vampko wrote:My experience with the scientific community (keep in mind I am NOT talking about Scientists in general. Nor science in general) has pretty much been what I stated. Even in my college classes they make you seem like an idiot if you want to believe in something besides a form of evolution.
I know that the entire Scientific Community can not be pigeon-holed into that, but at the same time, that's the only sort of experience I've had.
I've also seen countless examples of religion being ridiculed and looked down upon. I realize my experiences don't account for the entire world. But, I think, generally, it can be found that stating there is a higher power out there, will get shot down as being 'illogical'. Just like what was done in this piece that you shared with us.
Those are your classes. I don't think, if you are taking a class, people are going to appreciate it if religion is brought up. Because religion isn't something factual you need to learn about in college, and if you want to discuss it that is what church is for. There are reasons they need to be kept separated.
Then I don't see how this can be stated like fact, really, if it's only backed up by a small amount of evidence.
It will because it is possible to interpret it that way. I am curious as to why you (not just you, actually) are bothered by this at all. faith is really a form of knowledge. Like faith, it would be odd to claim to know something while holding that it may in fact be false. When someone says they know something, we typically may ask them how they know it. So asking is a request for the reasons or evidence one has for what is said to be known. If a person is unable to provide reasons or evidence, we have cause to doubt their knowledge. If I were to say; "I don't just believe that there is life on other planets in the universe, I know it", I will be obliged to offer my evidence. If I cannot give adequate evidence, you are within rights to say that I don't "know" that at all.
Faith seems to differ from knowledge in this respect. While some religious people do point to miracles, prophesies, and sacred texts as evidence of articles of faith, it remains that much of what faith holds is essentially mysterious. To treat religious faith as a kind of knowledge akin to scientific knowledge or historical knowledge changes the nature of what many people seem to express in their having faith. A deep faith in the love of God is not a matter of having employed a systematic testing procedure. On some accounts, for that matter, faith is precisely what one holds to in the absence of evidence and proof. This view fits some aspects of faith. If we had proof that God existed, there would be no need for faith. An incident consistent with this notion of faith is described in the New Testament (John: 20.)
Also, that was not the point of the letter..."Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
Prinapocalypse wrote:They talk about the "later Queen problem", mentioning how there could easily be information that can not be discovered in the book without guessing and yet later near the end of the article they seem to act like you should disregard that possibility, since there's no way to prove it.
Well, the point to the problem is that there isn't anything you can do about it. It should be disregarded because there really isn't any way to go against the "later Queen problem". The only thing you can really do about it is acknowledge that it exists.
For clarification, since I figure I can never clarify enough, my responses aren't upset, angry, or condescending in the least (these are the three conclusions jumped to the most often in these sort of discussions). As always, I am in a state of a sort of silly excitement when it comes to talking about these things ~ However, there exists the possibility that that may be hard to tell, since I don't use many smileys when I am serious.