I Am Fascinated By Science, Religion, and Philosophy

The Earth is four billion years old. Dinosaurs did not coexist with humans. Evolution is real.

These are facts, not beliefs.

You can believe whatever you like. Religious? Great! Not religious? Good for you! Into philosophy? Nice! Trying to discredit facts because they upset you and blur the line between fact and belief? Not cool.

Update: no matter how much it hurts your precious little feelings, facts are facts. And facts are true whether you believe them or not.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

xixgun · M

I don’t understand why science and religion are supposed to be at odds. To me, they reinforce each other.

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

@xixgun May be we should remember a wise quote from Galileo:
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go"

xixgun · M

@CharlieZ In the beginning there was the void (space)...and God said, “Let there be light” (a big bang) and there was light.

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

@xixgun Sorry, not to debate your interpretation.
But there was not even space before the Big Bang.
Cos Space is not an empty volume.
If you say "the void" as a more or less inteligible way to say "nothing at all, not even Space", your narrative may get better.
And that first things to appear where there was nothing, were Space itself and light, it´s consistent to what seems it happened.
But again, the void was not space.

But no matter this special talk between us, which I appreciate, I still say, with Galileo, that faith may lead me to follow the plan of God, but the description of the material world is a bussines better done by Science.

xixgun · M

@CharlieZ just making my point, and besides the people who wrote the Bible didn’t have or know the terms we use for galactic phenomenon.

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

@xixgun You are right on this.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@CharlieZ The other point is you don't know what the Bible meant by its descriptions. The words we English speakers use do not convey what the original language fully meant. I am reminded of when I was studying French in grade school. The superintendent came to check up on our progress and asked us to translate the word "Bon". None in the class could do so. We all knew what it meant but when the superintendent said "Bon" meant "Good" we all laughed at him. Yes it could mean good but the shadings of meanings in the word did not get served well with the simple translation "Good".

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, I know decently well the meaning of most controversial words of Scriptures.
The mother language of my father side of the family speaks an Aramaic dialect.
I have a not so bad understanding of Greek used words.
And also a good knowledge of the related historical and cultural related context.

I find jewells of wisedom there.

But, Hippy, the description of the natural world by the religious narrative is not at all a good one.
As a lot of researchers, I keep my faith.
But in all related to matters which are the task of secular Science, I find them quite better by all means.

LeopoldBloom · M

@xixgun Stephen Jay Gould proposed "non-overlapping magisteria." Science and religion are attempting to answer completely different questions.