupid cause they can't get something right on the first try. It just means that we learn from our mistakes and continue on the quest to find out what the right answer is. So please, don't discourage science for this because it's what makes it applicable to the present day.
On the other hand I have no problem with many religions such as Christianity and Catholicism because HEY if these people want to go around spreading their own opinions about god while trying to live a righteous life and help the poor, feed the hungry, ect. then I'm FINE WITH THAT. And although I don't believe much of the bible because science contradicts much of it, I'm pretty sure the people who wrote it had the best intentions for humanity. "Thou shall not kill?" sounds good to me!
I would like to believe God exists but not the God that my friends and family believe in. All these stories I think scare people into accepting him so that they won't rot for eternity in hell. Either that or they don't like to think of other options other than that a talking snake was to blame for all the the evil in the world.
Believe in Christ!
Hi,I am a 16 year old christian who loves to praise and worship God.I know that you might not believe everything that the Bible says,because scientist will try to prove it wrong based on mans knowledge.For example,in the book of Genesis 1:1 it says"In the beginning,God created the heaven and the earth."Scientist will tell you about the "big bang"theory in which the earth started out as a tiny molecule that suddenly exploded in existence.It took God 6 days to create the earth,and He rested on the seventh.This why we have seven days in a week.Scientist will also say that man "evolved from apes".In Genesis 1:26-28 it says"And God said,Let us make man in our image,after our likeness:and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the foul of the air,and over the cattle,and over all the earth,and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."Clearly,men did not evolve from apes or monkeys!God created man and woman in His image.So even if scientist were partially correct, then why do we still have apes and monkeys today?Now Im not putting scientist nor science down,but I do know that some forms of science is contradicting the Word of God,and this why many,many people do not believe or trust in God.Believe it or not,many scientist are christians!Not all scientist teach these things,but some scientist do.Not all science is wrong either.All Im saying is that scientist do not have some of the answers based on Gods Word.Some scientist cant explain how Jesus walked on the water or healed the sick and raised the dead.Since theory applies that it is physically impossible to walk on water,(which it is)many scientist forget that Jesus is the Son of the most High God.Since many people have to "see it to believe it"they simply dont have the faith.This is for the science vs religion post.
As for Heaven and Hell,christians dont try to scare people into believing in God.We only talk about it because when you die,you are either going to heaven to be with the King of all kings and Lord of all lords,my Lord and saviour Jesus Christ and live at peace with Him for all of eternity,or ,sadly go to hades and burn in the lake of fire for all eternity in torment with satan and his demons.I personally dont want you to expierience this type of torment.Also,this world is soon coming to an end.Jesus is coming back one day to rapture His children from the earth.The signs of His coming is all around us.It says it in is Word that in the last days there will be: massive earthquakes
false prophets and false christ
wars and rumors of wars
nation shall rise nation,and kingdom against kingdom
the love of many shall wax cold
there shall be pestilences and famines
there shall be great tribulation
days shall be shortened
This comes from the books of Matthew,Mark and Luke.Also be aware of the number 666,for this is the number of the Antichrist.The Antichrist is going to be a false messiah that comes and decieves the whole world.he is going to be an elite king who says blaphemies against God,His tabernacle,and those that dwells in heaven.There is also going to be another beast that can do everything the Antichrist can do,but he is going do great wonders and miracles in this world.he is going to order everybody in this world to worship the Antichrist,and if anybody refuses to worship the image of the first beast he causes them to be killed.I know that I have wondered off the subject but anybody who reads this,I would encourage you to accept my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and let Him lead you and guide you and dont let science come between you and God.Pray to Him daily and watch how God moves in your lives.Dont let the power of satan scare you,for the Lord is all powerful and will protect you from him.May the Lord God bless you and keep you in these last days.
I have gotten all this information from Gods Holy Word.I have and read a Life Application Study Bible and I encourage you to read His Word and pray daily to Him.For more imformation concerning the last days,I.would.encourage you to read the book of Revalations.
PS:We have the victory in King Jesus!!:-)
Why do we have monkeys still running around?
