Expressing Atheism

[Khris]

You are making one of the most understandable and common mistakes: you are taking things for granted that aren't.
The paragraph I disagree with the most is the one about mathematics not being a science.
While this may be true (it's all a question of definition), mathematics is the basis for science. There wouldn't be science without mathematics.

Now the most illogical part is probably this one:

if science and mathematics do not produce a pseudo-science, than - logic dictates - that neither does a combination of science and theology.

Seriously, what were you thinking? Who on earth says science and mathematics produced a pseudo-science in the first place? That's plain BS.
But back to your argument: that's like saying "mashing potatoes and berries together doesn't produce dogshit, then - logic dictates - mashing potatoes and pebbles together doesn't produce dogshit either." Seriously, WTF?
Or, more mathematically: 2+3 != 10 =>  2+6 != 10.  A textbook logical fallacy.

There's a thing called the scientific method.
Observation -> hypothesis -> hypothesis is tested
a) -> hypothesis is confirmed over and over again -> theory
b) -> hypothesis isn't confirmed over and over again -> hypothesis gets ditched

Now, mathematics is simply a formal language used to describe hypothesis and theory.
Theology doesn't make use of the scientific method in the least bit. There are neither hypothesis nor theory, just beliefs.
And there isn't any progress, no additional insight, it's the same superstitious stuff time and again.

[Misj']

Dear KhrisMUC,

You are making one of the most understandable and common mistakes: you base your interpretation on a misunderstanding of the information. This is especially clear by the paragraph you disagree with most (indicating that you disagree with several other things too).

If you had understood my writing, that you would have seen, that science - unlike what some people claim - does not posses some  mythological character, making it the ultimate expression of logic. Also you would have seen that there's logic outside of science. Therefore, your remark that 'mathematics is the basis for science. There wouldn't be science without mathematics' is true (at least for physics, and most of modern chemistry...biology would have developed anyway...although it would have developed in a different direction clearly)...but that does not make mathematics a science (and even most mathematicians that I know (personally) agree on this; mathematics is based on axioms (mathematical dogmas that cannot change)). Because if it would a theist could use the same logic: without God the world would not exist, and therefore there would be no science...So God is the basis of  science; hence God is science. Now you have to agree that that argument doesn't make sense...and neither does the same argument when applied to mathematics.

But your quoted 'most illogical part' also show that you did not (or did not want to) understand my point. Maybe I did not explain is as clear as I could have, but I assumed that the reader (that's you in this case) is intelligent enough to understand the point I was making, without having to take his hand every single step of the way. The argument I made was this: pseudo-science cannot be defined simply as an implementation of a non-science with science, because if that were the case, than a combination of science and mathematics would also have to be regarded as a pseudo-science; a conclusion that wouldn't make sense. Therefore, if a science and a non-science combined do not automatically create a pseudo-science than the argumentation why something is a pseudo-science is a pseudo-science has to be based (also) on other 'symptoms'. I've never in my post mentioned which symptoms that would be...because I assumed it not to be necessary.

As for the scientific method...really? - is there such a thing? - Man...if only I had known before... <good, got the sarcasm out of my system> Now, the first thing I have to say is, that you apparently haven't been paying attention to anything regarding theology in the last - well - 2000 years. If there were no progress, no addition insights, than people would still believe the same things as they did 2000 years ago. And maybe to the untrained eye that might appear to be true, but in reality theology is continuously in development too...with the exception - maybe - on the subject of the existence of God (but even that is not true, if you read theologists). They too have hypotheses, they too try to test them - maybe not based on tools that you accept, but that really doesn't matter, now does it? - and they too accept those hypotheses that stand, and ditch those that fail (well...not always correctly, but neither does science). So based on that argument you would have to consider theology as much a science as mathematics. The fact that certain 'truths' cannot change within theology - which is probably what you refer to when you say that "it's the same superstitious stuff time and again" - cannot be used as an argument of 'no progression', since the same is true about mathematics: the axioms cannot change. I'm not saying that theology is a science (although the definition that includes mathematics also includes theology)...but unlike you I'm also not mixing up 'logic' and 'science'.

Misj'

[Traveler]

It is true, that mathematics is not a science, but it's also not a pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is "bad science", something that misleads people. Mathematics, even though it's not a science, still has a deep connection to reality, even though it's not understood why. But this missing understanding aside, the application of mathematics and the scientific method formulated statements about the world that can be verified experimentally and they tell us what reality IS.

This is what gives such a power to science: you can make a statement, verify it and then others can also verify it, so it becomes common knowledge about the world. When it turns out that the statement is not exactly right (like Newton's gravitational laws), the laws can be restated in a new form and re-verified. The old, now incorrect law can be abandoned or it can be used only in certain scenarios. There is no unquestioning faith involved in science or in mathematics. Everything in science is up for questioning but when you do so, you need to prove it and any new statements must explain all related previous experimental results.

