Religion and science must have an equilibrium, without said equilibrium we either A. Revert to the dark ages (religion), or we lose what makes us human, the Nazis exemplified this(Science). All over the world are examples of the equilibrium being imbalanced with science and religion, the results are never good. China, ME, South America, America, etc. Instead of hashing it out against each other like all of these examples show, why don't we instead allow the two to peacefully co-exist? The scientific argument needs to realize the humanistic aspects of religion, and the religion side of the argument needs to embrace science for its beneficial aspects such as healthcare, space travel, etc.. For very short periods of time around the world this has happened, it leads to inventions man thought impossible, scientific explanation for our universe and many other essential things for human evolution,then the countries usually became morally corrupt. (Nazis, they actually didn't have a problem with most religions at the time, then started doing bad things) The only way humans as a species will evolve into something more is by peaceful coexistence between these communities. Just my 2 cents.
I don't think the two concepts you mention are really comparable, and any equilibrium you could form would be subjective, usually in favour of the opinion of the person forming it. The point you're making in favour of religion, I agree with, but I don't think religion is the concept that encompasses them. Religion is not the only thing that can keep us human, there are plenty of non-religious ideas that can do that. There are however plenty of details in this topic that I neither can or wish to get involved in. I think the dichotomy is between science and philosophy, but there is nothing saying you can't pursue both fully. However, I happen to believe that pursuing philosophy in this way requires a tolerance to ideas so powerful that religions will be able to prosper in it.
You are taking some minor examples of Christians and generalizing about the entire group. The fact is that most Christians are perfectly comfortable with science and there is nothing in the Bible that actually contradicts anything that is science based. For example, I do not know any Christians personally that do not agree with evolution. They believe it is perfectly acceptable because it does not address the issue of creation that falls under the realm of God. The Bible also does not tell us that God did not use evolution to change the species over time. So you should be careful when comparing Christians as a group to science because they are actually not as far apart as many would like you to think.
I would agree. It's easy to take the most aggressive members of any religion and try to point them and say, "Look, they're all that way ..." but is that the reality of the situation? Most of what gets posted on these threads is inflammatory in nature, but realistically, it's the same 20 or 30 people posting ideas that were laid in cement years ago. Is that representative of the larger population? Only to those with exaggerated self-image. Are there conflicts between religion and science? Sure. But there always has been and eventually the science has always won out and the religion adapts to the science.
Not necessarily so… Eastern philosophy is more adept at embracing the ambiguities of science as opposed to Western philosophy, which is in many ways just a shadow of the Roman Empire's influence of authoritarian control.
Interpretation need to adapt what scripture says to the facts science reports today. The Bible has been explained by Medieval readers which church people today repeat. A careful and thorough reading demonstrates that what the Bible say is supported by facts: Gen 1:1 says a Big Bang beginning did happen. Gen 1:2 says the formless disk of rocks rotation the Sun was void of global shape, which was true. Gen 1:3-5 says the Dark Cosmic Age existed before there was any light in the Universe. Gen 1:6-8 describes the forming of an atmosphere above and waters below. Gen 1:9-10 describes "all the waters under heaven gathered together into one place," which was a Pangea-like truth. Gen 1:11-13 explains that the Plant Kingdom came before the Animal Kingdom, which was true. Gen 1:14-19 tells us that God assigned the Sun and Moon and Stars to keep time on Earth. ("made" in Hebrew means "assigned.") Gen 1:20-31 explains about the animals diversifying into herds of mamals, and finally, man, made to image "Reality," mentally, in the form of Truth inside his mind. Chapters 4, 5, and 10 explain the correspondences of the Genealogy with the species of Paleontology:
So you take that plants came before animals yet leave out that the sun didn't fome before the plants. Convenient. The sun and the stars also come before the earth. So no, Genesus does NOT explain the big bang. You just try to fit it in by ignoring everthing that doesn't fit.
D... did you just add "Negroid" and "Mongolian" to this thing and then colour one in with brown in paint?