You are only 16, obviously you cannot know the scientific answer to this question because the stupid law won't allow the schools to teach evolution. So unless you research this on your own, you will have to wait until you go to college, like me, to get the answer to this question. (ANTH101 take this class) And only then, will you figure out, "why there are monkeys and apes still running around" you will feel ignorant for even asking that in the first place before you asked the same ignorant question as everyone else who asked it.
It is not a dumb question. Just ignorant, because you were not taught this subject and you did not bother to research it, so it is impossible to know this answer.
Also, you being a Christian, I am one too, Churches will not teach you about evolution either. Do not be closed-minded, and do not let your religious beliefs keep you from stepping out of your cube and finding out things for yourselves. I was in your shoes, asking the same darn questions. Science is only about disproving, not proving, so don't think they will or is suppose to have all the answers. They won't.
Why do we have monkeys still running around?
For the simple reason that there was only one common ancestor (mitochondrial Adam, a both sexes early mammal who gve birth to a daughter, Eve) who spawned the human race: Genesis actually agrees with evolution: man/Adam (ruddy) was 'of' the dust/ground (mud/primordial soup). It further shows that mitochondrial Adam was a 'both' sexes mammal (soul/the animal sentiment principle only) in its initial state---and gave birth to a daughter Eve (and the reason why males have nipples because at one time it nursed young). She was flesh and bone, was 'of' ruddy in the same way that I am 'of' my mother)--her father-mother. Wo-man= of the womb of man. After she was born, ruddy could no longer produce offspring in this way, all of the female genes had been pooled into her. When she reached maturity father-mother and daughter mated and produced offspring. This is further corroborated in Gen. 1:27 ("in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them") where we see that "he him" as in one animal became two distinct genders. But of course you're not likely to hear this version in any church.
YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH
I think that my god did so much for me and if you pray everyday and read the bible you will understand everything that was explained to you to be so true.
Praise God!
Truth!! Praise God and thank you for sharing God's word.May God bless you.
well were was your god during
well were was your god during 9/11 or hurricane Katrina, or when a child is starving and there mother can't do anything but watch her child slowly die tell me that explain that with you religion.
well where was your god during
Yes--and where is God during Covid-19? Truth is we are depending on science to get us out of this mess where the entire world is now being ruled by a microscopic alien.
Really??
#1: "were was your God..."?? Correction: WHERE (a place)
#2: "and there mother can't..."?? Correction: THEIR (showing ownership)
#3: "explain that with you religion..."?? Correction: YOUR
Clearly you're not very educated so I don't really believe that you're in any position to be criticizing someone's religious, educational, or political beliefs. People have the right to believe whatever they want and it's a shame that some people are too ignorant to allow that. Don't question the beliefs by which someone else lives just because there is nothing substantial within yourself.
Speaking of corrections
Speaking of corrections, I just read you misuse "scientist" as a plural form of the word numerous times. It's "SCIENTISTS". No... spell correction won't catch that mistake, so don't become too reliant on spell correction as proof of your own education...
Regarding EDUCATION, anytime one becomes more educated in the form of history, science and the arts, one has a tendency to become more atheistic. At no time in your whole paragraph, as any of your statements given a convincing argument on the side of Christianity. It was nothing but a speech based on the WORD. You addressed your side of life theory just like anyone else, in the countless generations of theological populations, would have.
He was here!
God is and was here!He is always here!We can't see Him,but He is always with us.When my mom died,it was nobody but Jesus Christ who brought me through.I know that people had suffered and lost loved ones in both of these disaters,and I know that there are parents struggling to feed thier children,but when you give you're troubles to God,He will deliver you and provide you with what you need.After being without power for over seven months,selling almost all we had,sleeping on the floor,being evicted from our home 3 times,being picked on at school and at work,finding out my mother had an abortion,crying in the dark wanting to commit suicide,being lied to and used by a woman who claimed to love my family,not wanted at church,being called racial slurs day after day,I can saftly say that without the Lord,I would have lost my mind and ended up in my grave.God was there.I can also say that the Lord healed the many broken hearts that suffered the losses of both disaters.But understand this,a greater time of trouble is coming.I can testify at what Jesus has done for me.Please accept Jesus Christ as you're Lord and saviour and watch how the Lord moves in you're life and in the lives around you.Feel free to ask questions.God bless and take care!
