"We don't understand all the mysteries of science, we don't know all the mysteries of creation, but we know that they're one and together," said Butler.
Point is that at least *some* religious people aren't going the total denial of objective reality route like the fundies, flat eathers, etc...and Mormons
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2018 03:00PM by anybody.
"I would say my faith is based on facts, it is observable as I interact with God, and it is mostly testable," she said.
This sums it up, religious people don't see a difference in empirical evidence between the two fields, faith God and faith in Darwin are the same, I guess?
That's the problem. People will seem OK with science, then out of nowhere, they throw in a "God did it" in random places because something is either unknown, or it conflicts with whatever they decide to believe in from their church.
I have seen this first hand where I work. This is not an acceptable way to approach problems IMO, because it hinders the scientific method and critical thinking.
I've found many people cherry pick "science" at whatever level suits them for whichever preconceived "beliefs" they want to work around.
I agree. I found the article less "hopeful," I guess, than the OP did. To me it was a group that was trying to muddle-up both science and religion in a way that would silence their cognitive dissonance, and let them pretend the two were entirely compatible. When they're not.
Is that "better" than simply flat-out denying science? Sure, I guess.
Is it the "best" way to learn to think? Not in my book.
Science is simply proving something is true by using the scientific method. It's impossible to use the scientific method regarding religion because religion involves intangibles. Can you get a God sample to test in a lab? Good luck with that one. Religion is based on personal feelings and public persuasion. How many people in a faith actually believe in it? Most people are in a faith because they were born into it. Usually life is easier putting up with it to avoid pissing off the relatives and in certain faiths like Islam, pissing off the relatives and the community can be fatal.
As far as science goes you only can prove what you can measure. Science is limited and doesn't have all the answers but let's just keep science as science and religion as religion.
Rubicon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's impossible to > use the scientific method regarding religion > because religion involves intangibles.
Why does religion involve "intangibles?" I mean, if there IS a god, why isn't there testable evidence of such a thing?
> Can you > get a God sample to test in a lab? Good luck with > that one.
Again, why is that the case? Why should "god" be the only thing in the universe not observable, demonstrable, testable, falsifiable?
I have my own opinion as to why, of course. Because it's all made up. That's why there's nothing testable or falsifiable, because there's nothing.
God both is and isn’t testable. It depends on belief. Testable if you believe, not testable if you don’t. That’s why science is outside the scope of God. It declares a no man’s land and keeps out of it. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing there.
Belief in God was more widespread when survival really was life and death. Atheism wasn’t such a luxury. They also had the benefit of contact with the natural world.
But for everything there is a season. It does seem to take scientists a while to get over being burned at the stake for being right.
I find it bizarre there is still serious reporting on their being some kind of "controversy" here. One is the most obvious of creation myths. The other is science. Never the twain shall meet.