It's just laughable.
2007-09-07 01:45:30 · 10 answers · asked by carl 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree with you on this one, but you have to differentiate between faith that a deity exists from faith that a book is infallible. I consider myself to be quite logical. I understand that evolution is a fact, for instance. I also believe in a God. But I recognize that my belief - which is actually pretty strong - is really just a belief and that there is no proof of it whatsoever, and even that I could be incorrect. That understanding allows me to accept other perceptions of the divine or lack thereof as equally valid.
2007-09-07 01:55:09 · answer #1 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Bible is highly interpreted in that it's followers can't even agree on whether the first 5 books are metaphoric or literal. The bible makes assertions that are physically impossible such as a global flood, the sun stopping or moving back in the sky, and then has no collaborating evidence i.e no other culture recoded the sun stopping or moving backwards and there is no sediment layer that would indicate a global flood.
Science is about determining facts, faith is about believing something you want to be true. There is a huge contradiction there.
2007-09-07 02:12:22 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends on which faith you're talking about. If you're talking about faith in the due diligence and proper testing being conducted within the scientific community, then I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you're talking about a faith in things that can't be verified through science, such as the existence of gods, then I think it's laughable to draw such conclusions.
2007-09-07 02:25:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
>Why do keep on going science vs faith when there is no contradiction?
Of course there is a contradiction. Faith by definition precludes the logic inherent in the scientific method.
2007-09-07 03:38:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well... let's see about that...
The universe...
1) An invisible, magical sky-fairy (god) poofed the universe into existence around 6,000 years ago... while just down the road, in the REAL universe, the Mesopotamians were making beer.
2) Around 14.5 billion years ago, the universe began with the expansion of a singularity from the energy of which, as it cooled, matter (hydrogen and helium) condensed. The first generation of stars formed from this matter under the influence of gravity... (etc.)... natural processes... self-organizing complex systems... emergent properties...
Nope... no contradiction there.
Life...
1) An invisible, magical sky-fairy (god) poofed plants, swimmy critters, creeping critters, flying critters and walky critters into existence. Then he fabricated a human from a dust bunny, and a help-mate from a rib.... and from there, things went to sh*t.
2) As conditions began to stabilize on the newly formed earth, the organic chemicals (amino acids, sugars, etc.) that had been raining down on the planet during the entire period of its formation, finally reached a state where natural chemical processes resulted in self-replicating molecules... (etc.)...
Nope... no contradictions there.
OK. I'm convinced. Where do I sign up?
.
2007-09-07 02:06:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is.
The Bible deals with the Spiritual and tells stories using metaphor layered upon metaphor.
Science deals with the natural world and builds evidences built upon evidence.
2007-09-07 01:53:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because science disagrees factually with things in the Bible.
2007-09-07 01:51:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Science doesn't go against my faith in the least....
2007-09-07 02:07:18 · answer #8 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree that one does not disprove the other - you can believe in both quite easily.
2007-09-07 02:04:57 · answer #9 · answered by MJF 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Ha!
2007-09-07 01:53:07 · answer #10 · answered by shara. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