If science is hard and complex then... is Religion is weak and simple?

[julian94]

This thing has been bugging me for a couple of weeks now.
Through my life since childhood people keep saying to me that there is a God up there and if I were good, things will come to my way.

However young as I was, I knew this was far from truth and kept nodding to what my religious relatives, teachers (I was in a Catholic school), preachers used to tell me, that good will prevail and God will favor those who are morally correct. Also that we cannot question things that happen, that it is made from God's intricate design and all things will eventually fit like an assembled Jigsaw puzzle.

Isn't this a bit like emotional complacency of human nature to procrastinate and wait until the situation gets better? We wait and wait and mindlessly continue our own lives without questioning anything. Our fears and doubts and ignorance lay calm as we depend on an invisible figure that seems to govern us all. Meanwhile the world gets destroyed; from natural disasters to man-made ones.

And...then those who cannot wait anymore resort to violence. Seeing that the doctrine that they follow aren't respected by everyone they get very impatient and then eventually resort to violence, physically,verbally and emotionally to their enemies. A notable example of this is the big "bad" guy who has murdered thousands of people called Bin Laden, and the religious bigots who are against other kinds of sexuality.


Then there is Science. The common perception about Science is that it is hard and complex. We also know that people would rather blindly follow religion rather than Science because let's face it: we'd rather listen to preaches and stay idle than listen to a information-packed lesson about astrophysics or Chemistry!

However is that the way to treat it? To perceive it as difficult and even annoying when we are BEING GIVEN solid, rock-hard, visible answers? In religion we are insinuating that something exists, that something will happen however far-fetch they may be, here our hypothesis are given life, our fruits of labour can be touched and most of all we are given to ability to think and to influence, change morals and social ethics. The universe is the limit.

Yes I know the answers may be not emotionally attached and they may even be hard to swallow, answers that exist outside of our own "mental bubble" (psyche) and thus not catered to us but rather to the natural and seemingly unpredictable world. Which is obviously going to be tough considering that it does not go the way we want it, that reality is NOT how we knew how it was. That death IS death and coming to terms with it is hard. These aspects might discourage people of Science but I think that we as humans have this ability to adapt very well to virtually everything. This realization may become mundane and normal, we will get through it, this Science will become old and what we thought was tough will not be as much as before. Finally let us face it, reality IS hard.

So if reality is hard as a lot of people know, why do so many people, I included sometimes, depend on such weak structure to emotionally and mentally survive? Is it the simplicity and user-friendly aspect of it that makes religion so widespread or is it the culture and old existence that makes it so?

[Lote-Tree]

If science is hard and complex then...
-------------------------------------

I don't understand...you mean hard to understand?




--------------
is Religion is weak and simple?
----------------

Neither....just comforting to many...

[julian94]

Hard to grasp, difficult to accept and in what sense do you mean comforting? Because I mean I am a catholic myself but I see many youth disrespecting the ways.

[AuntShecky]

Life is hard, death is hard, comedy is hard. Everything is hard, that's the reality.

But the fact that my puny little mind cannot comprehend any part of theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, and "incommensurable magnitudes" (irrational numbers) does not mean that these higher sciences do not exist.

Same with theology. Some folks try to boil religion down to "fundamentals"--"thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." But the essence of things metaphysical are not so easily dealt with, methinks. For instance, there's nothing "simple" about the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and twentieth century thinkers like Teilhard du Chardin.

All we can do is try to be open-minded and learn everything we can. Life will still be "hard," and no doubt still ultimately incomprehensible, but at least we are making an effort to move closer to understanding.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think science is that hard and complex. It is definitely harder and more complex than religion's usual explanation for things hard to explain (God did it). Sure, if one delves deep into science, it does get hard and complex (physics, biology, etc) but basic things aren't hard to understand. Even evolution is not a difficult concept to grasp, whether you believe in it or not.

