Faith, God and a little bit of science
(warning: topics on religion and spirituality)
Scott Reynolds has a great post going here (follow up post here) with an already considerable list of comments. He discusses the basic notion that not only is there a divide between those that believe in God and those that don't, there seems to be an inability of some for acceptance by either "side" to engage in cordial daily interactions. Since I was the first to post a comment on this post, one can see two things: 1) I have an opinion on the matter and 2) I have little to do and am sitting at my computer waiting for someone to post something interesting that I might possibly be able to give a coherent opinion (yes there exists no social interaction; my mathematics is my best friend - sigh).
For the record, I am Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I am a practicing Missouri Synod Lutheran (although lately, God knows better). People will know this about me. I'm interested in other's opinions and beliefs. I'm interested in simple discussion and even debate if the outcome is a better understanding for either party. I'm in agreement with Scott that heated debate over differences is not usually a good use of one's time.
I further am interested in the use of science. While I'm not an academic, i.e. one in the profession of building and defending a discipline, I am a practitioner of science, mathematics and the scientific method.
the lower cased one is has already stated that he doesn't believe in God (and I don't believe what he has on his bumper of his car; no not the .NET Framework bumper sticker). I don't want to speak for him, as I don't know if he subscribes to ID, atheism or is an agnostic. Given the amount of time that we spend together at work, at lunch, at INETA meetings, I still am uncertain of his status. This is my point. While he and I know of a difference, it doesn't diminish our opinion of the other and their capability or intellect.
the lower cased one made reference recently to the spaghetti monster in this post (I guess he is atheist; surprise, surprise) claiming that, following the lead of others, if Christianity or other organized religion is to be taught in school, then the spaghetti monster must also be taught. I can see the argument, but I have a difficult time in agreeing with this approach. My primary objection is simple:
It is clear that the spaghetti monster is boiled spaghetti. Where is the God of Boiling Water that created the spaghetti monster?
This is my closing point. Science cannot be used to prove religion. It requires faith to have the beliefs necessary to sustain a position in a religion (organized or otherwise). It requires faith to sustain a position of atheism as well, i.e. you believe in yourself and your ability to recognize the world around you such that your view cannot be anything but this outcome. Regardless of the position that one chooses, I believe, as Scott has stated, that there is room for an individual to believe and have intellectual capacity and for that individual to interact with others whether likeminded or otherwise in normal activities of daily living.
----
Comments here. If you are aware of the source of boiling water, please provide the world with this revelation.