A fine fellow posed a very interesting discussion today. You should visit his pages at http://zelkiiro.hubpages.com/ But I speak to something that came up there. Should religion interfere with straightforward empirical science and the logic and actions dictated therein. In my studies I read this this morning and found it a refreshing hands off position by the Catholics: http://www.flocknote.com/note/113262
But what struck me is that Science/Empiricists normally poo poo anything without proof (and their notions of that vary widely) So the debate centers on non-believers getting pissed off that they cannot explain the unexplainable and believers getting pissed off because they should not have to in Scientific terms.
But what I address here is the notion that faith should leave understandable and provable phenomenon to the world. When we now know what causes lightening, leave it alone. When death happens when two speeding vehicles collide -- we know what caused the death - two speeding vehicles. Mama's have babies because an egg is fertilized within her.
Yes for those of us with faith and belief wonders abound and we see God's hand everywhere. That is because we do. But God does not run around causing nature to develop He built it so it would.
So I suggest that good people would conclude that because neither can explain everything, we let the other explain that which we do not get and grow. Together.
From sanctity to blasphemy - the trend will never end.
Those who believe will always cheer as righteous prayer fills the air.
Those who do not will always proclaim that it is all just a flair.
Those who believe will formulate the actions that will lead them to the golden gate.
Those who do not will promulgate a personal pact, a conjectured declaration of doodle fact.
These two extremes will always remain far apart because they represent an individual acceptance made through attributed personal decision points.
The thinking individual must then comprehend, that regardless of the personal choice, everyone will find the answer when their time upon the earth has come to end.
For at that very moment there is little doubt, both will find the answer regardless of their earthly choice.
I for one have heard the call from my Lord and Savior.
He said I must adhere to a gracious path where logic is astute.
And, to remind all who will listen, that the Lord is preparing a place at the table for those who wish to someday arise in glory.
This is not a tale of religion or of the greatness of science, but that which has been passed to me by those not of the earth who traverse as angels.
Saving those who wish to be saved from a life of bitter discernment and breach encounter.
Regardless of personal aspirations, the one thing most assuredly true, is that the true follower represents an individual that flees from lusts: endows righteousness, faith, charity, peace, and a call to the Lord out of a pure heart.
Psalms 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
3 John 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Non-believers understand they cannot explain everything yet and that is not what pisses us off. We sometimes get pissed off when we are expected to have all the answers when the only answer believers have is "God done it". The difference being non-believers continue to search for answers while believers have stopped and want everyone to stop with them.
Correct, but they don't do they? Some don't believe in an old earth or evolution and they expect or want creationism or ID taught in science class, while non-believers don't care what's taught in theology.
That's a figure of speech and I get that perhaps you see God's hand because you don't understand nature. History proves even the best and most smartest attribute what they don't understand to a deity.
Great idea, keep your beliefs to yourself and give the young a fighting chance to think for themselves and solve our biggest problems without thinking these things are beyond our understanding and we will stay out of your Sunday mass.
I feel your pain. My students get to talk about science and how cool it is and how funny some notions are. They really get tired of the lame spiritual explanations for things that are explainable to the brain alone. So we push the limits of both science and our spiritual. Hey if it shakes their faith good!
I got one that I have taught for years in Veterinary School and another headed off to Medical school and yet another to culinary school, all what I call sciences. That makes me happy.
Plenty of false premises in the OP.
You see God's hand everywhere? Funny, I see only nature. Where are these so-called hands?
His hands are busy unknotting Durga's arms from all the face palms she gives your posts.
You are a troubled man. Because you cannot see what I see -- you condemn it. I will bet you that you also cannot see bobtail cat tracks where I can. Or know that Populus tremuloides requires a temperature of over 300 degrees Fahrenheit to germinate. I bet you cannot name the geological time periods on display in the Grand Canyon. It does not make me better than you that I can. And it does not make me better than you that I see the hand of God, even though you cannot. But just admit you do not know everything or claim to know everything --- your choice.
