Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[nPeace]

There are plenty of drawings of mythical animals and statues, but no bones or other real evidence of them.

Interesting. Why are they mythical?

 

[Into the Night]

Do you have a source that states that please?
Does science not build on existing evidence?


Starting point:
In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.
Of course science is limited to the scientific method, which doesn't include the supernatural, but if a hypothesis was proposed that aliens created the heavens and earth, that could work right?
So both can work, only the former would not be tested the same as the latter.

This starting point is not circular, is it? How so?


Do you have a source please?
Is this one correct?
What is science?

Science is not defined by a web site. It is defined by philosophy, which also gives the reasoning for that definition. Philosophy uses no outside sources.

Each theory of science may come from anywhere. It can come from the results of an experiment that falsifies another theory. It can come from watching the sunrise. It can come from sleeping (Alfred Nobel would set an alarm in the middle of the night to disturb his dreams, which he would write down in a journal next to his bed). It can come from watching an episode of 'Sponge Bob'. That new theory does center on current conditions, so yes...in this way science does 'build' on existing theories.

Here one must ask the obvious question. What effect does the very existence of technology "A", product "B", or theory of science "C" have on my thoughts and behavior today? I'm not talking about what the technology does, or what the product is, I am talking about it's simple existence. Today, for example, we no longer have to hunt for food. Ranching techniques and farming techniques have improved to the point that we can think about other things than simply surviving.

The supernatural is not falsifiable. There is no way to build a null hypothesis for it that produces a specific test for it. There is no 'method' here. The capability to perform the test itself is sufficient to separate science from the supernatural.

The Theory of Creation states that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. That theory does not state what that 'intelligence' actually is. It can be a god or gods, it can be aliens, it can be any kind of intelligence. That theory is about a past unobserved event. It is not falsifiable. There is no way to test the null hypothesis of that theory (hypothesis stem from theories, not the other way around), because the only way to test it is to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. Therefore, the Theory of Creation is not science. That theory remains a circular argument. It has arguments extending from it. That makes that particular theory a religion as well.

For all we know, we could be the result of a horrible lab accident on some alien world and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.

This is not a question for science. It is a question for philosophy, logic, and even mathematics to a degree, but not science.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Jumi]

Interesting. Why are they mythical?

Because there's no evidence that they existed. Though you could argue that there exist Chinese dragons, no one's ever found any bones like that. Neither do we find harpies, female torso and head with wings and claws of birds...

 

[nPeace]

Science is not defined by a web site. It is defined by philosophy, which also gives the reasoning for that definition. Philosophy uses no outside sources.

Each theory of science may come from anywhere. It can come from the results of an experiment that falsifies another theory. It can come from watching the sunrise. It can come from sleeping (Alfred Nobel would set an alarm in the middle of the night to disturb his dreams, which he would write down in a journal next to his bed). It can come from watching an episode of 'Sponge Bob'. That new theory does center on current conditions, so yes...in this way science does 'build' on existing theories.

Here one must ask the obvious question. What effect does the very existence of technology "A", product "B", or theory of science "C" have on my thoughts and behavior today? I'm not talking about what the technology does, or what the product is, I am talking about it's simple existence. Today, for example, we no longer have to hunt for food. Ranching techniques and farming techniques have improved to the point that we can think about other things than simply surviving.

The supernatural is not falsifiable. There is no way to build a null hypothesis for it that produces a specific test for it. There is no 'method' here. The capability to perform the test itself is sufficient to separate science from the supernatural.

The Theory of Creation states that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. That theory does not state what that 'intelligence' actually is. It can be a god or gods, it can be aliens, it can be any kind of intelligence. That theory is about a past unobserved event. It is not falsifiable. There is no way to test the null hypothesis of that theory (hypothesis stem from theories, not the other way around), because the only way to test it is to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. Therefore, the Theory of Creation is not science. That theory remains a circular argument. It has arguments extending from it. That makes that particular theory a religion as well.

For all we know, we could be the result of a horrible lab accident on some alien world and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.

This is not a question for science. It is a question for philosophy, logic, and even mathematics to a degree, but not science.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You realize that you are on a website, making statements, and using the word science, and defining it, so don't you think you ought to give persons a reason to take those statements seriously - especially since you just admitted that one of those statements was not accurate?