response to your post
I see where you are coming from.You are not the first one to ask me this.Both 9/11 and hurricane Katrina were devastating disaters in which thousands of people either died or lost thier homes.The recent massive earthquake in japan and the tusnami that it caused killed thousands of people.There are millions of people around the world are starving,homeless or without a job.Sadly,it seems that you have went through a tough expirience.Well I can assure you that throughout all history of disaters that has ever occured,the Lord has never turned His back on us.Some people get so upset and turn thier backs on God when disaters happens in thier lives.Also, a time of trouble is coming.I Can't explain any further until I know that you gave you're life to Christ. I will encourage you to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as you're Lord and Saviour.Just try to pray and ask the Lord to reveal Himself to you.Feel free to ask questions.God bless and take care!
Science vs. Religion
There are many points of interest on this site.
1) Religion is man-made.
2) Religion was created to help maintain order among humans. 3) There is a power that created the earth call it scientific and/or god working together on some massive project.
4) Science explains the possibilities of life, but not why it was started.
5) As humans we have the ability to think, reason, learn and grow.
6) Humans will never have all the answers they seek.
7) More questions and answers equal progress, just look at the last two hundred years compared to all recorded time.
Therefore, science and god have equal status, but religion is invalid. Especially those religions which seek almighty currency or control of the people that need to ask questions. Keep on asking those questions that are impossible to answer today and maybe someday it will be clear to all. God and science are working together.
Science vs. Religion
It's not religion we're relying on to look for answer to Covid-19--it's science; religion leads back to the dark ages.
The Bible on the other-hand is another story.
You won't hear this in any church, synagogue or mosque, but the Bible calls us 'gods': "I have said ye are gods and you are all children of the most High, but ye shall die like men" (Ps 82:6 & Jn 10:34) It's saying that we are simultaneously in two states: "ye are gods" (quantum superposition) and "die like men" (quantum collapse/evolutionary world). Furthermore, the Bible does not say that a good God created this reality but rather that a superbeing did ("the god of this world") who is a "liar and the father of it", making this reality a lie (forgetfulness).
It will likely be quantum physics that will take us to new worlds as we are learning that our consciousness creates our reality.
1) No 2) No Your first two
1) No
2) No
Your first two points are entirely conjecture.
BEING A SKEPTICS WILL BE FINE
having looked at all what this author wrote,it is glaring that the author was not trying to merge religion with science instead attacking religion....a lot of fallacies were committed e.g attacking the person...Am assuming this author was not trying to hold that science is superior over religion because the author's argument appears so.It should be noted that both science and religion have their loopholes..scientific account and religious account are probable as far as am concerned because we can't with certainty say who amongst the two is saying the right thing or is right.For this reason i will suspend my judgment to be free from disturbance.
Logic
Atheists argue that they follow logic and "what is", but this believe, this sureness, that there is NO God is the least logical of all. How does it make any sense at all to have an option that provides salvation if correct or either nothing or eternal suffering if incorrect, but then choose the option that assures nothing at all if correct but eternal damnation if incorrect. It just baffles me. Agnosticism is understandable but the sure statement that there is no God (or higher power) is ridiculous and contradictory to the "logic" it is based off of.
Haha, you know how atheists
Haha, you know how atheists (no offense) justify their disbelief by saying "seeing is believing" and "you can't touch or hear God" and that it's stupid to believe anything that someone tells you? Have you ever SEEN your heart? have you ever touched a star? Or heard a bird in the middle of the amazon? obviously they all exist, but do you have any proof? That's the same with God(s), just because you haven't physically experienced them doesn't mean there is no higher power. Religion is stupid, science is arrogant, but faith and virtue are the closest we'll ever be to the truth.