You can drop the personal insults, thanks.
You see exactly the same thing as everyone else.
No, you don't see the hand of God, you believe God dunnit because of your religious indoctrination. Your religion taught you to lie about such things. Naming time periods is irrelevant to that.
I have never made any such claims, nor would. It has nothing to do with anything.
Then ATM if you do not know everything how can you know what I know. If you cannot see what I see it does not mean it is not real because you cannot know everything. (hand of God is a metaphor friend) No scientist can determine what is beautiful to me. That does not mean it is not beautiful to me. I see the beauty and you do not, does not mean there is no beauty.
Religion is at least a shared belief system. I do not know anyone who believes exactly what I believe. Religion does not teach. People teach.
And yes the Bible is a book I learn from and I do hold it above my law books and reference books --- but I use a dictionary for definitions (or google search ;-) I also have a doctorate and read all kinds of books for knowledge.
Hey you just told me to stop the insults and then called me a liar. Well I am rubber and you are glue. hahaha
"Yes for those of us with faith and belief wonders abound and we see God's hand everywhere. That is because we do. But God does not run around causing nature to develop He built it so it would."
This is exactly the TRUTH.
And said really well.
A nice sentiment and very well worded, but...what is it that the believer is going to teach the unbeliever? How the universe was created? Whether God exists or not? How man (or life itself) came to be? The believer can't, because he doesn't know the answers himself!
Can he teach morality - right and wrong? In every case for the last 200 years religious believers have lagged far behind the rest of society in understanding right from wrong. He is constantly being drug, kicking and screaming all the way, into modern concepts of how to treat his fellow men.
Can he teach the meaning of holy scriptures? Believers in the same god can't agree on the meaning of their own scriptures, let alone any of "opponent" gods/religions - they can't teach anything there, either.
What is the believer going to teach?
The believer teaches that none of us have all the answers. Not believers, and not scientists, philosophers or physicians.
Umm. In my experience the only people thinking they have all the answers are the believers - God has already written everything worth knowing into the bible. All that's left is learning how to make better trinkets.
Everyone else knows better.
Why do atheists always associate "believers" with Christians? You don't have to be a Christian to believe in God.
Partly because that is by far the most common "sect" found in the US.
But if you will look up a few posts, you will find that I mention that very thing; that there are more believers than just Christians and they don't get along when it comes to what to teach.
Well I guess than that your experience is limited. (Not to be snide), but I know of so many secular types and science types that believe they have all the answers and are extremely boisterous about condemning the believers.
The truth is that both sides have their voices, and both sides have their share of those that cause issues.
Only fools and those whose faith tells them that everything is in the bible believe all of mankind put together have all the answers. No one else.
And no, I do not intend to indicate that the faithful are fools. Mistaken, yes, but not fools.
Come now, you know that's not true. Be honest.
That is also not true. One side (non-believers) would never have a word to say, ever, if it weren't for believers "sharing" their beliefs and causing the conflict in the first place. The non-believer must always be on the defensive.
Wilderness your comment speaks of your attitude. Seriously that adds nothing to insight. Why do you do it? Your smart, you could contribute but you just tear down --- do you actually get some reward for that or just try to act smarter. I do not get it. I built up the scientific point of view but you just come back and tear down.
Because, while your posts in recent weeks seem to indicate an understanding of the difficulty of teaching the unfaithful, it doesn't seem here that you truly DO understand it.
Those objections are very real - you DON'T know God. To quote your own post (and that of Janesix) "Yes for those of us with faith and belief wonders abound and we see God's hand everywhere"
But you don't see God's hand at all - you see beauty, you see incomprehensible complexity, you see the vast unknown and you assign it to God's hand. But you do not, and never can, know that to be truth. It is by faith only, and that cannot be taught except to the gullible (mostly small children) and people willing to accept answers to their questions without the need for truth. Indeed, acceptance of untestable and unprovable answers can only turn us back to the dark ages when demons and fairies were responsible for everything that happened from poor crops to drought to sickness.
