Finish The Sentence

This is for everyone that thinks religion and science are compatible.
I believe ________________ because _______________.

Finish the sentence. In the first blank insert any statement from your religious doctrine or dogma. In the second blank insert a statement that makes sense to science.

Show me in the comments.

  1. I am looking forward to the answers in this.

    I believe in determinism because matter does not get a will to decide how it reacts to the actions on it.

    • Well, the free will camp comes in all flavors LOL. I’m hoping I get some good answers too.

      Not in contrition, but there is a possibility that the big bang is responsible for all that we do – butterfly effect as it were. I don’t think it is true, and further that we do affect the molecules around us which in turn affects the world around us and so on so free will can be true. The depth of it is another thing altogether.

      I’m still open to discussion on that 🙂

      • You know this post is going to get re-hashings of:
        The Cosmological Argument
        The Teleological argument
        Historicity of Jesus
        The ontological argument, and
        The moral argument.

        I know the cosmological and teleological arguments are arguments from ignorance, and not science, and the moral argument is outright wrong, and the ontological argument even fails as a rhetoric trick, but they’re still going to use it. I hope there’s a convincing case being made for Jesus or Mohammed.

        • Yes, there is always the possibility for all of that. I did specify something that must make sense to science.

  2. Very elegant. If I could demonstrate a belief with science, it would be fact, not belief. Is that the point?

    • No, the point was to have people examine their beliefs in the light of science. You are right though, if it matches with science it is fact, not belief… hmmmm

      • Should we only believe, i.e. hold to be true, what we learn from science?

        • Things that can be proven to be true should be understood. Belief – save that for stuff that can’t be proven true. If you are planning on building a home I’m going to bet that you’ll use only materials that can be proven to exist. If you want to build your home using materials that can’t be proven to be true or exist, then boy, do I have a sales team for you. I’ll send them right over.

          • “Belief – save that for stuff that can’t be proven true.”

            Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

            Do you hold any propositions or premises to be true? If so, you believe them. Regardless of what kind of proposition they are – whether it be “F = ma” or “Icecream is tasty.” or “Napoleon was imprisoned by the British on Saint Helena” . Each of those propositions is known, discovered and tested in different ways – one developed out of science, one is known subjectively, one is known through history. But if you hold any of them in your mind to be true, congratulations, you have belief.

            • That’s where we disagree. Read my comment again. Save belief for what cannot be proven to be true. Understanding, this is what you have for facts, or what can be termed ‘justified true belief’. Ordinary belief – not the same thing.


              Argue all you want. Unjustified and unproven belief is just blind faith. You are arguing over the definition of a word with several variant definitions, and generally used with modifiers – it’s a waste of time and pedant for no value or good.

              Stop wasting your time and mine.

              • “You are arguing over the definition of a word with several variant definitions, and generally used with modifiers”

                Which is exactly why we need to understand what others mean when they use certain words and use the right terms ourselves. The wikipedia definition, which is the one I used, doesn’t specify whether the content of the belief is true or not, just that someone holds it to be true.

                Where I think we disagree is what constitutes justified/unjustified true beliefs, in terms of knowledge, experience, events and how we go about ascertaining whether beliefs we have are justified, unjustified, true or false (as you say “the point was to have people examine their beliefs in the light of science”). Anyway, I may be taking us in circles…

  3. I believe – in (God’s perfect) LOVE – because – I was a gonner without it. Scientifically I can say this. I know this as a fact of my life. I had NO ANSWER to how to extract myself from the predicament of my situation. Mentally, I had NO ANSWER!! Factually speaking, I did not believe in God, and never did up to that point. Also, I did not believe in LOVE. The power behind this idea of love was something I did not understand. That is a fact. I did not understand this POWER because I had never experienced it. This is a fact. If one has never experienced the taste of cheese before, no facts in the world will be able to get them to know the experience of it – until they experience the taste of cheese – for themselves.
    There is almost no way to be scientific with someone about the facts of how cheese tastes, until that person has tasted cheese. I’m not talking about Limburger cheese (which tastes like s**t). I’m talking about Brie.

    • Now there is a valid point. Nobody can understand the taste of cheese until they’ve tried it. This does not, however, bode well for those that have tried religion, grew up in it, believed in it etc. and still end up atheist. Perhaps you don’t know what the cheese tastes like, but which cheese is true cheese? What is the single truth of the taste of cheese? Apparently Limburger is not it. Perhaps Brie is not it either? Science is not in agreement on the cheese argument. You can say well all cheeses are different and to each his own but that leaves us with many truths, not one. It also says that cheese is how you choose it, unless you don’t like any cheese, then what?

      • I believe there is many kinds of Christian “cheese”, but. if there’s only one, true Love, the taste of “Brie” cheese would be up to the quality of that taste. But how can one “taste” it until one actually tastes it?

        I think I can see the wheels going around in your head…..

        “But there are some people who don’t like the taste of Brie.”

        Think of it as the most superb taste that anyone has ever tasted before – with a taste that is out of this world. A food of the Gods, that no one could possibly not “love”.

        • Even your description means that the taste of Brie is something peculiar to you, and you alone. It is not the one true taste of cheese that so many claim it to be. Nor does your description or argument necessitate that I like the taste of any cheese.

          By the way, I may have neglected to thank you for your compliments on my writing. Thank you.

  4. I believe man is born with an innate sense of right and wrong, because infant studies show that we’re born with a sense of justice and fairness.

    Similarly, I believe man is born with original sin, because the same studies show that we’re born with tendencies toward bigotry.

    I believe that the universe had a Designer, because cosmological findings in the last 50 years have shown that the universe is finely tuned to support life.

    I believe that the universe had a beginning, because expansionary models of the universe demand it.

    I believe that we are made in the image of God, because mathematics derived by man is capable of describing fundamental characteristics of nature.

    • Infants cannot determine right and wrong for others in the world. The sense that you talk about is there but undeveloped and incomplete.

      Original sin is an idea that science does not support.

      Science does not show the universe is tuned at all. Evolution shows that we are as we are because of the universe, not the other way around.

      You have no idea what god looks like, yours or any other.

      • MC
      • November 21st, 2012

      Yeah but then there’s this which counteracts at least some of the ‘born sinful and toward bigotry’…

      • The doctrine that we are all born sinful is a sin against life on this planet. Teaching it to children is a crime against humanity. Children are taught who is not in their ‘in group’ by their parents … and this is where they get bigotry from. It’s inherited but not genetically so.

          • MC
          • November 21st, 2012

          Yea and the whole, ‘you inherit your parent’s faults’ is a pretty fucked up mentality too.

  5. I believe in God because I don’t have anything better to have belief in (a joke, really) 😉

    • It’s as good an answer as many Christians give! Not a joke.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: