huckelberry wrote:That comment contains some agreement with you but from there I do not find myself relating to the idea that prayer has to do with vague sensations with no meaning. My relationship with prayer is that it may help my understanding process, I do not see a place where vague sensations are more than incidentally involved. They are usually not involved at all.
We add the meaning to the experience, whether the meaning is accurate of reality or not. All experience is sensations or thought, and thought could be considered a sensation.
I have no problem with Agnostics. I was one for my first 20 years. Science by definition must be Agnostic. Individual scientists of course can believe as they choose.
I accept Evolution and Climate change as facts. The explanation of those facts(theory) is subject to change. IE: We know that gravity exists. We still don't know exactly what it is. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
I accept Evolution and Climate change as facts. The explanation of those facts(theory) is subject to change. IE: We know that gravity exists. We still don't know exactly what it is. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
Science at least uses facts to come up with the theory/interpretation. Religion unfortunately tends to avoid facts which means they don't have to be subject to change.
I accept Evolution and Climate change as facts. The explanation of those facts(theory) is subject to change. IE: We know that gravity exists. We still don't know exactly what it is. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
Science at least uses facts to come up with the theory/interpretation. Religion unfortunately tends to avoid facts which means they don't have to be subject to change.
In my opinion, science can explain religion while religion cannot explain science. I see no reason for NOMAs except for cultural reasons to avoid conflict.
I accept Evolution and Climate change as facts. The explanation of those facts(theory) is subject to change. IE: We know that gravity exists. We still don't know exactly what it is. SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
Science at least uses facts to come up with the theory/interpretation. Religion unfortunately tends to avoid facts which means they don't have to be subject to change.
Given that a huge number of famous scientists were/are in fact Christians. I don't see that as avoiding facts. SEE SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology
The CCC wrote:Given that a huge number of famous scientists were/are in fact Christians. I don't see that as avoiding facts. SEE SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology
I don't recall these great scientists were the ones creating these religious claims based on no facts. People can also be quite smart in one area and dumb in another.
That doesn't make any sense. As I've already said I accept science. I just think there is more than just science. Of course we are all ignorant in at least one area, and probably many more.
Personally; if I can't get being loved. I'll settle for being right. But I still prefer being loved.
That doesn't make any sense. As I've already said I accept science. I just think there is more than just science. Of course we are all ignorant in at least one area, and probably many more.
Science is really just a methodology to gain knowledge. It's a way of analyzing and collecting facts into theories. Religion tends to just make assertions without facts. These great scientists who were also religious in almost all cases were not making these religious assertions. They just believed them because that is the world they grew up in. Many may have been closet unbelievers in these claims.