Similarly, the problem of religious morality and scriptural interpretations are very real to anyone not of the faith. It is extremely obvious to the atheist that the faithful do NOT have answers there, but only personal faith. Faith which cannot be taught.
But I did leave you a very valid opening and one I'm surprised you didn't take. For the faithful (a better terminology might be spiritual) do have something; something very important and that few people (believers or not) own for themselves. That is an inner peace, an understanding and control of self that few people today are able to develop unaided. Whether it be by meditation or other means it CAN be taught and it is real.
It just isn't from a god, whether Christian, Muslim, Pagan or any other. And while faith in a god may well be useful in developing that peace and understanding it isn't necessary, either. Leave out the mumbo jumbo that usually accompanies it, leave out the unbelievable "other world", "chi", or "energies of the spine" and teach people how to know themselves. Teach them how to fit within the strange new world we all find ourselves in.
So yes, you can perhaps teach the unfaithful something useful. It just isn't about your or any other god. It isn't from an imagined supernatural world that we can never touch or sense in any way regardless of how many times we claim that we can. It isn't from another universe and it isn't about your personal interpretation of your chosen scriptural writings. Become a "monk" if you will, or a philosopher (choose your own word here) and teach, but never assume that the unfaithful are interested in hearing about your religious leanings or the god you have chosen to believe in. They aren't.
Thank you wilderness that was very informative. And very instructional. I do not see great distinction between faith and spiritualism. But that is because of my spiritualism so you may have a point there. Many do have a blind faith and so in that sense my use interchangeably would be completely wrong.
"The hand of God" is a metaphor for sure. And yes it is only seen in the beauty of life. We can not see love. Just like heartache and heartburn have nothing to do with the heart.
It is not accurate to paint me with a religious brush. I am not speaking here of a church doctrine. Although sometimes I do. And sometimes some church's doctrine may be the same as mine.
But back to the point: That area that science cannot explain. Who made the rule that it cannot be explained by a faith in God?
Once again, your analogies fail miserably due to incredulity and dishonesty on your part.
Gee, what a coincidence.
Whatever science can't explain today will most likely be explained another day, and we will find that like everything else science has explained, gods are never part of the explanation.
Good. It is always difficult to communicate when an unknown jargon is used, and the words used by the religious (or "faithful" or "spiritual" or "believer") are most definitely classified as jargon. Meanings differ to different people - I tend to lump "religious" and "spiritual" together without the meaning having anything to do with the tenets expressed by organized religion.
"The hand of God" is such jargon. A metaphor, yes, but it either means that a supernatural, intelligent creature (God) is involved or it means that we don't know. If the first, I reject it as unproven. If the second, then say so rather than using words that have a different meaning.
The only acceptable answers will come (to the unbeliever) from observation, testing, peer reviews, and reason. Not from making up an unsupported answer and calling it "faith" (there's that jargon again).
Science made that rule when the scientific method of discovery was formulated. It has worked very well, has produced much knowledge and truth and has expanded the capabilities and knowledge of the race of man enormously. On the other hand, "faith" has never produced a verifiable truth. It's claims are hit and miss - one can never know if there is a connection to reality until the scientific method (in one form or another) is used to examine the claim. The claims of truth from "faith" are nothing more than a "hypothesis" in the scientific jargon. Simple acceptance as truth (the existence of a spiritual world or a god for example) simply does not provide anything but comfort - not truth. Science is very often (even usually) wrong, but it tries. The faithful do not - while the "answers" they provide explain natural phenomenon those answers are never tested and checked for truth but are simply accepted as an explanation. They are thus quite worthless to anyone searching for truth rather than a simple, feel good answer to the unknown.
So no, faith cannot adequately explain much of anything. Certainly none of the natural phenomena we see around us. Or, more accurately, those explanations are nothing but a working hypothesis to begin the search for truth and knowledge.