Thanks for actually finishing reading this, God bless, :)
"Okay then..so your well read
"Okay then..so your well read in science right? How about the philosophy of Science? Ever read into Popper,Hume or Kuhn??? All are scientists and philosophers of Science and all have provided theories that are infamous to all scientists to date (apart from your wonderful self obviously)...Science can carry on searching for evidence all that it likes, but nothing can ever be proven true or "fact"...ever.
Science can only prove if a theory is false or whether it can be falsified. You cannot see into the future to find out if results to an experiment will be the same tomorrow, next week or 10 million years from now. Therefore, the "fact" as you call it is not true, just not proven wrong yet. e.g, all objects denser than oxygen fall to the ground today, will they tomorrow? who knows. At this point I will remind you that Newton's theory was thought fact, until Einstein replaced this theory after proving him wrong. All scrince is, is a bunch of stuff we have proven incorrect. "
@BooBah - Science does not claim fact, only religion does that, faith is blind BECAUSE it is unchanging. Scientists who get things wrong are not looked on with disdain but with greatitude for having figured out what the answer ISN'T (such as Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler)and bringing others closer to what the answer MIGHT BE. Scientists don't believe that their experiments will work just the same tomorrow, or that all theories are right, they believe instead that nothing is set in stone, that it could all change in an instant. Only people like yourself believe anything to be unchanging, you believe that the words of an ancient book are eternally right and you dare to call any one else blind?
I like what your getting at
I like what your getting at with the philosophy of science. Have not taken any courses in it. However, I have taken enough philosophy courses to see what your getting at.
i dont no what i believe in
i dont no what i believe in but i think more on the science half than the religion. the two things are very similar but very different in other ways. science asks how but religion asks why eg why did god make evil and how does gravity work.it is never why does gravity work because we already no that it happens but we dont no that god created evil so we ask why he did it.
the bible is yet another thing that has either been made up or is true. it is known that the bible was written hundreds of years after jesus so how does some one know that jesus had so many loafs of bread and so many fish to feed so many people. it is like Chinese whispers. it will get exagerated as it get down like i could say to some one jesus fed 20 people wit 5 fish and 10 loafs of bread. then they could make it sound more exciting and say jesus fed 50 people with 7 loafs of bread and 4 fish and so on until it gets to the extreme.
How?
Wow! Impressive artical and conversation!
I have a something to imput...
- How would the first speck of whatever that made us all come into being? How is it possible for it to just appear out of no where? If everything really did evolve from a prexsisting object then we shouldn't (logicaly) be here. That speck needed to come into being somehow...
I, myself, don't believe in "god" I belive there may be a higher sorce but how do we really know. It's something we won't know untill we die and either go to someother place or just disapear into the past.
I wrote a post and then read
I wrote a post and then read some more that I thought were very interesting and worth responding to. Again I reiterate that science makes no claims on absolute truth where as religion does make that claim. Science in its very nature admits its flaws by its dynamism and the fact that scientific theory is changeable. I believe that the majority of scientists have open minds, in that if you prove that a god exists to them they would then believe. I know I would.
A lot of the arguments made in the comments for creationism for example neglect the concept of time and don't take into account the very premise of evolutionary theory.... which is that "over time." The earth has existed for millions of years, religious theory for thousands, modern scientific theory for maybe a few hundred. How can Science of the last few hundred years prove millions of years worth of occurrences instantaneously and why would we expect it to do so irrefutably in a few hundred years and then discount its ability to do so over time when it has shown so much in such a short period of time. Again most arguments against science are asking for irrefutable proof and absolute truth. Where as religion and gods existence is apparently an unquestionable absolute truth. Do you then not see the difference required in the burden of proof?
Science has shown and proven that many religious beliefs which were in fact taken as absolutes truths false over time. As believers then I ask do you then require science to prove that God does not exist until you raise the question that the possibility of his existence is not there? So the burden of proof then is 100% on science to explain the possibility of his non existence and not at all on religion to provide an argument for God's existence, when in fact it is religion which claims his existence as absolute.
