All I'm sayiing is that you need some common, objective standards by which to evaluate competing claims to the truth. Science has developed such standards, and they have been remarkably effective in explaining the universe we live in. Religions have developed no such standards.
The scientific method was not commonly employed until the late 1800s. Before that, there was no consistent way to test claims about the nature of the universe. There were millions of competing claims with no agreed upon method to distinguish between them. Religion was commonly accepted as the source of reliable explanations of natural phenomena, and where people’s religions reached different conclusions, there was little hope of resolution. Further progress on the issue stood at a standstill.
Science and the methodology it employs changed all that. It allowed for unprecedented advancement in many areas, including engineering and medicine. Science’s track record since that time in uncovering the nature of the universe is light years ahead of any competitor. If we were to go about comparing religion to science from a standpoint of intellectual honesty, we would determine what kind of universe we would expect to live in if theism were true; then we would do the same for naturalism; and finally we would compare these two expectations to the universe we observe. But when we do this, we find the theist models to fail again and again.
There are some questions that have, to date, eluded the ability of science to answer. Science works on the basis of evaluating evidence and conducting tests, and in some areas such as the origin of life or the universe, that evidence is short supply. But that doesn't mean the process is somehow invalid. Nor does it justify defaulting to "God did it" as an explanation, on the false assumption that what we know now is all we’ll ever know – that the “as yet unexplained” should be treated as “forever unexplainable” and that if no satisfying natural explanation is currently at hand, such an explanation is impossible.
The best approach when confronted with a scientific question for which no clear scientific consensus has emerged is simply to acknowledge that we don’t know the answer yet. As history has demonstrated again and again, science will eventually plug the gaps in our knowledge. It is reasonable to wait for that to happen rather than inject an unnecessary and unjustified hypothesis (God) out of a desire for immediate certainty.
Religion can be thought of as failed science. Despite thousands of years of religious explanations, none could hold a candle to those that developed once science took the wheel. Science came along and demonstrated how inadequate religion was at doing the primary job it had carved out for itself – explaining the natural world. This is why naturalism has pulled so far ahead of theism in the race to accurately model the universe.
You seem to be suggesting that science represents just another worldview, no better or worse than explaining reality than any other. If so, please identify those methods other than the scientific method that are more reliable. While science has yielded millions of significant insights into the nature of the world, religion has yielded exactly none. That is why when religion and science yield different answers to the same question, you are always justified going with science.
LOL No you dont... your's is not a head problem... its a heart problem.
Either Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) rose from the dead or he didn't. There is 0 question that he lived. He made extraordinary claims and lived from all accounts an extraordinary life....
If he rose (He did) then he is GD and everything in scripture is truth. If he didn't, its all fables and stories and a waste of time.
Science is fallible because our understanding of our own existence and the environment around us is incomplete and that is just a plain fact. As our tools and technology improves all we find are more complex difficult questions. It is my firm belief we will NEVER have all the answers. Man does not have the mind of Gd and it is beyond our grasp or ability to full know.
You are right that "religion" has yield no facts about the natural world around us... just as science has yield NO FACTS about the realm of the spiritual. You might as well try to plow a field with a hammer.... I suspect you wont get very far with that.
Your understanding of things that are spiritual are woefully flawed. I'm not versed well enough in the various world religions to speak on their take on our reason for existence. I am however well versed in the bible and have studied it for many, many years. On that I can speak with some modicum of understanding. How is it that prophets speaking about the Messiah and how he would be killed happened exactly how Yeshua was killed by the Romans? How is it that the Jewish Prophet in the book of Isaiah names King Cyrus by NAME as the man who would allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem 150 years before Cyrus birth?
Science is utterly worthless when asking question's "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"
Atheists make the deeply flawed mistake of then arguing that since science can not address these question at all, that therefore there must be no purpose in our being here. By using the wrong tool to ask a philosophical question you come away with an inherently flawed answer just as you stated.
I do find it interesting and noteworthy that if one examines the ORDER in which Genesis gives account of creation it would happen exactly in the order in which one would expect it to occur scientifically. What are the odds that ancient man would know this?
Perhaps more importantly, scripture deals with mankind and his relationship with his fellow man and mankind's relationship with its creator.
Lastly, you will find that much of the field of study of molecular genetics is filled with both highly respected scientist who are believers but more importantly a significant absence of atheists as a percentage of the population of scientist in that particular discipline. The reason is quite simple... evolution does not conform at all in that particular field of research and study. Most researchers out rightly reject Darwinist views on evolution simply because it can not be supported at all based upon our current understanding at the molecular level.
Evolution states that things go from simple to complex... yet the deeper we look at the molecular level we see incredible complexity much of which we still do not understand. If evolution were in fact how things happened then random mutations in DNA would likely produce positive results. To date, we have no evidence at all that supports such a view and in fact what we do have evidence of is that random mutation of DNA every single time produces a highly negative result.
Of course none of this is going to change your world view as the truth is that I have never met a single person that rejects Gd on a rational, logical reasoned research of the evidence. People reject Gd because of the implications... namely that if Gd does exist then I exist as a by product of his creation and his plan. That then means I have to do something about that fact.... its far easier to simply deny he exists and spray justifications around that sound good but actually hold no water upon closer examination.
There is literately hundreds of books out there by people who have started out to prove Gd doesn't exist and through an honest, open, through examination came to the conclusion they were wrong.