By rules of science you make a great position.
But science is not the only valid school of thought. Although it seems to be for you. Things exist that science is not the best source of explanation. Like Love and War. But I accept your belief that everything must be scientific and empirical. I just choose not to be so limited.
Oh, I don't know - I would disagree on a couple of points.
For instance, psychology is the science of man's mental makeup. A part of that is love, and another part can be war (although there are many other causes as well). The social sciences include many areas of that sort.
The problem, I think, is that term "valid". If indeed truth and reality is what is being sought then science is the way to go, not the study of the supernatural, including any gods.
But that isn't what many people want or need. Maybe they want comfort. Maybe to allay the fear of death. Maybe the feel incapable of formulating a set of moral codes. Maybe they are so uncomfortable with "I don't know" that any other answer, correct or not, is preferable. There can be many reasons to search the "god field" (as opposed to physics, chemistry, biology or any other field of science) for answers, it's just that truth and an understanding of the world around us isn't one of them. That doesn't mean that those studies and questions of god are invalid, though. Just that the answers do not necessarily have any connection with reality, and that's fine if that connection is not important to the searcher.
But limited? I don't see it that way - that some people (myself included) have no need for a god in their lives doesn't limit them. Instead it sets them free. I am free from the requirement to believe in what isn't there. Free from the need for someone else to describe correct morality, free from the fear of death. True, it means a great deal of effort to discover correct descriptions of nature and what we see around us, but that is a price I pay gladly rather than make a story without connection to reality.
Let us just bite off one thing you keep saying. "It is not there". It is to me. Can you respect that? And even accept that I can see and experience things that you cannot? Physical or otherwise.
Just some examples. Deer tracks on rock. Smell of fox urine. Empathic abilities. Nuances in Vietnamese language. My God.
I do fully accept that you think god is there. Even that you claim to have actual knowledge, not merely belief, of that.
Problem is, you cannot show it to be true. The only thing you can point to is your own personal, subjective imagination used to draw the conclusion. A conclusion that you refuse to test yourself and that no one else can test either. You can provide nothing that other people can experience or even detect.
God is not deer tracks or urine. These things are detectable by most people (if they know what a fox track is, anyway) and by machinery and instruments. God is not, and in fact most definitions of the Christian God include that He is indetectable by any means. He is impossible to prove by any standard outside simple acceptance; faith.
This is why my first response here was to ask what you would teach. You know full well that you have no evidence of God outside your own mind, but somehow expect the student scientists out there to accept your word that He is there anyway. It just doesn't work - the standard of proof is too different.
Belief is false and science is false, for the following reasons.
Belief is false, because it's possible to believe anything. Belief is akin to hope. Either something is, or it isn't. Belief is too much of a mental construct that is fueled by emotion and such tendencies. To witness something as it is, without belief, is a different kettle of fish. Believing something in some ways kills the wondrous mystery of our reality.
Science is false because science is never pure. Philosophical purists and truth seekers and mathematical and statitician wizards will all tell you that nothing is 100% true, in an empirical sense. Our scientific conclusions are 'make do', until something else fits into the jigsaw.
So like belief, empirical science is really a short term solution. Belief serves a purpose and gives a sense of direction as science does, but both are contrivances, in a sense.
I like Zen for that reason. Strip everything down, and what's left? Who knows what reality really is?
Denison I like this perspective but it has a fault. In the dark of the night I stepped on my sons sharp building block. I did not see or anticipate doing it, but that pain and fall were real. Nothing I conjured up, just reality. And I can explain all of that through true science. Lack of vision, neurotransmittters, etc etc. I can also tell you there was no reason for that block to be there. But it was.
That stuff is not false.
Haha, ouch! Eric I do agree with that - but arguably, the reality of it is more to do with the fact that we experience it as real and observable... but is it really? Or are we just flesh-suits bouncing off objects that really have no substance?