 

[Earthling]

Actually, science is a theory system. A fact is not a Universal Truth, and there is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. Any statement about any god or gods is not falsifiable. Science simply doesn't go there.

Exactly, so why do so many represent science in a manner which is so unscientific? And their criticism of the Bible is generally as uninformed as well. I think it's political. And for me, political debate has become so . . . intellectually retarded. For example, the militant atheists, those who are outspoken and likely to contribute to forums like this, detest the fundamental Christian right wing republicans, I guess, or whatever faction supposedly represents modern day apostate Christianity which supports legislation which they don't approve of. Now, Christians aren't supposed to be a part of the world and interfere with that nonsense, but, it's the name of the game. The majority gets what they want. Of course, nowadays it's more about money than votes, but again. That's the name of the game. If you can't stand the heat get off the porch with the big hound dogs or words to that effect.

 

[Into the Night]

It could be considered that Religion is the reason for our knowledge.

We can consider if Science and Religion are in Harmony, what happened 200 years ago that sparked an increase in knowledge?

It was foretold long ago;

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Questions we can all ask if we choose to.

Regards Tony

Yes, it could.

Theories of science are not knowledge. They are simply theories. They are falsifiable, which makes them more than just a simple circular argument, but they are not knowledge in and of themselves.

So what is 'knowledge'? This is a philosophical question. Is religion part of the answer for it? Possibly. Is science part of the answer for it? Possibly. It all depends on the reasoning used in making such an argument.

Here is my reasoning on the matter:

A branch of philosophy is known as 'phenomenology'. This branch concentrates on just such questions, such as the validity of what we observe, what is 'real' and what 'real' even means, and what 'knowledge' itself even means. The basic premise of the this branch is that observations are more than just a sensory stimulus. It also involves the interpretation of that stimulus. That interpretation is done according to our own personal model of the Universe. That model is built from our own experiences. It is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. Yes, there are common elements for those with common experiences or education, but the differences exist also. It is that model that we each define as 'real'. Thus, 'real' is literally what each of us decide to make it.

'Knowledge', in my opinion, is some new bit that we attach to this model. Thus, 'knowledge' is different for each and every one of us, just as what 'real' is.

A theory of science is just a theory. It is not a proof. No amount of supporting evidence will ever bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory. A single piece of conflicting evidence, however, can destroy it. Therefore a theory is not 'knowledge'. It is a means to 'knowledge'. The existence of such a theory (not the theory itself) means you can incorporate it into your personal model. As long as theory exists, it can be part of that model. Even a nonscientific theory can be incorporated into that model. That theory too is 'knowledge'.

Thus, science can be a source of knowledge (but is not knowledge itself), and religion can be a source of knowledge (but is not knowledge itself). 'Knowledge', like 'real', can be literally what you want it to be.by simply changing your personal model of the Universe.

 

[nPeace]

Though you could argue that there exist Chinese dragons, no one's ever found any bones like that. Neither do we find harpies, female torso and head with wings and claws of birds...

That's true.
Is it okay that we consider everything about our universe from the "singularity", to the evolution from one common ancestor, to the evolution of man mythology?

 

[Into the Night]

You realize that you are on a website, making statements, and using the word science, and defining it, so don't you think you ought to give persons a reason to take those statements seriously - especially since you just admitted that one of those statements was not accurate?

I have defined it and given the reasoning why. I will do it again here.

Let's take the idea that is often taught at places like Berkeley: that science is a 'method' of some kind, involving the formulation of a thing called a 'hypothesis', and that supporting evidence is used to prove the 'hypothesis' into a 'theory', usually through some sort of 'peer review' or voting mechanism.

There are quite a few things wrong with that model.

If we use supporting evidence to prove a theory, than we can prove that things float because of their shape. Flat ice, flat pieces of wood, leaves, etc. All of these are supporting evidence. The 'hypothesis' that things float because of their shape is not a 'theory', and proven science. It must pass peer review or any other voting mechanism because anyone can repeat these observations and come up with the same result.

Obviously, this line of thinking is just flat wrong, but why?

