Discovery Channels

[RevRainbow]

Why is the sky blue? Why is water wet? Why is fire hot? Why can’t I see the air? Why do flowers smell?

Questions a curious little child asks, to which an adult might reply, “because” since the true explanation would not be comprehended. Another answer, the one my mother used, was simply, “God made it that way.”

Okay, okay. Now don’t smirk. God did make it that way. Surely, we have the scientific explanation for almost everything nowadays and they are the correct explanations in the physical world. But I go a step further.

Science and Religion don’t mix. That is true. But I am not talking religion. I am talking of a belief in the existence of a creator, a divinity. That belief is not religion, it is simple faith.

Religion puts limits and restrictions on faith. It takes a belief in the Almighty and attaches man made rules of worship and lifestyle. Religion also tries to explain and define God to the believer and that is why there have been so many errors in defining the universe, heaven, the earth and just about everything else down through the ages. That is why God has used science so that we can discover more of the truth of existence.

God and science are not at odds, nor do the two have conflict. What is true is that when science makes a discovery, religion must adapt its dogma whereas the believer with simple faith merely is awed at God’s omnipotence.

Discovering that the earth is not the center of the universe, that there are galaxies beyond the clouds and God’s throne is not in the stratosphere has been a matter for religionists to deal with. This is why physical things are used to confound the high and mighty. God has a wonderful sense of humor and the more all-knowing we think we are, the more He shows we ain’t, by discoveries made through science. Science actually gives us a much clearer and truthful picture of who God is.

If we enter into the spiritual kingdom, we must do so in faith. As little children, trusting our heavenly Father to guide us and explain things. But, just like our parents when we were young, God will not explain everything at once, because we would not fully understand. We must discover the Truth ourselves over time. And, little by little, He reveals more of himself to us…if we seek.

So enter God’s world with childlike wonder. When science explains how flowers get their variety of colors, it does not make them less beautiful. Because science explains the variety of fish in the sea, it does not reduce their attraction. When science explains how vast and expansive the universe is, it merely confirms that God is far greater (and creation more wondrous) that what we formerly knew or believed about Him.

When science holds up the periodic table of elements, it shows me how things are put together. I do not say there is no God. I say, now I understand how God works even more clearly. Science does not disprove the existence of God. Science confirms it and ultimately will prove it. The rocks themselves will bear witness. When scripture tells us to “Seek and ye shall find,” that is more a scientific mandate than a religious rule.

Religion will have to work long and hard to stay afloat as more and more of God’s true nature comes to light. Jesus once said that the time had come when those who believe in God will not worship in buildings but in spirit and truth. Religion is trying to keep us in the buildings. We need to take a walk outside.

[Reverend Matthew T. Brock]

I once had a good friend who is an Anglican Priest... we were discussing Creationism Vs. Evolution one day and he explained it to me like this.... He believes in evolution (after all, the word theory, when used in the phrase Theory of Evolution, means scientific FACT), and also believes in Creationism. He stated to me that God put life on Earth in it's earliest forms, then stood back and watched what happened. Therefore, Adam & Eve, one might say, were unicellular organisms in a pool of primordial ooze.

Therefore, I also do not believe that science and religion must be at odds....

OK, atheists....attack away!

edited to correct typo

Edited January 6, 2007 by Reverend Matthew T. Brock

[Tallmike]

I once had a good friend who is an Anglican Priest... we were discussing Creationism Vs. Evolution one day and he explained it to me like this.... He believes in evolution (after all, the word theory, when used in the phrase Theory of Evolution, means scientific FACT), and also believes in Creationism. He stated to me that God put life on Earth in it's earliest forms, then stood back and watched what happened. Therefore, Adam & Eve, one might say, were unicellular organisms in a pool of primordial ooze.

Therefore, I also do not believe that science and religion must be at odds....

OK, atheists....attack away!

edited to correct typo

Even as an atheist I do not believe that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, its just a best guess.