Can it pointed out that everything you enjoy today, your computer, internet connection and this forum, as just a few, are all the results of your so-called "false" science? Without it, one would still be living in a cave... with plenty of beliefs to keep one warm and comfortable.
Got me! :-) The point I was pressing, was that... hummm... stuff does work, surgery and electronics do follow the rules etc., but somehow it's not the whole story. It's rather like these rules are a subset of another bigger set of rules... or something :-/
This is really a nice question, I think it is differs for person to person. Even with the same person, some situations mandate a logical lead-in, while others demand faith as the starting point.
I believe that both complement each other. Logic works well when enough facts are known to make an informed logical decision. However, in the absence of sufficient facts, faith often gives us that "gut feeling" that can lead us in the right direction. One tool can even be used as a cross-check for the other.
Sorry, but faith often leads us in the wrong direction. Faith is not a tool at all for checking anything, it is little more than guesswork and wishful thinking.
Makes who wonder what rules of science have kept us from making genetically altered substances to eat even more plentiful. Makes you think that the Hippocratic oath must of come from science. Certainly our regulations of embryo research have a basis in science? And why aren't we cloning ourselves again? The whole NSA spying technology is cool.
I guess the above proves that science rules society?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
ATM I was being sarcastic. Science and logic do not run the human world. Feelings and faith and belief do. Science is only a tool for that.
Faith does not provide 100 bushel of wheat per acre to feed the masses; science does. Feelings do not provide for the transportation of that food to where it is needed; science does. Belief in a god does not heal the sick; science does. Faith did not provide the A bomb and cause the cold war; science did.
I could go on for hours, but you see the point. Science is indeed running the world, not feelings, faith or belief.
Wrong Wilderness, faith that a crop will grow and faith that a wage be paid is what plants the field not science. Any notion that the sun will rise tomorrow requires faith for logic and science do not make it so, they only explain why it does, with no promise that it will continue.
If you follow science why work today?
I have no blind faiths and yet I work today and will do the same tomorrow. With a blind faith that God will bring you to heaven, why bother with the other half of life? See, works both ways.
You do understand that science is mostly about a crystal ball? That science is used primarily to predict the future?
If I do this, then that will happen. Every time, no less. Science predicts the sun will rise tomorrow, but faith...faith in the rising will do nothing. Have faith, and it will rise, Have no faith and it will rise. Have faith it will not and it will rise anyway. No effect. Science could prevent the rising, however, if only the engineering was up to it. It knows how. Faith does not.
Ditto for the crops. Believe me when I tell you that a farmer will plant with or without faith his seeds will grow and earn him a living (and if you disagree you haven't known any farmers ). And all the faith in the world for a great crop won't produce one in a drought. So again, faith has exactly zero effect; that crop will do what it will do based on it's environment, not on what a person has faith in.
And so is science not performing the art of planting, man does. And he is not motivated by your science. I have worked farms and ranches and physical commodities.
Again you assume nonsense. Again I tell you I love science as far as it can go. This is not "me" against science, it is "me" after science. You do not know what I know of science. You have not touched billion year old rocks and fossil or faced cancer where science and prayer are cures. I know your world but you do not know mine.
Address that. I have a Bachelor in Science what do you have in philosophy, theology or faith?
You keep downgrading me but I am as educated as you in science and you are not educated in the arts.
Get over it. I get your science. It is not difficult. Get over it. I can beat you in a game of "string theory" or botany. But you can not address my other studies for you are close minded.
Believers will say anything. Bachelor of science, indeed.
I have a PHD in theoretical physics, but I just can't spell it.
What did you think B.S stands for as it relates to college degrees? I know what B.S generally stands for in general discussions
The common BS would not have periods. Other than that ????
Kinda like Phd?
Piled higher & deeper?
I will address it as always with the always unanswerable question.
