Kudos for creating an interesting topic, Bloodshadow. I'll add rep for that. Fascinating that you were fishing for fights between religion and science but instead were confronted with people trying to have it both ways. Also, thanks for popularizing an amusing TV trope.
You don't have to forsake science to choose religion.
Yes, doublethink is always possible.
Religion and science cannot really co-exist. Anyone who truly believes in the scientific method, should not believe in religion. Period. Religion is based on faith and science is based on evidence, which are the opposite sides of the spectrum. Sure anyone can say they believe in both, but they actually don't. By believing in God, they forfeit the basic principle of science: evidence. People who say they believe in both, have basically created their own version of science that does not work like science is supposed to work.
Scaredgirl is always so on point. I acknowledge that there are moderate Christians who are willing to bend their understanding of their religion to fit what science tells us about the world (eg: "creation in 6 days is a metaphor for a much longer period of time"). I was once a moderate Jew in the same mold. The problem is that they still cling to theism, which is a faith-based belief. To propogate such beliefs or even to hold them undermines science -- even rationality itself. If such beliefs are permitted then any belief can be rendered unassailable on the basis of faith. If you're willing to reinterpret religion to conform to science, consider departing from religion -- and faith, its insidious enabler -- entirely.
I wish people would stop using Pascal's gambit as a justification. An earlier thread in this section demolished it quite thoroughly and I urge those of you who still put stock in it to do some more research. It's just as old and flawed of a concept as the four humors of Hippocratic medicine, but people continue to cling to it. ???
religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, and religion doesn't say that some things can't be explained, although some can't without going into the realm of paradoxes.
If, when trying to explain something, you start to come up with a bunch of paradoxes, maybe what you're trying to explain is in fact inexplicable. That explaining the religious view of the world involves paradoxes strongly suggests that it's a flawed view of the world.
To me, religion is more or less a set of good morals and good guide lines to be a "good" person (in contrast to what they, the religion either it be Judaism, christianism, etc. , consider "evil", "deviant" or "evil".) its simple as that, just some guidelines and morals.
That is the domain of wisdom.
You're thinking of ethics. Yes, religions typically offer their own ethical perspective, but the problem is that organized religion prevents people from thinking for themselves in favor of clinging to very traditional ways of thinking that are in many cases highly flawed. Consider that Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential candidate, opposes the use of birth control on religious grounds.
I agree that ethics are highly important and in the domain of wisdom, but I'm offended by your suggestion that religion is the only source of ethical guidelines.
Evolution is a theory not a fact.
I'm gonna leave that one alone, despite a strong urge not to
But see, religion is the attempt of people to understand. So you can't say that it doesn't even try, because it is the effort to understand.
If it is an attempt of people to understand, than it is a lazy one.
Well said. Religion: Rather than critically investigate, just accept hearsay from your parents.
In other words, does it really matter whether God created the universe or not?
This is an important question that should be asked of deists. If belief in a deistic god adds nothing to our understanding of how the world works or of ethics, what's the point of arguing with atheists? Even if it's true, it's completely extraneous.