As for religion being weak and simple, I would also have to disagree with that, and I'm someone who rejects all religions as nonsense. First, I don't see how anyone can claim they are weak when religions can compel people to do what would seem insane things. As for them being simple, I strongly disagree with that. Religion is very complex. The multiple interpretation of the Bible are evidence of this, and that's just Christianity.

[YesNo]

I don't think science and religion are in conflict unless you are in some fringe religious group that believes in creationism or are a scientist who is intolerant of any theistic expression.

In the twentieth century science came to believe in two strange things that Catholics, for example, have believed in for a long time: (1) the universe had a beginning (Big Bang), and (2) that beginning came out of nothing.

They diverge only on whether "chance" caused the Big Bang or whether some dimension of consciousness, "God", did it.

[Brock]

I don't think science is that hard and complex. It is definitely harder and more complex than religion's usual explanation for things hard to explain (God did it). Sure, if one delves deep into science, it does get hard and complex (physics, biology, etc) but basic things aren't hard to understand. Even evolution is not a difficult concept to grasp, whether you believe in it or not.

As for religion being weak and simple, I would also have to disagree with that, and I'm someone who rejects all religions as nonsense. First, I don't see how anyone can claim they are weak when religions can compel people to do what would seem insane things. As for them being simple, I strongly disagree with that. Religion is very complex. The multiple interpretation of the Bible are evidence of this, and that's just Christianity.

I agree with the latter point. Religion is astoundingly complex. Thousands of years of theology, of arguments, differing beliefs, different translations, etc etc.. (this goes on for ever).

I would also again agree with Mutatis Mutandi's first point: most of the notions given through science are brilliantly simple to grasp. Professor Brian Cox (if you don't know this guy, you have to google him, he's amazing) would be the first to tell you about the beauty of the simplicity of physics. And it is beautiful. I feel immense pleasure in the scientific story of creation than any religious one, and I feel much more satisfied. I don't find it confusing and difficult to grasp, which I do in religion. Just because you don't know how protons and neutrons work (there's still so much that scientists don't know) it doesn't mean that the general concepts cannot be understood. Likewise, just because we might not know the intricacies of why sex came about in evolution, or how exactly the first molecules, the initial building blocks to replicate - thus starting life as we know it - exactly came to happen, it doesn't mean that we cannot understand the continuous and overall simplicity of it.


That death IS death and coming to terms with it is hard. These aspects might discourage people of Science but I think that we as humans have this ability to adapt very well to virtually everything. This realization may become mundane and normal, we will get through it, this Science will become old and what we thought was tough will not be as much as before. Finally let us face it, reality IS hard.

So if reality is hard as a lot of people know, why do so many people, I included sometimes, depend on such weak structure to emotionally and mentally survive? Is it the simplicity and user-friendly aspect of it that makes religion so widespread or is it the culture and old existence that makes it so?

I cannot help posting again...

Now these are good questions. There have been ideas put forward that as consciousness comes into being in a species (ie, us), the species becomes acutely aware of its own existence as well as its surroundings. It must provide itself with a sufficient answer as to the question 'why?'. It invents an answer through story, through the powerful myth. Then, after a long time - after it enhances its tool-making ability - it no longer needs to invent, but only discover. Thus, scientific understanding emerges.

I'm not trying to offend anyone with religious views here. I respect their religious beliefs. I'm merely recapitulating a theory formulated a while back and which many people hold true.

Now, I personally do not find the idea of death difficult to come to terms with. And I define death as the complete end of my consciousness, my being, my everything as a single organism. I find it harder to come to terms with the idea of no death. (Remember Freddie Mercury's song?) But then, if there was no meaning to my life, because of nothing after it, what would be the point? Why live at all? What is the point in everything and anything? This is what religion seems to answer better than science (but even then, does religion really answer this question?). I would argue that the real meat of the subject lies in the idea that some questions cannot be given valid answers because, ultimately, they are not valid questions.

