Hi, Randy. I thought I'd take a look at this. _"whether science and religion are inherently at odds with each other"_ That depends on what you mean. Science is evidence-based. Religion is faith-based. In science, faith is a _vice,_ not a virtue. So, you could say that they're incompatible in that respect. But, obviously, there _are_ scientists who are religious. Typically, they're evidence-based when it comes to their work, while remaining faith-based when it comes to the religion they were taught to believe as a child. Note that they completely ignore the possibility of the supernatural when they do their scientific research, just like nonbelieving scientists do. 'Miracles' have no part in science, not even for those scientists who believe in miracles! Scientists are methodological naturalists by necessity. They don't have to be _philosophical_ naturalists,... but faith is still a vice, not a virtue, in science. So you can decide for yourself whether that means they're "inherently at odds with each other." _"What if it wasn't meant to be an eyewitness account, but rather a statement of faith?"_ Sure. That's the neat thing about faith-based thinking, huh? You can believe whatever you _want_ to be true. That's why Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity. Is your god imaginary, or just the world's worst communicator? Well, when you're faith-based, you can believe whatever you _want_ about that. But *evidence* is what grounds our thinking in the real world, instead of the world of our imagination. That's why science _works,_ while religion... well, just depends on whatever you want to be true. _"This implies that the study of the natural world can and should confirm God's existence, his character, and his glory."_ Then you've got a problem, since scientists - the experts when it comes to studying the natural world - are far _less_ likely to believe in a god than people who know little or nothing about science. And if the natural world demonstrates God's character, then he must be a monster. After all, if he exists, he created a worm which survives only by burrowing into the eyeballs of little children, turning them blind. And that's just one example among many (which might be why biologists are even less likely to believe in a god than other _scientists_ ). _"Is it reasonable to believe in God?"_ I'd say it's not reasonable to believe in _anything_ without good evidence it actually exists. Sure, _maybe_ magic leprechauns are real. I can't prove they _don't_ exist. But the time to believe in magic leprechauns - or gods - is _after_ there's good evidence they're real. _"This also requires a belief in the supernatural to say..."_ But I don't say _any_ of those things. I don't know of anyone who does. That's just a strawman argument, a known logical fallacy. OK, the rest of this just seems like a Gish Gallop of tired old theist arguments. Sorry, but although none of them hold up to scrutiny, as far as I can tell, it's far easier to make those claims - especially extraordinarily _vague_ claims - than to explain why they don't work. I'm fine with doing that with individual arguments, but not a whole Gish Gallop of stuff all at once. Anyway, this video isn't for atheists, anyway. It's merely a sermon designed to comfort people who already agree with you, huh? I just thought I'd check it out. No need to reply. I know you're busy.
Hi, Randy. I thought I'd take a look at this.
_"whether science and religion are inherently at odds with each other"_
That depends on what you mean. Science is evidence-based. Religion is faith-based. In science, faith is a _vice,_ not a virtue. So, you could say that they're incompatible in that respect.
But, obviously, there _are_ scientists who are religious. Typically, they're evidence-based when it comes to their work, while remaining faith-based when it comes to the religion they were taught to believe as a child.
Note that they completely ignore the possibility of the supernatural when they do their scientific research, just like nonbelieving scientists do. 'Miracles' have no part in science, not even for those scientists who believe in miracles!
Scientists are methodological naturalists by necessity. They don't have to be _philosophical_ naturalists,... but faith is still a vice, not a virtue, in science. So you can decide for yourself whether that means they're "inherently at odds with each other."
_"What if it wasn't meant to be an eyewitness account, but rather a statement of faith?"_
Sure. That's the neat thing about faith-based thinking, huh? You can believe whatever you _want_ to be true.
That's why Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity.
Is your god imaginary, or just the world's worst communicator? Well, when you're faith-based, you can believe whatever you _want_ about that. But *evidence* is what grounds our thinking in the real world, instead of the world of our imagination. That's why science _works,_ while religion... well, just depends on whatever you want to be true.
_"This implies that the study of the natural world can and should confirm God's existence, his character, and his glory."_
Then you've got a problem, since scientists - the experts when it comes to studying the natural world - are far _less_ likely to believe in a god than people who know little or nothing about science.
And if the natural world demonstrates God's character, then he must be a monster. After all, if he exists, he created a worm which survives only by burrowing into the eyeballs of little children, turning them blind. And that's just one example among many (which might be why biologists are even less likely to believe in a god than other _scientists_ ).
_"Is it reasonable to believe in God?"_
I'd say it's not reasonable to believe in _anything_ without good evidence it actually exists. Sure, _maybe_ magic leprechauns are real. I can't prove they _don't_ exist. But the time to believe in magic leprechauns - or gods - is _after_ there's good evidence they're real.
_"This also requires a belief in the supernatural to say..."_
But I don't say _any_ of those things. I don't know of anyone who does. That's just a strawman argument, a known logical fallacy.
OK, the rest of this just seems like a Gish Gallop of tired old theist arguments. Sorry, but although none of them hold up to scrutiny, as far as I can tell, it's far easier to make those claims - especially extraordinarily _vague_ claims - than to explain why they don't work.
I'm fine with doing that with individual arguments, but not a whole Gish Gallop of stuff all at once. Anyway, this video isn't for atheists, anyway. It's merely a sermon designed to comfort people who already agree with you, huh? I just thought I'd check it out.
No need to reply. I know you're busy.