[imaskin4life]

Great discussion.

I think that science and religion actually go together - I think that both are limited in ways but both are also helpful in other ways. I don't think science answers all of the questions nor does religion. I think each does a better job answering different questions. The strengths of science are different from the strengths of religion. However as tools each can be helpful for answering or solving specific problems. Depending on what the question is, one tool may be better to use than the other to answer it.

For me, the two go together. Science explains how the universe works while religion is like a handbook on "how to apply science (or how to live) in this universe in order to get the best possible result."

We can use tested principles even if we don't understand how they work. For example I drive my car everyday and have no clue how it works but I have faith that there is a scientific reason for it to work. I can still drive without knowing how it works. I could even drive without knowing if an engine existed under the hood or not. I think it is a mistake to say, "well I don't understand how this or that works (or if this or that exists) therefore it must not be important or must not be useful. For this reason science does not refute religion for me.

I think it is useful to use the accuracy of science to help refine religious beliefs. For example if my religion says that "gravity does not exist" then I should consider changing my religion before I try to go jump off a bridge because "I know I can fly".

Another example: If my religion instructs me to abstain from sex for a long period of time and I begin to have uncontrollable lust for others, it is helpful to understand the science of psychology - how the brain/mind reacts to the suppression of natural urges. In fact, NOT understanding neurosis/psychosis has allowed Satan to come in through the back door and convinced religious figures to go as far as molesting other people. Understanding the science of the mind/brain could have helped support the religion by recognizing that molesting someone is not the answer.

Ultimately science and religion are BOTH limited because we must use concepts/metaphors to describe the reality of "what is". Concepts point to reality but they are not the reality. Many religious people as well as many science scholars cling to their views as if their view is the reality. They cling to images.

That brings me to this point. I believe in God because for me, God is not an image or a belief. God is the reality of existence. I do have an image of God but I understand that my image is not God. God is the reality of "what is" - all of the universe and all of the laws that operate in it. The word "God" is a label but the label is pointing to the scientific truths (discovered and not discovered) in the universe. So having a spiritual center I believe that it is a mistake to worship graven images.

Now when I speak to an atheist and an atheist says to me "God does not exist" I can honestly respond "I agree." The reason is because God, the image, really does not exist. This actually supports the scripture in my religion. God the reality is real. The reality is "what is". If I ask the atheist is does the universe exist? He will say of course, yes it does. This is the God that I believe religion points to. Not the God who we think is real but the one who is real - Reality. God for me is not a function or a product of belief or thinking.

If you want you could label it something other than "God" if that word bothers you - how about "Intelligent Design" or "Evolution" or "Order through Chaos" or "Universe" or "Reality" or "Not God" or "Peanut Butter and Jelly" or or "_________". As long as we don't confuse the label with the actual then we are on the same page on that particular subject.

I'm going to force myself to stop now because I could go on and on. LOL.