Where did the earth come from? Dust... particles... big bang? We don't know and can't prove it and have not been able to in the last few hundred years. The discoveries(not discounting one post which seemed to see scientific discovery as the invention of playstation or the television) over the last few hundred years and the advances of science lead me to rationally believe that there is a scientific explanation for a lot of things that we previously did not understand. And I for one would place my "faith" in that and not on a declaration of absolute truth, like the existence of god. Maybe the real argument goes back to what came first the chicken or the egg ie: did god create man or did man create god. We know for a fact that any gods existence was first recorded by man and that most of the old religions, pre-christian, were in fact created to explain things as simple as weather patterns, the sun, earthquakes, floods, droughts, fire, water, etc..... Which we now know irrefutably where they came from.
This leads me to believe that in fact man did create god and that religion's only real dynamic feature is to increasingly expand science's burden of proof further away from its original espoused beliefs.
We create ourselves....
Is it not true, that when we are born we are quite like a clean slate that is then filled with information that makes us who we are? My partners mother suffers from dementia and it's getting worse. This is the opposite of being born and gaining information. Where is her mind going? It got me thinking that we are only who we are by living life, and are we this by nurture or nature? I would love to hear your thoughts...slightly off the point but I can't stop thinking about it all....
It's scary to think we are created by living life and merely evolving by what's around us. I want to believe in God, but my mind is so logical and I feel I am questioning everything...
religion vs science
i am a roman catholic, i would mainly like to address the issue of 'if there is a god why does'nt he stop illnesses, tsunamis, wars, etc.
if there was no evil in the world, would'nt it be easy 2 believe in god,i believe that god has put good and evil infront of us 2 choose our own path. we have free will.when the holyest of people lose family members, they may question god.but did anyone ever think that god is challenging us in this life. The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.maybe he challenges his most faithful the hardest.
let me give u an example,lets say there is a man who goes to mass every week, lives a holy life.he lives in a perfect world where no violence, wars, disease etc.some may say he is faithful in god,who wudnt be, it a perfect word, no evil
now lets say the mans family dies, and wars start, etc.There is evil in the world.maybe this is god showing us good and evil, this may be where we choose 2 show or dont show faith.there would be no challenge to life if life was all good and no evil. so to answer the questin, maybe god is challenging us,and giving us free will 2 react...
now ther is obviously no evidence to suggest this is right or wrong,but it is just away of looking at the violence in the world................please read link http://www.zootle.net/afda/religion-vs-science.shtml ....it shows that science aint all that correct. very interesting.by the way i believe in religion and science to be real.its not one or the other
Thats a good Point but God
Thats a good Point but God necessarily did not create evil. God is said to be perfect meaning he makes no mistakes. everything he made was perfect. Evil came from satan. well god created satan didnt he? No God created Lucifer (the best angel)! Satan was what lucifer became after betrading God because he wanted to be like God. well if god created lucifer why did he make him able to go against God? well god when he created us (everyone)he gave us (everyone) Free Will! God could have made everyone like robots and programed us to love and serve him but that is not love so he allowed us to have free will to choose to serve him, believe in him or not. My point here is god did not create disease or wars or death (anything negative or evil). that was brought by sin which is the consequence of sin. Lucifer Sin against God by wanting to be like God. If Satan was so bad and upset God why did god not destroy him well because that would go agaist what god is which is love. instead he threw him all the way at the bottom. My opinion is Lucifer died(not literally because he was an angel) and what he became was satan. the consequence of sin is death. he died and become satan the HEAD of all sinners! (God does not let him control us or the world but we do by free will) thorugh him came sin and death and so forth. Then adam and eve were created the first humans and satan trick them into sinning which broughT humans death. thats were given birth became painful, womens geting pain with their monthly cycle etc. I think that explains everything.
what father/creator would
what father/creator would put give such challenges to his children? to see his children suffer- what about the innocent ones who suffer? this is a junk argument
Your Wrong
If the innocent were to change and go to a path of evil then they wouldnt be so innocent, would they, but if they were to just suffer and hold to a path of good then the rewared they would gain would be immeasurably greater then any amount of suffering that they could ever recieve in a short time that they live compared to the eternity in heaven if they dont stray from the path!!
