I guess perception is reality.
On the other hand, the map is not the territory
This conversation is interesting to me as I am a Christian minister. I have read much of this thread and I would agree with Snowolf's positive assessment. Conversations about religious faith "go to hell" quickly on the internet, which is why I usually don't engage in them. The respectful exchanges here, however, have encouraged me to share a couple of thoughts.
Too often, Christians approach science with suspicion and fear. This false dichotomy between faith and science is best expressed in the "Creationism/Evolution" debate. The "Creationism/Evolution" debate usually leads one to conclude that it's an either/or proposition.
I think that the suspicion and fear is because people recognise on some level that a belief in and true understanding of the science leaves little room for god for most people. And that's a shame (to be afraid). It's an incredibly difficult thing to do to change our most deeply held beliefs. People after all will die for their most fundament beliefs. I need not cite examples of this. And no one can (or should) tell you what to believe. But I would encourage everyone to base whatever their beliefs are on the widest and riches sources of information available to them. And to not be afraid to question all of it!
It's either God created in exactly the manner described in Genesis 1:1-2:3 (the first creation story) or it's evolution and God doesn't exist.
"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
The interesting thing is, even Genesis isn't that simple. In Genesis 2:4 there is another account of creation. If you read Genesis 1:1-2:3 and then read Genesis 2:4-24 you will find there are two different accounts of creation. The order of creation in each account is different, and the most substantial difference is that the stories (or poems, that's what they really are) use different names for God. The first creation story uses the more generic "Elohim," and the second account uses the more personal "Yahweh." So the point is (sorry for the lengthy diatribe) . . . that the ancient Hebrews realized that creation was such a magnanimous event that just one creation poem couldn't do it justice.
That's an interesting conclusion (i have no particular argument with it) although a few possible explanations come to my mind. Who's to say I guess?
Anyways, I should probably stop here, as I could ramble on about this stuff for far too long
Nah, you came to the right place! Get involved
My point is . . . you don't have to choose between Faith and Science. There is plenty of room for mystery in religious faith and the more we discover about the scientific world the more we realize that mystery is an essential aspect of being.
I'll leave you with a favorite quote from Anne Lamott . . . "The opposite of faith is not doubt, the opposite of faith is certainty."
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
That's a pro or a con to most people depending on which side of the divide they sit. I personally prefer to try and understand. YMMV
I hope i'm not laying the Dawkins quotes too thickly
Just often they are insightful and thought provoking.
Heaven may be real afterall...
Proof of Heaven: A Doctor's Experience With the Afterlife
Plus credibility can only be enhanced with wearing a bowtie like that.
I like this statement, if the bible or any other religious text only contained these words I would buy into it because that's all I would really like a God to be.
This is certainly interesting. Of course the title is slightly over sensational, it's in no way whatsoever proof of heaven. At least none other than can exist in anyone's mind at any time. But it's interesting never the less and i'd like to to know more.