[Reverend Matthew T. Brock]

Even as an atheist I do not believe that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, its just a best guess.

4. (countable) (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

"The theory of relativity was proposed by Einstein."

-Wiktionary

Most often the word Theory, when used in a scientific context, means facts stemming from research.

[Tallmike]

4. (countable) (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

"The theory of relativity was proposed by Einstein."

-Wiktionary

Most often the word Theory, when used in a scientific context, means facts stemming from research.

No, if it was a fact then it would be the "law of evolution" you are confused.

[Dave]

Why is the sky blue? Why is water wet? Why is fire hot? Why can’t I see the air? Why do flowers smell?

Questions a curious little child asks, to which an adult might reply, “because” since the true explanation would not be comprehended. Another answer, the one my mother used, was simply, “God made it that way.”

Okay, okay. Now don’t smirk. God did make it that way. Surely, we have the scientific explanation for almost everything nowadays and they are the correct explanations in the physical world. But I go a step further.

Science and Religion don’t mix. That is true. But I am not talking religion. I am talking of a belief in the existence of a creator, a divinity. That belief is not religion, it is simple faith.....

It seems your whole argument, and it's not yours or even new, is just a redefinition of the word "religion." A religion is simply a set of beliefs surrounding a belief in god or gods of some kind, a reliance on ancient texts, and so on. It need not have an organized following and a religion can exist with billions of followers, or just one.

The faith required for a belief in a god and such is not the same "faith" or "belief" that one would use in science. To apply those words to science and religion actually sets up a logical fallacy called an equivocation.

But you're right in that science and religion do not mix. Here's a quick quote:

The scientific method relies on an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural/physical/material universe. Religious methods are more subjective (or intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, ideas believed to have been revealed, intuition, belief in the supernatural, individual experience, "reasoned" (in a dogmatic sense) observations about life or the universe or a combination of these to understand the universe. Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value, morals and spirituality.

Source.

[Dave]

No, if it was a fact then it would be the "law of evolution" you are confused.

Uh.... he's not the one that's confused. You're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Source.

In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.

Source.

[Dave]

OK, atheists....attack away!

Atheists don't attack.

[Tallmike]

Uh.... he's not the one that's confused. You're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".

Source.

Source.

Someone on wikipedia talking about a words "common usage" is not an argument.

Tell me dave, short of a time machine how exactly is evolution a proven fact? Its a theory, a best guess based on the evidence that is generally accepted as true but is certainly not above reproach.

[Dave]

Someone on wikipedia talking about a words "common usage" is not an argument.

Never mind.

[RevRainbow]

Sorry Dave. I evidently did not define my terms clearly which caused a misinterpretation of what was being communicated.

By religion I meant an organized system of ceremony, prayer, ritual, rules and laws which constrain the believer to a prescribed method of worship. By faith I meant a personal belief that a spiritual Diety exists which/whom is responsible for all of creation and is worthy of acknowledgement as such without necessarily abiding by any known form of prescibed formalities.

I am not trying to redefine religion. I am trying to define the difference between religion and simple faith in God. This determines whether one as an individual is faithful to God himself or faithful to one's religion apart from God. One can be faithful to God through religion or be religious but far apart from God. It is a matter of the heart. I was religious for years without really knowing God. I am now not religious and feel much closer to Him.

My premise is simply that science will never shake my belief in the Almighty's existance, merely enhance it and that organized religion is problematic. I hope I have now clarified my position better.

Thanks for reading and sharing.

[Dave]

Sorry Dave. I evidently did not define my terms clearly which caused a misinterpretation of what was being communicated.

By religion I meant an organized system of ceremony, prayer, ritual, rules and laws which constrain the believer to a prescribed method of worship. By faith I meant a personal belief that a spiritual Diety exists which/whom is responsible for all of creation and is worthy of acknowledgement as such without necessarily abiding by any known form of prescibed formalities.