Confusion<( *o*)>
YOUR evidence ??
the reason we suffer is
the reason we suffer is because God gives us free will and will not force us to do good meaning evil is aloud to happen because for God to stop us makes us a liar. true love is a choice and God wants to see who chooses to love him with free will.
Free will or not...
Yes, we do have free will, but let me ask you this...
Say you have a son. This son of yours ends up helping a lot of people. I'm sure you're one proud parent! So by helping people and become well-known, which angers someone who wants that type of notoriety and fame that this someone abducts your son and slowly beats him up IN PUBLIC. You find out about this.
Do you try to save your son? Or do you leave him to die a slow, agonizing death?
If you picked the latter, then in our standards, you are not a fit parent. You would have been put to jail for child abandonment, child neglect, and child abuse in which ALL are punishable by law as well as looked down upon by your christian peers. Am I wrong to say this
Now if you have saved your only son, then why didn't god save his son? Being all-powerful and all-knowing, why let this happen? Unless god wasn't all powerful nor did god know what was about to happen to his son?
What does your free will say?
According to the doctrine
According to the doctrine regarding the trinity, the Son is a part of God. Thus, God died for our sins...
Take a look at the history of Christian thought and this will be seen.
Well..
I think Science and Religion are two different codes that try to give what we want: explanations.
It's like PS3 and Wii, both give what we want (that is entertainment, passing time, and socialization in the long-run) but 1. they have different games that have completely different experiences (major ones, NOT movie adaptation stuff) and 2. they are NEVER compatible to each other. Many people would argue for PS3 because of its better graphics, great games, and superior system overall (Science's rationality, reasoning and infallibility would go here) but people enjoy Wii as well because of its family-friendly, easily compatible (Read Wii Game Store), and aimed-at-general-audience nature (Religion's simple rules, flexibility {I think..}, and non-ethnic restrictions {I think..} would go here).. However, overall, PS3 wins general audience (logical and/or knowledgeable people), because this generation are striving more more technologically advanced stuff (Placing necessity in technology and, generally, logic)... It's not bad to act/think that way, but one should know why people still insist on/enjoy Wii (Evidence of religion throughout the world)...
Both atheists and devouts(or extremists) are butting their heads together on LOGICAL ground for the existence of God (with atheists putting devouts to the ground right now). Well, people, religion and science are two different concepts that can NEVER be conjoined for one reason or another. Since, it is impossible to make two concepts equal, it is inevitably losing game that religious people picked on.
However, we should know that there are sometimes grey areas when we are trying to explain things. Maybe this paper about religion and science being similar to each other will bring new light on things or maybe it will become another battleground for atheists and devouts. I don't know about you, but I REALLY don' want to see latter case becomes true.
Anyone who wants to comment/refute/support my opinion, PLEASE do but logically.
Easy way to answer questions.
I went to a catholic school my whole life and was forced to take religion courses. The stories that I've learned in the Bible makes me feel that it's an easy way to answer questions related to the world and how things were developed and made. Eg. The seven days of creation, God some how put light on earth on the first day. Second day he did the seperation of the waters etc.........PLEASE!........ Think again, is there proof behind those theories that God all of a sudden put light on earth the first day.....no.
But if you look at theories in a scientific way there is proof behind it, and again we don't know EVERY thing that went on in this world, but we do know that there is enough evidence when it comes to science to say that things evolved. Such as evolution, humans still are changing.
According to religion we have a soul when we die, I can't say for sure because I havn't researched deep into this topic, but I personallly think that forsure we do not have a soul when we die, things do give off some type of energy, when the human body dies the closes thing that's comes to a spirit or soul, is some type of energy that is given off a dead body.
I also realized how much religion takes in money, and the thing is religion doesn't pay taxes, and they always need MORE money. Wow I wish people realize that religion is taking in money that can go to things more meaningful in this world, such as school and edcation.