Theology is pseudo-science, because it is based on unquestioning faith and unreasonable assumptions. There is no reason to assume the existence of a god, becuase the world can be explained in much simpler terms which can also be verified experimentally. Just because there are topics that cannot be scientifically explained today it doesn't mean that we should throw away all the results of science. What would've happened if you showed the effects of radiation to a person in the 14th century? No amount of science at that time would've explained it for what it is. So was science bad then? Science was just as good (a lot weaker though), it was humankind that was ignorant.

Faith only works if you don't question the existence or the omnipotence of a god. It requires one to be ignorant of the world and do not ask questions, because once you do (and apply logic), you very quickly reach contradictions. Just because theology makes statements that some people accept, it doesn't mean that those statements have anything to do with reality.

[Andail]

The only reason the christian church ever changes is because people simply find it too silly, and they have to give up on certain points to be accepted in society. It's not like the priests themselves conceive scientific methods to deduce what the bible says, and discover groundbreaking facts on a regular basis.

Oops, suddenly after x amount of years they concur that women can be priests (at least in some countries). Please tell me that this is the result of meticulous and pioneering studies and from the holy scriptures, and not just a compromise to soothe upset activist groups.

"Should we stop believing that homosexuals go to hell?" Yes, but not because some cardinal suddenly discovered a hidden message in Romans 3:23, but because they need to adapt to the real world, where dynamic disciplines such as the humanities, anthropology, psychology and biology bring mankind forward.

And when they actually do find new writings that are likely to belong to the original bible, such texts are considered blasphemy and are hushed up by the clergy.

Religion may have many benefits for the little man (I don't question its role to give comfort and faith) but it does not bring humanity forward, in any way.

[Traveler]

Religion may have many benefits for the little man (I don't question its role to give comfort and faith) but it does not bring humanity forward, in any way.

I do question the role of faith and religion. Ethics and morals are independent of religion and one can comfort another human being in ways that are independent of the Bible. This book has a historical value, but nothing else. Keep in mind: most of the Bible was written 2000 years ago, when it was common "knowledge" that the Earth is flat and illnesses are a revenge from God, not something caused by a virus. Even most religious people nowadays don't think like that, but - as Andail said - it's not because new wisdom was discovered in the 2000-year old texts, but because science shed some light on illnesses and we know it better. Even they know it and when they become sick, they take medicine, not rush to the church to pray for forgiveness.

Do read the book "End of Faith". It discusses faith and religion, the problems with them and possibilities to replace them with things that are based on reason but still provide comfort and answers to spiritual questions.

[LimpingFish]

Just to clarify my stance: To prove or disprove the existence of God(s) is beyond the realms of human ability.

Organized Religion, on the other hand, is a fat bag of wank that cripples whatever potential humanity has for peaceful co-existence.

[Misj']

While I agree on several points - when interpreted from your point of view - I have to indicate that several of your statements can also be interpreted differently. My apologies if I sound harsh doing such.

It is true, that mathematics is not a science, but it's also not a pseudo-science.

It should be noted, that I never said it was (on the contrary, I've indicated it's importance; including it's importance to the field of science)

Pseudo-science is "bad science", something that misleads people.

While I am completely willing to agree with this, the problem of course resides in the question what is 'misleading'. Simply because what you consider 'misleading' is directly associated with your personal point of view. However...if your personal point of view affects the results and how think someone is allowed to interpret them, than you've lost sight of one of the goals of science: it tries to be objective; as opposed to subjective science which by some itself is considered to be a pseudo-science.

Theology is pseudo-science, because it is based on unquestioning faith and unreasonable assumptions

Well...first of all, theology is not a science at all, but we already kinda agreed that out. Secondly, what should be considered 'unreasonable' is also open to interpretation (based on your point of view) and thus subjective.

There is no reason to assume the existence of a god, becuase the world can be explained in much simpler terms which can also be verified experimentally.

Using Occam's razor doesn't apply here, simply, because while it states: 'all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one', the decision about which one is the simplest solution will be different when you ask a theist and an atheist in this case. Which again shows that the solution depends on a persons pre-assumption, and thus that is subjective.

Faith only works if you don't question the existence or the omnipotence of a god. It requires one to be ignorant of the world and do not ask questions, because once you do (and apply logic), you very quickly reach contradictions.

Atheism only works if you don't question the non-existence of God (because if you start to question that fundamental principle, you can't maintain being an atheist technically), so being an atheist requires someone to be as ignorant as being a theist (yes, I know several of you fundamentally disagree with me on this...you don't have to react to this to tell me; since I'll know you're wrong, and you'll think I'm wrong  ...so let's not waste any more words on that). Consequently, non-ignorant people will be agnostic...which brings us back to good science being agnostic.

