Donald,
I, too, find our conversation most enjoyable, entertaining, and educational. Thank you. I am a little curious about why Emile jumped your case, #reply-4586576.
Perhaps a more appropriate word for what I have been calling "religious" is "faithful". All English words have several connotations, so even "faithful" may be inappropriate to some. Hmmm... perhaps the phrase "with faith"? Eh... semantics...
If you consider a theory to be true and exclude the possibility of falseness, then I would say you have Faith in this theory. I'll try using Faith, with a capital F, to denote it as a very resolute faith. If you consider a theory to be supported by all the available data, but still concede that it could be false, then I think this is scientific.
Is the comparison of Faith and science more palatable than religion vs. science? You may wonder why I spend so much time on trying to clarify the "words". I believe that words not only express the ideas, but can also restrict the ideas. So I try to find the "best" words. For example, I once posted that I thought belief without doubt was fanaticism and hence wrong; I may have toned it down by just saying it was distasteful or just not for me. I then changed "doubt" to "humility" and found the statement to have a much better feel.
You believe the Bible cannot be wrong, but you allow that you may be mistaken. Hmmm... On the surface I agree that it looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too; but only on the surface. I think I understand exactly what you are trying to convey. You have Faith in the Bible and you have humility about yourself. Admirable! But not science. ;-)
I, too, take a lot of things on Faith. I suppose we all do.
I have been told there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible. There are a lot of explanation for these inconsistencies. My favourite explanation, because it's virtually impossible to argue against (though this does not make it valid), is that if we cannot resolve an inconsistency in the Bible, then it is only because we don't properly understand the Bible.
Here's an example of a puzzlement: Matt. 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, and Luke 21:30.
Feel free to just reference scripture... I can look it up. Of course, sometimes it's more appropriate to just write the quote out, too.
I guess I try to approach the Bible with a bit of doubt, a bit of humility, and a bit of scientific reason. To me, it's importance lies in the fact that it elicits Faith from so many people. After all, could a billion Catholics be wrong? Ha ha... just joking. :-)
There's a great quote in Eugene O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey into Night", <refering to Baudelaire> "What little truth is in it you'll find nobly said in Shakespeare."
Isn't practically everything in life in the Bible or Shakespeare? At least from the point of view of a person of the modern Western world.
The standards that you show the Bible sets for itself are classic standards set by all such texts of Faith. "If you find something more truthful, then you'd better go follow it. But you're not going to find it." But remember... even the Devil can quote scripture for his ends.
If you could prove to me the central item of Christianity (i.e., the resurrection), then I would have Faith.
Oh... and if the sun didn't come up tomorrow... I'd first check the news on television or radio.
I think you pretty well answered all my questions on religion (Faith) and science. Strap on the ol' feedback... I'd like to know what you think about what I talked about in this post.
Cheers,
Greg |