The voting method itself has a problem. If science requires such a voting mechanism as 'peer review' or any other such mechanism (whether that vote is by some elite group or any other), how did the first theory of science happen? Who voted for it? There were no scientists or elite group to vote on it. Further, if you go by voting to define science, than Donald Trump is now science. So is the Constitution of the United States. So are any laws that violate that Constitution.

Obviously, this line of thinking too is wrong, but why?

These questions falsify the notion that science is a 'method' or is subject to 'peer review' as is taught by Berkeley and other schools. Can Berkeley define 'science' for us?

No.

Both questions can be dealt with very simply: by making science subject to conflicting evidence, not supporting evidence. A single piece of supporting evidence can utterly destroy a theory. The notion of a theory itself comes from logic and philosophy: It is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is just a set of predicates and a conclusion.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. One major example is the null hypothesis of a theory. A hypothesis is not an explanatory argument. It doesn't explain anything. It most often takes the form of a question, such as ,"How can I show this theory is wrong?".

If science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories, than no peer group, vote, or consensus of any kind is required. As long as a theory continues to survive tests designed to try to destroy it, it continues to be part of the body of science. Not vote, not consensus, no elite voting bloc, and no change of state in a theory is required, other than it's falsification. No 'method' is required either. There is no fixed procedure to the formulation of a theory or for how it is falsified.

Science, in the end, is really just a set of falsifiable theories (as opposed to nonscientific theories). Since all theories begin as circular arguments, any theory that is not a scientific one simply remains the circular argument it started as. Because nonscientific theories are not falsifiable, they can never be falsified. One will never know or be able to test a nonscientific theory. They remain as they are forever.

All this is pretty brief, but gives the gist of it. Hopefully, you can see some of the reasoning behind it. A good introduction to this line of reasoning can be found in the works of Karl Popper.

 

[Into the Night]

Interesting. Why are they mythical?

A very good question. They are mythical to him because he simply declared them so. To him, that is his reality.

If you apply logic to such creatures, you have the same thing that happens with a god or gods. it is simply not possible to prove any of these exist. It is also not possible to prove any of these do not exist.
The reason has to do with the closed functional nature of logic. It is like mathematics. It can only function within the bounds set by its axioms.

The attempt to prove that anything such thing does not exist creates a fallacy (logic error, just like a math error) known as the Argument of Ignorance. It points out that you cannot make a positive conclusion from negative predicate. Example:

You have a bag of marbles. You can't see into the bag. (the tableu)
You pick a marble from the bag and it's white.
You pick another marble from the bag and it's white.

The bag still contains marbles (the predicate, establishing a set).
None of the marbles you have pulled from the bag are any other color than white (2nd predicate, establishing the 2nd set).
Therefore the bag only contains white marbles (a positive conclusion, and a fallacy, due to the incomplete equivalence of the two sets).

Obviously, the bag might indeed contain a black marble. You just never picked it.

This is the argument of ignorance. To conclude there is no god (a positive conclusion, which specifies a set, even though its a void set) because there is no evidence (a negative predicate, which fails to specify a set) is an argument of ignorance fallacy.

The same thing happens with any creature deemed 'mythical'.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly, so why do so many represent science in a manner which is so unscientific? And their criticism of the Bible is generally as uninformed as well. I think it's political. And for me, political debate has become so . . . intellectually retarded. For example, the militant atheists, those who are outspoken and likely to contribute to forums like this, detest the fundamental Christian right wing republicans, I guess, or whatever faction supposedly represents modern day apostate Christianity which supports legislation which they don't approve of. Now, Christians aren't supposed to be a part of the world and interfere with that nonsense, but, it's the name of the game. The majority gets what they want. Of course, nowadays it's more about money than votes, but again. That's the name of the game. If you can't stand the heat get off the porch with the big hound dogs or words to that effect.

LOL. Politics and politicians being retarded is not a new a concept! A lot of these guys have trouble tying their shoes. There is a reason that comedians look to Congress and the President for material!

Politics, however, is people. Not just our illustrious leaders, but everyone. You see it in any corporate meeting, in a town hall shouting match, in any interaction with people. I believe Dave Barry said it best:

No matter where you go, no matter what people meet or what cultures you visit, we all have one thing in common: We're all crazy.