As to whether people depend on the simplicity of religion to emotionally and mentally survive, I would posit that we still are a species that suffers from the great consciousness, a great compulsion to completely, utterly, and immediately solve the problem of 'why'? What we have yet to collectively discover, I would humbly suggest, is that there is no validity in such a question. Would it be that unbelievable to accept that a grand explanation of the origin of our universe (indeed, the origin of the universes) is not possible for an animal with only five senses and only 4 billion years of evolution to understand?

[Calidore]

Those who think religion is simple (and everyone else also) should check out the astounding number of belief systems represented at www.sacred-texts.com.

I would also point out the large overlap in people's behavior regardless which "side" they're on. There are religious folk who work very hard at Bible interpretation and history, even to learning the original languages. There are scientists who engage in the traditional religious behavior of filling question marks with inventions and then splitting into factions and trying to "win" through politics. String theory is one example there.

There are compassionate religious people and compassionate atheists. There are strident, holier-than-thou religious bullies and smug, deeper-thinker-than-thou atheist bullies. People are the same, whichever group--religious, political, philosophical--they belong to.

[Brock]

There are compassionate religious people and compassionate atheists. There are strident, holier-than-thou religious bullies and smug, deeper-thinker-than-thou atheist bullies. People are the same, whichever group--religious, political, philosophical--they belong to.

True. And good point.

[AuntShecky]

. Professor Brian Cox (if you don't know this guy, you have to google him, he's amazing) would be the first to tell you about the beauty of the simplicity of physics. And it is beautiful.

This is true. Another Brian, Brian Greene, is a string theorist. Among his mainstream published works is The Elegant Universe a wonderful book but a bit difficult for dolts such as myself to get through.

The most famous equation in the world (E = m c² ) has been praised for its elegance and simplicity. Additionally, here's what Bertrand Russell has to say on mathematical beauty:

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry.



And I define death as the complete end of my consciousness, my being, my everything as a single organism.


But what scientific proof do you have that consciousness dies with you?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But what scientific proof do you have that consciousness dies with you?
Welllll, consciousness exists because our brain functions, and our brain functions through electrical signals. We have tools that can detect those electrical signals that occur, and since they stop when we die, I think that's pretty good proof.

[Brock]

Welllll, consciousness exists because our brain functions, and our brain functions through electrical signals. We have tools that can detect those electrical signals that occur, and since they stop when we die, I think that's pretty good proof.

Got there before I did.

[YesNo]

Welllll, consciousness exists because our brain functions, and our brain functions through electrical signals. We have tools that can detect those electrical signals that occur, and since they stop when we die, I think that's pretty good proof.
The evidence based on near-death and shared-death experiences contradict that theory.

[Propter W.]

The evidence based on near-death and shared-death experiences contradict that theory.

What is a shared-death experience?

A recent study in Slovenia showed that, out of the 52 cardiac arrest patients they studied, 11 reported a near-death experience. All of the patients who experienced near-death had significantly higher carbondioxide levels in their blood than those who did not.

Of course, this isn't conclusive evidence that consciousness dies with us, but it's certainly very interesting and something that hasn't been researched before.

Anyway, I'd like to see evidence of consciousness in real-death cases, like when the person has been dead for two days. Signs of consciousness in near-death cases sounds to me, and I'm by no means an expert, like we're not defining death properly.

[Paulclem]

Welllll, consciousness exists because our brain functions, and our brain functions through electrical signals. We have tools that can detect those electrical signals that occur, and since they stop when we die, I think that's pretty good proof.

This is a simplification and there is no clear scientific understanding of consciousness and it's relation to the brain. It is unclear to a scientist whether consciousness acts through the brain, but is seperate from it, or whether it is the primary cause of consciousness. There is just no scientific way to tell.

Religions have their own views on this.

[YesNo]

What is a shared-death experience?

Raymond Moody defined "shared death experience" recently in Glimpses of Eternity: http://www.glimpsesofeternity.com/

He was the psychologist who originally created the term "near death experience" over twenty years ago.