You say you have had cancer cured by faith (at least that's what I read into your reply) - how do you know that faith did it? What tests did you make to determine it wasn't simple biological activity? Or an odd chemical introduced unknowingly into your body? Or a chance X or gamma ray burst from a light years off star that struck just right to kill the cancer?
I fully understand and accept that you have assigned God as the reason for your cure, but what tests did you make to determine the truth of "God did it"? For, as always, your simple claim holds no water with anyone searching for truth. It requires more.
And actually, yes I have touched multi-billion year old rocks and fossils with wonder and awe. Does that awe or wonder mean I should automatically ascribe their existence to an extra-universal supernatural creature that personally created them?
Thank you wilderness. I do not want you to ascribe to anything. I could say I want you to have what I have -- but that always sounds condescending to me. I really do respect your thoughts and what I would call beliefs. I get the feeling that you also respect mine. I hope the debates here help us understand each other better, and that is the only change I would really like.
A very big ditto. I absolutely respect your feelings and beliefs - I just don't ascribe to them. Worse, I do not ascribe to the methodology used to get to your conclusions, and that is the big difference as I see it. Regardless of whether any specific conclusion is right or wrong, the method used to reach that conclusion is at least as important as the conclusion itself as far as I'm concerned.
Which, going back to your OP, is once more why I asked what you would teach. Your methods of drawing inferences and conclusions are of little value to me; I use a different method altogether and as a result your conclusions are also of little value to me. The "logic" of your method does not equate to mine and the conclusions reached cannot be the same. What is truth to you can only be "I don't know" to me.
But that doesn't make them invalid to you. They are very useful to you in what you consider important in your life and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Our...purpose if you will...is to lead a happy productive life and your conclusions obviously contribute to that for you. They just don't for me as my idea of happiness is not yours. Unsurprising - we all have a different idea of what makes us happy.
So live your life, Eric, and when you have new knowledge received via the method I use (which I know you understand and use as well) bring it to me. I am always interested in new knowledge and learning.
Are you suggesting farmers don't use science? Do you know what those crops would look like without science?
Once again, you insert blind faith to that which you do not understand rather than trying to understand it. Not long ago the greatest minds on earth thought the solar system could only be explained by God. Today that math is rather easy (for some). So where your mind can't go you attribute to God rather than learning.
If you understood science as you say you wouldn't be making these claims. Why do you think the study of the arts make you more knowledgable and a better judge of the afterlife?
Rad Man, are you saying that I am wrong to believe what I believe?
I am saying you attribute the unknown to a God rather than trying to understand the unknown.
That being said, if your beliefs make you a better person and life more enjoyable for you and those around you then it's not wrong for you. However if you are saying you are right and I am wrong then you are wrong and I am right.
If you think we should all stop trying to understand our universe because we will never have all the required knowledge then you are mistaken. History has proven this many times.
There's nothing wrong with believing in myths and superstitions, other than the fact one is being dishonest to themselves.
But if that dishonesty prevents them from killing people I'm all for it.
Mia Culpa ATM. I also believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
Rad man you made a great distinction there that I will remember. And I am capable of logical scientific thought but it is so boring. Just kidding about the boring. But I like to sometimes turn it off and just feel. Like that wacky concept of speaking from the heart.
Again, you make no sense at all. You are also confusing faith in evidence with blind faith.
Of course, science doesn't make promises our world will continue to work as it does, that's just silly.
If faith is seen as something that colours our perception of life, then it does follow that what we are able to achieve and discover, comes second; when we expand our awareness of the nature of existence, who knows what science we'll discover? and I don't mean Frankenscience either...
Unfortunately, faith has a history of warping, denying and rejecting life and reality in favor of submission, obedience and ignorance and does nothing at all to expand our awareness of the nature of existence, quite the contrary, in fact.
In a way, you're right. Religious dogma runs most of the world and has for centuries shaped and formed much of what makes up our societies today. That is changing now, of course and science and logic are taking over, much to the chagrin of many believers.