That said, the United States is, after all, a republic, It has a constitution. That constitution acknowledges the inherent freedom of Man to believe what they choose to believe, and there is nothing any government, force, imprisonment, etc. can do to change that. The Constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from interfering with that right, which is inherent in Man as Man. Most State constitutions echo that acknowledgment, which prevents the States from interfering with that right as well.

So what is a 'religion'?

I find that a religion is best explained by it's characteristics. Not all religions have a god or gods. They do not have to be organized. An individual's belief is his own, regardless of whether a religion is organized or not.

i have found this to be the best explanation of any religion:

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, when arguments extending from that. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Jesus Christ exists, and that He is who He says He is (namely the Son of God, and part of the godhead). ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from that initial circular argument. It is not possible to prove whether Jesus Christ ever existed, or not, and it is not possible to prove whether His claim is True or False.

Atheism is also a religion. It's initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist. All other arguments in atheism stem from that initial argument. Again, it is not possible to prove no god or gods exist, since such an argument results in an Argument of Ignorance fallacy.

Two examples, same characteristics.

In any religion, you can have fundamentalists. These people attempt to prove their religion, which is not provable. The fundamentalist is one that does not recognize the circular nature of their religion and make and the circular argument fallacy (failure to recognize a circular argument for what it is). That is, indeed, the best definition of any fundamentalist.

There are fundamentalists in atheism (most of them) and fundamentalists in Christianity (some of them). At least Christians, on the whole, admit their religion is based on faith. Most atheists don't.

Should either religion be taught as 'science' in schools? No. Neither religion is 'science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Every theory of science MUST be falsifiable, which means testable for that theory's null hypothesis using a specific test producing a specific result, and the test must be available and practical to perform.

Should the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogensis, or the Theory of Creation be taught in schools as 'science'? No. Both are not theories of science. None are falsifiable. They all have arguments extending from them. They are all religions. Science has no theory about a past unobserved event. Such theories can only be tested by going back in time to see what actually happened. The test is not available.

 

[Into the Night]

That's true.
Is it okay that we consider everything about our universe from the "singularity", to the evolution from one common ancestor, to the evolution of man mythology?

Sure. But be aware of the circular nature of these arguments. These theories can't be falsified, and therefore are not theories of science, but they are nonscientific theories. Nothing prevents a True or False condition for any of them. We just don't know which, and we will never know. We can't test the theory.

 

[nPeace]

I have defined it and given the reasoning why. I will do it again here.

Let's take the idea that is often taught at places like Berkeley: that science is a 'method' of some kind, involving the formulation of a thing called a 'hypothesis', and that supporting evidence is used to prove the 'hypothesis' into a 'theory', usually through some sort of 'peer review' or voting mechanism.

There are quite a few things wrong with that model.

If we use supporting evidence to prove a theory, than we can prove that things float because of their shape. Flat ice, flat pieces of wood, leaves, etc. All of these are supporting evidence. The 'hypothesis' that things float because of their shape is not a 'theory', and proven science. It must pass peer review or any other voting mechanism because anyone can repeat these observations and come up with the same result.

Obviously, this line of thinking is just flat wrong, but why?

The voting method itself has a problem. If science requires such a voting mechanism as 'peer review' or any other such mechanism (whether that vote is by some elite group or any other), how did the first theory of science happen? Who voted for it? There were no scientists or elite group to vote on it. Further, if you go by voting to define science, than Donald Trump is now science. So is the Constitution of the United States. So are any laws that violate that Constitution.

Obviously, this line of thinking too is wrong, but why?

These questions falsify the notion that science is a 'method' or is subject to 'peer review' as is taught by Berkeley and other schools. Can Berkeley define 'science' for us?

No.

Both questions can be dealt with very simply: by making science subject to conflicting evidence, not supporting evidence. A single piece of supporting evidence can utterly destroy a theory. The notion of a theory itself comes from logic and philosophy: It is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is just a set of predicates and a conclusion.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. One major example is the null hypothesis of a theory. A hypothesis is not an explanatory argument. It doesn't explain anything. It most often takes the form of a question, such as ,"How can I show this theory is wrong?".