In the shared-death experience a person actually dies, but some of the people close to the person experience some of the same effects that people have reported from near-death experiences or they see the dying person as a ghost. In that sense they share in the death experience.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The evidence based on near-death and shared-death experiences contradict that theory.
Yes, but near-death expriences are just that: near-death. People who have those retain brain activity, if I'm not mistaken. It takes a certain amount of time before one becomes brain-dead after the heart stops beating, no?

This is a simplification and there is no clear scientific understanding of consciousness and it's relation to the brain. It is unclear to a scientist whether consciousness acts through the brain, but is seperate from it, or whether it is the primary cause of consciousness. There is just no scientific way to tell.
I'm not trying to sound facetious, but what else would it relate to? What else would it act through?

And, for that matter, what is consciousness? Is it self-awareness? If that's the case, my conscious vanishes many nights. Is it the ability to think? To have morals? To simply function?

And, no matter what a conscious is, what is there to suggest it doesn't work exclusively through the brain?

And, if we're talking about science here, near-death and shared-death experiences hold about as much weight as people who claim to be abducted by aliens.

[Paulclem]

I'm not trying to sound facetious, but what else would it relate to? What else would it act through?

And, for that matter, what is consciousness? Is it self-awareness? If that's the case, my conscious vanishes many nights. Is it the ability to think? To have morals? To simply function?

And, no matter what a conscious is, what is there to suggest it doesn't work exclusively through the brain?



You're basing your view on a scientific worldview which requires evidence. There are plenty of other worldviews that can offer an alternative, which we don't need to go in to. Science can't say - prove it, and then make assumptions about reality without proof itself. It can posit a theory of course, but this has no more validity than other explanations for consciousness posited by others with a different worldview.

If you stimulate the brain here, then the individual experiences a fear or feeling, for example. But this does not exclude the possibility that consciousness acts through the brain.

[julian94]

Those who think religion is simple (and everyone else also) should check out the astounding number of belief systems represented at www.sacred-texts.com.

I would also point out the large overlap in people's behavior regardless which "side" they're on. There are religious folk who work very hard at Bible interpretation and history, even to learning the original languages. There are scientists who engage in the traditional religious behavior of filling question marks with inventions and then splitting into factions and trying to "win" through politics. String theory is one example there.

There are compassionate religious people and compassionate atheists. There are strident, holier-than-thou religious bullies and smug, deeper-thinker-than-thou atheist bullies. People are the same, whichever group--religious, political, philosophical--they belong to.

Sorry I have badly phrased what I was meaning to say.

When I said simple and weak I said it to the eyes of the people and not the religion itself, these are two things completely different because the latter is extremely complex and extremely powerful in a way.

Moreover, while I agree that people are the same, I do think that influence may shape their own decisions and a person's ideology may shape another person's viewpoint of him/her, for good or for bad. A nice person may become unforgiving in the eyes of another because of the former's view on life, a good example of this is how many homosexuals view the pope. Indeed, even though the pope says that homosexuals have the same rights and human dignity as heterosexual people, he still views it as something that is unclean, thus making his reputation in this particular community sour.



I agree with the latter point. Religion is astoundingly complex. Thousands of years of theology, of arguments, differing beliefs, different translations, etc etc.. (this goes on for ever).

I would also again agree with Mutatis Mutandi's first point: most of the notions given through science are brilliantly simple to grasp. Professor Brian Cox (if you don't know this guy, you have to google him, he's amazing) would be the first to tell you about the beauty of the simplicity of physics. And it is beautiful. I feel immense pleasure in the scientific story of creation than any religious one, and I feel much more satisfied. I don't find it confusing and difficult to grasp, which I do in religion. Just because you don't know how protons and neutrons work (there's still so much that scientists don't know) it doesn't mean that the general concepts cannot be understood. Likewise, just because we might not know the intricacies of why sex came about in evolution, or how exactly the first molecules, the initial building blocks to replicate - thus starting life as we know it - exactly came to happen, it doesn't mean that we cannot understand the continuous and overall simplicity of it.