And again we all have our own opinions, so to the people who believe and have faith in (an invisible) man don't take it personally. ;)
iiinteresting...
I'm also a 16 year old student, except I'm studying for my A level Philosophy and Ethics, my coursework peice is on religion and science. The only problem I really feel i have with it is the title, it's like i'm forced to choose which one I think is right, when I think in some different aspects neither really have the right answer on the whole.
Religion created the basis for more laws and a sense of social morality that fit in with those times. Science came along and tried to provide an alternative explaination for things for those that didn't accept the idea of a God. Either way both tries to make the shoe fit for people to apply for everyday life.
Frankly I think both are highly flawed at the best and worst of times, i totally agree when people say both are some form of sciptual teachings in their own right, except the one that's been around for longer has lots of other interpretations that branch out in comparison to the late rise of modern science in the 16th century. I try and keep open minded about most things, because i think right now the humaan race is too closed minded to be able to grasp just what this world is probably capable of.
Humans need to feel like part of a group, lots of sociological and psychological studies have shown this, so it's only natural that something like the bible or (dare I mix the two?) something like Tarot cards are so vague, I'm a frequent user of the latter for fun but it's so that people can apply all this to their everday lives, because so much of it's up for debate. Take everything with a pinch of salt and try not to get too over your head really.
I throw into the mix some of my favourite quotes and where they're from for you to ponder on.
Dogma: "You have a problem with Catholicism?"
"I have a problem with any religion who treats their faith as a burden. You mourn your religion when you should celebrate it."
(No offence meant here at all, but to me (correct me if I'm wrong here) Catholism and a lot of fundamentalism comes across as a lot of negativity, like: you can't do this this or this
why not?
because it's a sin
-____-)
From diskworld by Terry Pratchett
Death: people simply don't see what they don't want to see.
And the only thing I view as totally true in this world:
A quote from dear old Alanis Morisette - One Hand in my Pocket
"And what it all boils down to
Is that no one's really got it figured out just yet"
I leave you on this thought, it's a totally ambigous statement, but; if God is a transcendant being...then doesn't that also mean that we've most likely judged (in our own imperfection), and interpreted a lot of things about him totally wrongly? What if everything we thought we knew about the God of classical theism is down to poor interpretation?
How do you think we'd all cope if he appeared and finally asked us:
"What the hell are you guys doing, seriously?"
O__< scary thought...
Science vs religion
I pity those who talk and talk. I pity those who accuse, I pity those who have no common sense of knowledge and should reconsider their thinkings and look at their IQ score and then be more sensible, because I can't stand the fact of how many stupid people there are in this world. It takes less than a rock to understand that this is all common sense to believe that god exist or not. Why people discuss this still today is because it has been going on and on.
How about we say that:
1.There are different countries, different religion, different believes. How do you think the god that didn't allow women to show their faces was created? It was not by a god, It was the Tali ban and it would make sense because of facts that clearly states that they came afterwards and made the changes, not god... The people who made these rules should rot in hell but there is no hell to rot in so therefore we have to reconsider this yet again. Is this a word we use all to many times or not?
2.I think that evolution makes sense but if god really exist I am going to apologies a lot for making common sense to many people that read this. I apologies for the English, it's not the first language I speak, but this should clear your such called, "brain" and make sense to your such called, "brain cells". Good luck with your future in the believes of something pure and holy. A place called after life would actually be nice, unfortunately all I can do is believe in it but at the same time criticize it.
3.What made us believe in this? How come god has not shown up? It has gone quite a while since "Jesus" didn't come back down. Yet those who don't believe in Jesus but believes in god, which is pathetic, because it's clear they got not enough knowledge to see the difference between reality and a bedtime story.