If science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories, than no peer group, vote, or consensus of any kind is required. As long as a theory continues to survive tests designed to try to destroy it, it continues to be part of the body of science. Not vote, not consensus, no elite voting bloc, and no change of state in a theory is required, other than it's falsification. No 'method' is required either. There is no fixed procedure to the formulation of a theory or for how it is falsified.

Science, in the end, is really just a set of falsifiable theories (as opposed to nonscientific theories). Since all theories begin as circular arguments, any theory that is not a scientific one simply remains the circular argument it started as. Because nonscientific theories are not falsifiable, they can never be falsified. One will never know or be able to test a nonscientific theory. They remain as they are forever.

All this is pretty brief, but gives the gist of it. Hopefully, you can see some of the reasoning behind it. A good introduction to this line of reasoning can be found in the works of Karl Popper.

I understand your line of reasoning, and I don't have a problem with it at all. In fact I pretty much agree much of what you say.
I was having a problem - not with your reasoning - but with how you defined science, which is not how I understood the definition.
However, I understand your you.

 

[oldbadger]

Im never impressed with the majority of religious claims. Usually packed with confirmation bias and very little in the way of facts

OK..... I agree.
I'll debate merrily about the existence of a Yeshua (Jesus) but I have to cross the floor over any debates that he was a God, or could actually carry out supernatural miracles.

As for Bahai, when I see a Bahai claim and then read that it was not spoken or written by the Bahai Prophet or his Babi fore-runner, a quick check often finds that the prophet said something else altogether.

Faith is fine, but misinformation is not, imo.

 

[oldbadger]

It could be considered that Religion is the reason for our knowledge.

We can consider if Science and Religion are in Harmony, what happened 200 years ago that sparked an increase in knowledge?

What happened 200 years ago was that this planet started to become very very dirty.
So much for any increases in knowledge activated by your Prophet's arrival.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Psychiatry does have a strong scientific basis in regards treatments but can on occasion have an inferiority complex compared to other medical specialties.

It should try therapy.

They're more like a wing and a toaster.

I miss that screensaver.

Today, science says A is true, Tomorrow they say A is false and B is true. The next day they say b is also false, and C is true...

"You have heard it said ... but truly I tell you ..." -- Jesus

 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.

So, conversions are just people tossing their beliefs to the wind by the trickery of men? Good to know.

 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah.

If God is willing to let the actual Temple be destroyed (multiple times), He's perfectly willing to let the metaphorical one die too.

 Now if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13 each one’s work will be shown for what it is, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire, and the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one has built. 1

Exactly. The tree shall be judged by the fruit. Jesus offers eternal life and sinlessness. Both death and sin still exist. Jesus shows us a brochure filled with pictures of a mighty orchard, but the picture was made with plastic miniatures.

However, I find that true science always tend to line up with God's word, because God's word is true.

I also believe that, to an extent. God even told me that anything He stated would be reflective of reality. That also means the bible isn't what He said because it doesn't reflect reality that often.

We don't need science to tell us it's raining outside or that the grass is green.

Ever seen the joke that someone in the house is watching it rain outside but it's a sprinkler going off outside? Grass isn't green if you're colorblind or wearing certain colored shades. Science means determining the cause of the falling water. Science means determining a light frequency to define "green".

A church social is not religion, as such.

Christianity made it so when it declared that more than one person would equal Jesus' presence.

In general though, from the machines of the industrial revolution and the railways, to aeroplanes and the jet engine, to much of the modern tech sector this hasn't been dominated by scientists, but hobbyists, engineers and entrepreneurs.

Yeah, a lot of progress seems to have started out with "hold my beer."

Religion provides the realm of possibility through story while science gives me the details about how to get things done.

Religion tells us crows flew to the sun. Science tells us about sunspots.

Now provide research using established and validated scientific criteria that demonstrates conclusively that God doesn't exist.

I doubt atheism can do such a thing (moving the burden of proof aside). After all, there are countless definitions of godhood. I can only concede that "BibleGod" is unsupported by historical, biological, geological, or physical evidence. That doesn't mean a whole host of other options are off the table too, though.

Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin".