Again, I agree with this statement. Funny thing is that even though MANY notions in Chemistry and Physics are extremely simple to grasp, many have this certain prejudice that it is Science therefore it IS hard (although this idea is rapidly changing), whereas many have a different view on religion, many finding it boring but rather simpler.

[AuntShecky]

Welllll, consciousness exists because our brain functions, and our brain functions through electrical signals. We have tools that can detect those electrical signals that occur, and since they stop when we die, I think that's pretty good proof.


Got there before I did.

I take it that the two of you maintain that consciousness (i.e. the mind) is strictly a biological function.

There are those who subscribe to different theories on the nature of the mind, and they're not primarily orthodox religious thinkers. For instance, Aristotle (who lived in a pre-Judeo-Christian era) had a view of human nature which included a metaphysical aspect

In our own time, there are actually scientists and secular philosophers who are not primarily theocratic yetwho theorize that the mind is a separate entity:

Can consciousness exist separate from the brain?
http://www.examiner.com/spirituality-in-madison/can-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain

This webpage views the "soul" (i.e. consciousness, the mind?) as an actual measurable quantity, albeit miniscule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Weight_of_the_soul

There are, as you know, different states of consciousness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

If you believe that consciousness "dies" when the physical brain dies, then what about the converse. We don't "die" when we lose consciousness. If you "come to" in the post-op recovery room or after having been mugged or having been slipped a mickey, by that logic, is that the same as coming back from the dead? Of course it isn't. That's because there are different states of consciousness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

There can be a type of consciousness that transcends the individual brain-- (hello, Jung Lovers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness

And finally, we can see evidence of consciousness (the mind in action) in the creative works of artists and writers long past. Homer, Shakespeare, and Mozart have been dead for centuries, yet their minds are more "alive" than most of us who are walking around today and breathing (with our without our mouths open.)

[Paulclem]

Well put Aunty.

[YesNo]

Yes, but near-death expriences are just that: near-death. People who have those retain brain activity, if I'm not mistaken. It takes a certain amount of time before one becomes brain-dead after the heart stops beating, no?

The shared-death experience does involve the death of a person. When onlookers or relatives experience things similar to what those who have had near-death experiences describe or see the ghost of the dead person, those experiences would be classified as a "shared-death" experience. So it is not only near-death evidence that needs to be considered when trying to understand what consciousness is.

The word "near-death" only means that the person who was diagnosed as dead was latter resuscitated (or somehow resurrected on their own). It does not mean that the person wasn't in fact dead for a short period of time. Being temporarily dead goes against our assumptions of what death must be, but those assumptions may be wrong.

The most convincing thing I've heard about these near-death accounts is that sometimes the person who was brought back to life recalled things that happened outside of the viewpoint of the dead body. For example, they could explain what the medical staff were doing from a vantage point the dead body could not have had.

[JuniperWoolf]

This thread is so out of place.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This thread is so out of place.
Haha, too true. I come to general chat for fluff!

Seriously, though, I'm out of my depth in this one. :nod:

[Propter W.]

If consciousness is something outside the brain, how does it interact or 'communicate' with the body? Is there any explanation that doesn't violate the basic laws of physics? Why do people experience altered consciousness if their brain is stimulated by for instance drugs or if their brain is physically altered (due to a surgical procedures, for example)?

[Paulclem]

If consciousness is something outside the brain, how does it interact or 'communicate' with the body? Is there any explanation that doesn't violate the basic laws of physics? Why do people experience altered consciousness if their brain is stimulated by for instance drugs or if their brain is physically altered (due to a surgical procedures, for example)?

What type of answer do you want? If you're looking for a scientific answer - they don't know. If you are looking into another worldview - well that depends which one makes sense.

Which basic laws of physics are you talking about: Newton's or Quantum? Quantum seems to violate Newton from what I hear, though I'm no scientist.

If the brain is altered, then a separate mind's experience through it will be altered. If you tamper with the car, then the driver will have a different experience than usual.

