Religion and science agree

I appreciate you defining terms. I agree with them, though my slant on the definition of science would be focused on the inductive process by which knowledge is gained, rather than the knowledge itself. With that being said, I'll continue in the debate. Upon rereading my argument, I realized that I was vague in what I meant by religious problems being rooted in short-sightedness. Rather I meant, the discrepancies between religion and science are most often caused by a short-sightedness. In other words, as science goes about the lengthy and arduous task of establishing Truth, religion and science will gradually merge as to what that is. It may help to clarify if I state that I do not adhere to traditional scripture as absolute Truth (i. e. Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc. ). I disagree that science does not rely on "Ifs" when drawing its conclusions. In fact, the entirety of science is inference-based, which essentially means "If what we have observed here generalizes to all of space and all of time, then it is law. " Furthermore, the purpose of my conjecture is to provide a conditional proof. In formal logic, this is where we assume the first proposition, then determine what may necessarily follow from this origination point. Its purpose is to demonstrate how something that seems irrational, may, once further examined, prove plausible. Many people argue against God, given certain sets of seemingly contradictory information. Examples of this include "The Problem of Evil," and apparent paradoxes in Godly behavior and our understanding of it. My argument wishes to establish that "If" there were a God, what types of behaviors and human realities would we expect to see? I submit that it is reasonable to assume an Omniscient God's perspective would vary greatly from our own. Let me offer an example. As a parent, am I continually confronted with the challenge of explaining complex information in simplistic ways so that my young son can understand. This often times results in my using terms that are less than accurate, in exchange for making them comprehensible. Occasionally, he will catch me in one of these "contradictions," and protest that I was wrong. I then have to explain how his limited experience made it difficult for me to explain completely. People accuse God of being malevolent, or nonsensical. This, I believe, is due to a Supreme Being possessing sovereign information that cannot be conveyed to us in our present state. For example, Christianity has often postulated the imprudence of extra-marital sex. Society has generally reached the consensus that this "moral law" was man made rather than divine. Mostly, this is because we have found ways of managing it. But couldn't there be long-term ramifications unseen to the mortal mind? That is, time may demonstrate the folly in this thinking as society increasingly engages in risky sexual behavior, resulting in unwanted pregnancies, STD's, and a general degradation of what sex is. Many times I set boundaries for my son to mitigate risk, not because it will draw immediate consequences. The simple imperception of negative results does not necessarily mean that they are not forthcoming. I will try to elaborate on one of my other confusing statements that Con has pointed out. "I have long been under the impression that if something is understood prima facie [first glance], then that thing is either incorrect, or incomplete. Those who hold God to an impossible standard will find that what they have wanted all along is an inconceivable idea. " The impossible standard to which I refer is, "If it doesn't make sense, then it is 'nonsensical. '" Sanskrit appears 'nonsensical' to me, but only because I don't comprehend its structure. God cannot be held to such a dichotomous posit, and those who expect Him to always make sense are setting themselves up. Con suggests that "because you have limitaitons of knowledge doesn't mean you should be open to anything other than evidence for your first step in discerning the truth. " I do not wish to eradicate evidence nor an appeal to it in our pursuit of Truth. However, many scientists are stymied by a consideration of anything other than data. The very obvious problem data presents is its ludicrously small sample size. The universe is estimated to be 13 billion years old. We've had science for a couple of centuries. The universe is approximately 165 billion light years across. Scientists are fiddling around with their instruments on less than a speck of dust. Anytime such accusations are brought up against science, I hear "But look at all the good science has done," or "Well that's all we have to work with, so we're using what we have. " Fine. Great. Dandy. But don't lie to yourselves about the limitations of science. It's grotesque in scope by its own standards. You'd think more scientists would openly admit that no matter how far we've come, we have infinitely further to go. I have seen many of the best scientists openly admit this. I do agree with you about the disparate approaches to Truth science and religion employ. However, most view religion as Truth revealed. It's comparable to me telling my son "Crossing the street is dangerous. " He does not understand this, nor has he witnessed this. He has no data to back it up. Nevertheless, it is true. In time, as he grows and learns, he will come to the same conclusion, but until then, he is merely relying upon my assertion. Science is this way. Eventually, science will come to the same conclusions that religion has long attested. The one caveat I offer in anticipation of objection is I do not believe that anything put forth by a religious organization is God's mind and therefore Truth. In fact, many men use religion to further their own political agendas and have nothing to do with God.