Isn't it Paul who had this "logic"? I disagree with it. We clearly think and behave in ways counter to beneficial results. Can't Jesus save us from "sin" without harping on some imaginary "first sin"?

No fair minded judge would punish a man for the crimes his father or grandfather committed let alone the alleged sins of Adam 77 generations beforehand.

God isn't always fair in the bible.

Do you ever listen to weather forecasts?

I stopped when I realized the weather at my new house seems to be "rain." I don't think God has another setting.

Did you not learn this in school?

If it's the US, you'd be surprised just to what lengths communities will go to to prevent sex ed.

You imply that religion does answer these questions. It does not.

In the bible, the way to prove a child was yours was that it wouldn't be aborted after priests forcibly poured a potion down your wife's throat. Nowadays we have DNA. Just seems more objective.

True ideas can be useful, but so can untrue ones.

True, but I detest being lied to. Grew up with it. Truth, to me, is a much better foundation, despite the fact master manipulators can use both to fuel their own desires.

The burden of proof is upon each one of us to investigate the nature of reality and adhere to that truth. Its not my responsibility to convince you that God exists anymore than its your responsibility to convince me he doesn't. We each have one life we are responsible for, and one life alone.

It kinda would if you were an evangelist. It's like implied in the title. For those who set themselves up as master salespeople for God, yes, it IS their job to prove their claims.

Whether is pronounced by sages and seers or not, it will always remain the 'dharma'. Seers, sages and manifestations are not important. What is important is 'dharma'. Some try to own it.

Indeed. The Way is the Way. The Tour Guide is rather unnecessary because you are either on that Way or you aren't.

Because there's no evidence that they existed. Though you could argue that there exist Chinese dragons, no one's ever found any bones like that. Neither do we find harpies, female torso and head with wings and claws of birds...

I would argue it's more "they didn't exist as imagined," because I could see some old farmer finding jumbled up dino bones or whatever and dreaming up a creature to fit what he saw. The beast he imagined wasn't real, but the bones were.

For example, the militant atheists, those who are outspoken and likely to contribute to forums like this, detest the fundamental Christian right wing republicans, I guess, or whatever faction supposedly represents modern day apostate Christianity which supports legislation which they don't approve of.

Yeah, it's hard to take a party that used to be just interested in tradition and common fiscal sense and turned it into "seig heil, let's go put some more kids on the barbie."

Take the Kroger shooter, the synagogue shooter, the serial bomber -- what do they have in common? They aren't liberal Democrats by any stretch of the imagination.

My grandfather was a Republican, back when all it meant was conservatism. Thank God he died before the Nazis took over the government (at least so blatantly).

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm just one county away from the synagogue shooter, too. I'm HIGHLY uncomfortable, even though I'm not Jewish. Terrorists don't use due process or fact-checking to make sure they're killing the "right" people.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yet observation shows that religion operates in opposition to the two good outcomes that you list. What's with that?

Religion is like a tree that bears fruit. As it grows old its loses bears less fruit. Its spiritual potency declines and it loses its capacity to adapt to a world civilisation very different from when its was revealed centuries ago.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It should try therapy.

I went through therapy about 30 years ago and then I became a Baha'i lol.

God isn't always fair in the bible.

He is often poorly represented by those who claim allegiance to Him as well.

It kinda would if you were an evangelist. It's like implied in the title. For those who set themselves up as master salespeople for God, yes, it IS their job to prove their claims.

Its enough to have these kind of discussions. We're all adults here and any kind of fundamentalism whether from Religionists or scientists is ineffective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"It should try therapy.
I miss that screensaver.
..
Take the Kroger shooter, the synagogue shooter, the serial bomber -- what do they have in common? They aren't liberal Democrats by any stretch of the imagination.
My grandfather was a Republican, back when all it meant was conservatism. Thank God he died before the Nazis took over the government (at least so blatantly)."

That was some good work. You floored us all.

 

[sealchan]

I'd say you've given religion short shrift to a certain degree. I think religion sometimes provides people with new, expansive concepts that facilitate creative thinking. Maybe religion provides other helpful things. I haven't put much thought into this issue. I should be quiet.

I am speaking mainly for myself I'm sure.