[YesNo]

Can consciousness exist separate from the brain?
http://www.examiner.com/spirituality-in-madison/can-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain

I found this first link the most interesting, in particular, the references to the Kellys' Irreducible Mind and to William James and F. W. H. Myers original research.


If consciousness is something outside the brain, how does it interact or 'communicate' with the body? Is there any explanation that doesn't violate the basic laws of physics? Why do people experience altered consciousness if their brain is stimulated by for instance drugs or if their brain is physically altered (due to a surgical procedures, for example)?
I think what the evidence shows is that consciousness is not inside the brain.

There are two basic models given the evidence.

In the revised modernist one, consciousness is like an electromagnetic field and our brains are like radios picking up signals. In this model consciousness is part of space-time and therefore had an origin with space-time about 14 billion years ago. Chance is still able to function as the cause of space-time and hence consciousness.

In the second, closer to many religious perspectives, consciousness would be outside of space-time and yet able to influence space-time in many more ways than just through brain activity. Since consciousness is the source of choice, chance would no longer be needed as a cause for space-time. If this turns out to be the case, it would be Game Over for the modernist worldview.

[Brock]

It's rather interesting that this discussion has so far, from what I can see, only included the idea of a human conciousness, via the brain. What about cats, and dogs? Small insects, which all have brains. More interesting, what about plants? Bacteria? Viruses? When a tree grows, and then suffers through a harsh winter, it behaves differently. Does it feel suffering? Not, necessarily as we would sense pain, but in any sense, does it feel? Does a nucleus 'feel'?

I'm not even going to touch on robots...

Maybe conciousness is something that is variable... gradual...

[Paulclem]

It's rather interesting that this discussion has so far, from what I can see, only included the idea of a human conciousness, via the brain. What about cats, and dogs? Small insects, which all have brains. More interesting, what about plants? Bacteria? Viruses? When a tree grows, and then suffers through a harsh winter, it behaves differently. Does it feel suffering? Not, necessarily as we would sense pain, but in any sense, does it feel? Does a nucleus 'feel'?

I'm not even going to touch on robots...

Maybe conciousness is something that is variable... gradual...

Again it depends upon your worldview. In my opinion there is a gap in the Judeo-Christian view of animals and consciousness. They are denied a place in heaven, which perhaps has an implication about the Judeo-Christian view of consciousness.

Hinduism, on the other hand, sees animals as beings who will eventually become human through re-incarnation, which again implies a view about consciousness. This sits better with your last comment.

I cite these two views merely to demonstrate that it depends upon your worldview/ religion, not as a criticism of either religion. I know that Christians aren't cruel to their animals due to this worldview, but I think in this case it exposes a place where there is little guidance in the Bible.

[YesNo]

It's rather interesting that this discussion has so far, from what I can see, only included the idea of a human conciousness, via the brain. What about cats, and dogs? Small insects, which all have brains. More interesting, what about plants? Bacteria? Viruses? When a tree grows, and then suffers through a harsh winter, it behaves differently. Does it feel suffering? Not, necessarily as we would sense pain, but in any sense, does it feel? Does a nucleus 'feel'?

I'm not even going to touch on robots...

Maybe conciousness is something that is variable... gradual...
I agree with what Paulclem wrote regarding worldviews.

I only wanted to add that there is an interesting book surveying scientific approaches to plant consciousness by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, The Secret Life of Plants. It is somewhat old (1972), but I found it helped me break through some of my cultural assumptions when I read it.

[BienvenuJDC]

It's amazing the some try to completely separate science and religion. Not everyone who espouses religious belief holds to a blind faith without evidence, but there is an aspect that the so-called "scientific" group relies on faith of their theories. Science merely is the area of study of "knowledge." There are those who can combine both science and religion, and believe that they are inseparable.

Just as their are many interpretations of religious belief, there are also many different interpretations of the gathered scientific evidences and the conclusions made based on those evidences. How many times have scientists changed there interpretations of the evidences and argue the cases for different theories. The scientific community is NOT what the OP represented, nor is ALL of the religious community as is represented.