How to make people get that evolution is real or not
4.Time is what matters to make peoples mind clear. It is said that it took about 1600 years to create the bible. I have to say, it is hard enough to read 10 pages without getting completely brainwashed. The question is, why would people bother to be against the Jews? It was said in the bible that they would be punished etc. Are people that Fucked up in the mind to follow what god has said? Or is it god that punishes the Jews? I mean come on, should we suffer for "Adam and Eva's mistake with the snake who "talked" and managed to fool one of them to eat an apple from a tree.............. Therefore we should be punished and live in this realistic world where snakes cannot talk and where animals eat each other etc. Seriously it's like saying, a wild imagination could fool most people of the world, why? Well we need to develop a bit further to answer that question.
5.Hope you did not take this offensively, I am doing a topic article research for my science project on this matter. Hope you think my message did go through.
6.Think positively, a 16 year old male person, wrote this clear as it gets and made a good
statement which I never thought about earlier...
7.Don't bother saying that god exist because he/she does, I want evidence like t seeing him/her and talk about his/hers inspiration on the idea behind the bible. Than I would believe you. Even though I wrote if he now exist than all I can do is to believe but at the same time criticize him, because he/she said all you need to do is to believe, thats fine by me. Meaning no real big deal arguing about it.
I agree
I really like the way you think. I would say something about religion and science but I can't arrange my thoughts into words right now.
I find it surprising that in
I find it surprising that in discussing the similarities between science and religion this point is generally missed out:
Science uses falsification whereby a scientific theory holds until it is disproved; if I saw a square circle then I am wrong to think that all circles are circular. If we are to be democratic, which I sometimes think we fail to be in a time when our knowledge advances without the help of a higher power daily, we should judge religion by the same standard. This means we should see any religious theory as potentially true until it is disproved. Of course many claim that we need to prove God exists to claim religion holds but why should this be necessary when it is not in science? It was accepted that the earth was fat until proved otherwise so why not accept that there is a God until proved otherwise.
The problem with people accepting this is that they see the counterarguments for the arguments that claim to prove God’s existence as a proof that he does not exist i.e. because a and b lead to d and a is wrong d must be wrong. This is not however the case just because a particular argument to prove something isn’t totally sound does not mean that there is no alternative argument that may be sound even if it has not yet been discovered. It could be that b and c lead to d instead of a and b. If this is allowed for science why isnt religion given the same respect especially as its theories have lasted much longer without being falsified.
Reply to I find it suprising that in
Alanna what is obviously flawed is your perception of scientific research. Scientific proof is not only about disproving negatives but about trying to prove positives. Your assumption is that any believed perception is an absolute truth until dis-proven.
You are saying in your own words that "Of course many claim that we need to prove God exists to claim religion holds but why should this be necessary when it is not in science? It was accepted that the earth was flat until proved otherwise so why not accept that there is a God until proved otherwise. This is not however the case just because a particular argument to prove something isn’t totally sound does not mean that there is no alternative argument that may be sound even if it has not yet been discovered. It could be that b and c lead to d instead of a and b. If this is allowed for science why isn't religion given the same respect especially as its theories have lasted much longer without being falsified." Here you are contradicting yourself by arguing in favor of alternatives and at the same time saying that god's existence is absolute until dis-proven.
Your case about the earth being flat assumes that the attempt was made to disprove the earth was flat and not to prove that in fact the earth was round. So your perception of science is based only on disproving. Would you then argue that all science is simply to disprove an absolute truth and only then should we question those truths. Science is in its nature dynamic and makes no claims on absolute truth.... where as religion does. That is the major difference between science and religion.
As far as the paper written its interesting and leads more to the debate over spiritualism versus science but I have one big point of contention. Just because the authors chemist friend believes in a higher power as do his colleagues this does not justify their belief that most scientists have the same beliefs. The vast majority of scientists in fact do not believe in a higher god like power.
Well written, alot of thought,effort, and time
I hope for everyone that dis-believes in God(Jesus Father), that for your sake he doesn't exist. Because, if he does, one day He might ask you why, you put so much time, effort, and thought into proving Him wrong. He may go on to ask, why you felt you needed to explain what He really meant in the Bible, while He felt it was well written, self explanatory, boy means boy, girl means girl... Maybe, you should take a couple of minutes, and think about what your going to say to him =0
Good luck to ya all!