Baloney. Faith and belief have produced literally nothing. If not for science, you'd be living in cave with your 'feelings, faith and beliefs' to keep you safe, warm and comfortable.
The problem with most of these arguments, is that in reality, God or a creator as you wish, is not exclusive from Science. More accurately, the essence of the creator, which is what we have faith in, and the processes of the known universe, which when studied we call science are tied hand in hand. The processes come from the spirit of God, are a creation of his, and were created not as a finite system, but rather a living, ever changing essence.
When I hear non believers spouting this bunk, I have to laugh at the short sightedness, and then wonder, are these the same people that are writing the scientific journals? If so then I doubt the validity of the theories.
Thank you Eric for this engaging forum.
great response Curiad, especially your first paragraph... along those lines, it always intrigues me how 'empirical' science tries to decide the validity of things, when the very thing which it is testing, is within a wider phenomenon (and eventually, the all-embracing superset/concept of God).
Sorry, but the actions of a falling rock are not within the "concept" of god except in the mind of the person making the claim. A concept cannot hold physical things.
The rock CAN be within the superset you call God, however. Can you provide evidence that such is true or even that the superset exists?
No? Then you have answered your question of why empirical science decides the validity of that superset. No evidence, no knowledge. You are not allowed to declare that your imagination has produced anything but imaginary things; anything you wish to be taken as fact must be observable and testable by all. Science recognizes all too well (after numerous frauds) that a mere claim does not make truth or knowledge. It takes far more than that.
Funny how you folks discuss science without knowing much about it.
Mano 0 Mano I am learning a lot here. We are very privileged to engage and learn from each other. Curiad it is always nice to hear from you.
Lol, that doesn't even make any sense or is remotely true. Science has nothing to do with religions or creators or gods or thing that go bump in the night. No, the processes don't come from any spirits, they come from the hard work and rigor of the human mind. Please don't insult those who offered the rigor and the results of it by giving credit where it is certainly not due.
Hilarious, you claim non-validity of theories in science simply because those who conduct science don't wallow in the same myths and superstitions as believers.
Never mind the actual theories themselves.
Various aspects of the study of quantum physics as well as the latest advances and research in neuroscience serve to back up the Christian faith. Science is finally catching up to what Jesus already knew 2000+ years ago, and put into practical utilization. If you'd like to know more, perhaps I can post a hubpage on specifics. However, it would be necessary for some people to discount what they "think they know" about the world and the things in it. Often, we create biases against something because we simply do not believe the subject matter could possibly be fact. And often the reason for these biases is none other than the fact that we've never heard of the subject matter at hand before. So we brush it off as nothing, when nonetheless, the information is indeed fact. Just as a for instance, the fact that we have an electromagnetic field (some call it a biofield) emanating from out bodies. That information is not necessarily readily available unless you search for it, but obviously it is fact.
Fully agree that we need to discount (or at least de-emphasize) what we think we know to gain new knowledge in many cases.
But how does a biofield indicate Christianity has it right that there is a God out there? Or that the man named Jesus knew of the field and knew it was electromagnetic? Off the top of my head it will take an awful lot of squirming and circumstantial evidence to make either case.
by FootballNut20 months ago
No matter what way you look at it.If God created life, then Satan the devil was born through God's creation, this makes GOD responsible for Satan's existence. So blame GOD for all things bad, instead of just shouting...
by Fairbear15 months ago
Two relatively similar people are presented with the Bible and the message of Christianity. Person one takes to it eagerly. Person two pushes it as far away as it will go. What is the difference between these two...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
OMG! (the "G" stands for Gawd, not God) - what is with these athiests?I am not a youngster. And I am not a believer. But I am envious of the serenity true believers appear to find in their life.Now... don't...
by Claire Evans12 months ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can...
by sandra rinck8 years ago
Say something in the name of God... an atheist comes and says, there is no God. A believers says, May God bless you... an atheist says, "was that a threat."A believer says, I believe that God is Love... an...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.