The two are exactly the same. "Faith" in this case is just a euphemism for a specific religious belief. Many christians have their own "system of ceremony, prayer, ritual, rules and laws...." and do not adhere to what some preacher or some "prescribed method of worship" tells them to do. It's still a religious belief no matter how you try to redefine it.

I am not trying to redefine religion. I am trying to define the difference between religion and simple faith in God.....

There is no difference.

My premise is simply that science will never shake my belief in the Almighty's existance....

Science neither knows, nor cares, of or about your belief. Your gods are not part of science and science does not spend any precious time or energy trying to disprove your god. Gods are part of religions, not science.

[RevHallford]

What is that gravity thingy?

Is it a theory or a law?

[Dave]

What is that gravity thingy?

Is it a theory or a law?

See my quote above on the definition of the term "theory".

In science "theory" does not mean "guess".

In science "hypothesis" means "guess".

Theories do not graduate to be laws. It doesn't work that way.

This is not MY interpretation, or MY assumption, or MY argument, or MY anything. That's why I used outside sources, so that no one could claim it was me that was wrong.

Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases.

Source.

[Tallmike]

What is that gravity thingy?

Is it a theory or a law?

Gravity is a law.

[Dave]

What is that gravity thingy?

Is it a theory or a law?

I'll reply with a simpler explanation:

Newton's "Law of Gravity" has been replaced by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

[Pope John XXIV]

There is no difference

Yes there is, already spelled out( geez, here we go again)

Your gods are not part of science and science does not spend any precious time or energy trying to disprove your god. Gods are part of religions, not science

Exatly, so why try always disproving religion with science. Yes, they can co-exist, and no, you dont have to if you dont want. As far wasting precious time, it seems to me you use an awful lot trying to argue and downgrade people's beliefs. Why? If science is your thing, then great for you, why do you care so much about what people beleive in? And dont say you dont care, because you do, you never miss a chance to attack it.

The two are exactly the same. "Faith" in this case is just a euphemism for a specific religious belief. Many christians have their own "system of ceremony, prayer, ritual, rules and laws...." and do not adhere to what some preacher or some "prescribed method of worship" tells them to do. It's still a religious belief no matter how you try to redefine it.

There is no difference.

Science neither knows, nor cares, of or about your belief. Your gods are not part of science and science does not spend any precious time or energy trying to disprove your god. Gods are part of religions, not science.

[Tallmike]

As far wasting precious time, it seems to me you use an awful lot trying to argue and downgrade people's beliefs. Why? If science is your thing, then great for you, why do you care so much about what people beleive in? And dont say you dont care, because you do, you never miss a chance to attack it.

I agree with you Coach. Some religious people never miss an opportunity to talk bad about science or atheists and some atheists never miss an opportunity to talk bad about religion.

I dislike both groups.

[RevRainbow]

When I joined the forum it was my belief (or is that hypothesis?) that we come together to share our common belief which is, according to the ULC, "in that which is right!"

Our purpose (again, my hypothesis based on the ULC motto, "We Are One") is to learn from one another through an acceptance of our differences and thereby advance in wisdom and knowledge by sharing what we have learned in life.

You don't have to believe or accept what I say in these posts, nor do I, yours. But through our sharing, we learn how others deal with life situations, overcome adversity and fulfill our lives. I will never attack anyone with whom I differ on opinion or belief. I will, if so desired, engage in positive, constructive dialogue which hopefully will benefit both but I will not involve myself in caustic arguments which are apparently based on religious or scientific prejudice.

Consider that all of us could be wrong and we are all part of a virtual computer game on some aliens desktop!

Thank you, gentlemen (tallmike and the coach), for coming to my defense. I understand that an open forum may contain some closed minds. By the way, there is no gravity, the world simply sucks! (sorry 'bout that)

[edcrain]

By the way, there is no gravity, the world simply sucks!

Good One!