[Brock]

It's amazing the some try to completely separate science and religion. Not everyone who espouses religious belief holds to a blind faith without evidence, but there is an aspect that the so-called "scientific" group relies on faith of their theories. Science merely is the area of study of "knowledge." There are those who can combine both science and religion, and believe that they are inseparable.

Just as their are many interpretations of religious belief, there are also many different interpretations of the gathered scientific evidences and the conclusions made based on those evidences. How many times have scientists changed there interpretations of the evidences and argue the cases for different theories. The scientific community is NOT what the OP represented, nor is ALL of the religious community as is represented.

'Faith', though, is a strange term to use in science. Indeed, one can argue that scientists have faith when they believe a theory, for example e=mc2. But how far are we going to use the word 'faith'? I mean simply: I could say that I rely on my faith in the evidence of documentary video footage showing the eiffel tower. I therefore know that if I catch a plane to Paris, there it will stand. Is this really a matter of faith? Likewise, if I study zoology or biology and evolution at university for 7 years and fully understand how DNA can be understood and interpreted, how much is 'faith' really involved in the fact that I know evolution existed? I wouldn't really call it 'faith'. 'Faith', in my opinion, belongs in the areas where a belief has no evidence to start with. One needs faith to believe in a book that was written several thousand years ago, sure, because there is no evidence at all for what it claims as the truth. On the other hand, the evidence for the eiffel tower is beyond dispute. Ditto for evolution. Science gets things wrong, but only in an attempt to unveil the truth, eager to question old theories, yet willing to admit its errors when it is wrong.

[BienvenuJDC]

in my opinion, belongs in the areas where a belief has no evidence to start with. One needs faith to believe in a book that was written several thousand years ago, sure, because there is no evidence at all for what it claims as the truth. On the other hand, the evidence for the eiffel tower is beyond dispute. Ditto for evolution. Science gets things wrong, but only in an attempt to unveil the truth, eager to question old theories, yet willing to admit its errors when it is wrong.

You have not studied the evidences of the validity of the Bible. To say that there is NO evidence, is to admit that you have studied the evidences that are there. Having studied the claims of the Scriptures with the evidences provided in science, archaeology, history, logic, and other areas of study, I can be assured of just as much in religion as you claim to know in theories. You place faith in "evidences" that are not as much fact, as they are interpretations of what has been observed. There are some things that are taken as "face value" in science that are not actually proven, but assumed.

[Brock]

You have not studied the evidences of the validity of the Bible. To say that there is NO evidence, is to admit that you have studied the evidences that are there. Having studied the claims of the Scriptures with the evidences provided in science, archaeology, history, logic, and other areas of study, I can be assured of just as much in religion as you claim to know in theories. You place faith in "evidences" that are not as much fact, as they are interpretations of what has been observed. There are some things that are taken as "face value" in science that are not actually proven, but assumed.

Good point, actually. I admit the fundamental flaw in my argument and take heed. Besides studying the Book of Revelation during my BA, I haven't really studied the Scriptures in depth (well, apart from downloading the Old Testament onto my fresh Kindle and reading bits here and there on the bus). Maybe it's because I'm slightly ignorant or just too keen on scientific knowledge? Or just set in mind? But I honestly haven't read anything I could seriously put my money on, so to speak. It just doesn't seem to mean anything to me beyond a very interesting read, with good moral tales - in total, a fine example of ancient literature, drawing on a vast array of earlier myths. You could say that I find the Sciptures very interesting anthropologically.

You're right: science can only interpret what it observes. Which is rightly so. If interpretation differs, it generally encourages further observation, further experiments, further debate. Religion, on the other hand, interprets what it cannot observe. If you mean things in the Sciptures such as when it describes the earth as a circle ('how could they possibly know the earth was circle thousands of years ago?'), I don't think this counts. I'm talking about Armageddon, Genesis, turning water into wine. This isn't really evidence, is it? Or is it?

Interesting points though!