Why by the way does logic not allow you to believe in (seemingly) contradicting things? - I mean, the most fundamental law/theory of biology (the cell theory) seemingly contradicts with the creative evolutionary theory (please note the excessive use of the word 'seemingly' here, before anyone starts to write that I misunderstand either or both theories ).

Oh, and why do you need an omnipotent God (as in ALL powerful)? - Just really, amazingly, more than you could ever imagine powerful would do the job I think (which would make him all powerful from your point of view; this is - by the way - what most rabbies indicated as far as I know)...a simple idea - for example - could be, that such an entity completely understands quantum physics, and is able to purposely affect the universe using it...so faith does not need any omnipotent entities whatsoever.

Just because theology makes statements that some people accept, it doesn't mean that those statements have anything to do with reality.

And just because some people don't accept it, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with reality...now does it? - Furthermore, if you interpret it form a different point of view - namely that God did create everything and that the creator is intertwined with the created (like quantum physics which states that the observer automatically affects the observed, and that they cannot be separated) - than God automatically has everything to do with reality. Again it depends on your point of view, and therefore your interpretation is subjective.

While it's obvious that much of what you say makes sense when interpreted from your point of view (as far as I know your point of view), much of what you say is subjective. It should be noted here, that if quantum physics is correct, and if the observed is automatically affected by the observer, than a truly objective state is physically impossible. That's one of the reasons why I try to interpret data/information from as many different points of views as possible...it's the closest I can come to objectivity. But the closest I can get to objectivity leads me to come to conclusions that are not yours. Since I know my own reasoning, and since I know the pre-assumptions that I make, and why I (have to) make them, and since I know which data I possess, and different ways to interpret that data from different points of view...I have to stick to the conclusions I made myself based on science, art, philosophy, mathematics/statistics, and theology (I never use a single approach to tackle a problem); all of which - I can assure you - are logical and rational. Logic dictates that I base my point of view (and associated pre-assumptions) on my own research of the world...and logic also dictates that you do the same even if it leads to other conclusions.

Misj'

Ps. To Andail, I'm still not willing to discuss (a)theism. But your description fits very well the (christian) church of the middle ages...a time which none of the religious people I know lives in.

Pps. "when it was common "knowledge" that the Earth is flat" both the Babylonians and the Egyptians knew otherwise. No one has even been able to show me a text in the bible stating that the Earth is flat; I'm very curious as to where this text is. Religious people haven't been able to show me, atheists haven't been able to show me...and I would just really like to know.

Ppps. To LimpingFish, I agree with you. Organized Religion (the organization) has caused several problems in the past (and present...and most likely the future). Of course the same is true for any other Organized Thingy the past present and future will know...unfortunately. Organization seems to lead to fanaticism, which in turn leads to hatred, pain, and whatever variation on the Spanish Inquisition; non of which is ever expected...

Pppps. It's funny that although I've never mentioned whether I were a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic, some people still react to my post by attacking a religious believes system (thus apparently assuming that me disagreeing with their (atheistic) point of view automatically makes me blatant ignorant irrational and stupid religious fanatic) to me that's fanaticism; and as I stated before, if I continue this discussion, it will only lead to two things...neither of which I'm willing to accept. So this will be my final post regarding this subject (until my next reaction that is... )

[Andail]

Ps. To Andail, I'm still not willing to discuss (a)theism. But your description fits very well the (christian) church of the middle ages...a time which none of the religious people I know lives in.

Hmhm? So the christian church changed its "official" opinion about female priests, homosexuality and whatnot 500 years ago, and not quite recently? Exactly what part of my argument fits the middle ages better than the past decades?

Also, you keep saying that you're not willing to discuss this and that - and intermittently claiming that you will cease all posting whatsoever - but instead you keep writing these extremely lengthy posts. Just play the game will ya....

[voh]

Misj writes too much, my eyes started bleeding at his first post and are yet to stop doing so. I'm out of this one

[Traveler]

While I agree on several points - when interpreted from your point of view - I have to indicate that several of your statements can also be interpreted differently. My apologies if I sound harsh doing such.
It should be noted, that I never said it was (on the contrary, I've indicated it's importance; including it's importance to the field of science)

I didn't say that. And don't worry, so far you didn't seem to come through as harsh, but you do seem to be incosistent. See below.

While I am completely willing to agree with this, the problem of course resides in the question what is 'misleading'. Simply because what you consider 'misleading' is directly associated with your personal point of view. However...if your personal point of view affects the results and how think someone is allowed to interpret them, than you've lost sight of one of the goals of science: it tries to be objective; as opposed to subjective science which by some itself is considered to be a pseudo-science.

No. A statement is not misleading and can be considered a scientific truth if it can be experimentally verified. It has nothing to do with my point of view, because my statement can only be considered scientific if you (and anyone else) can do the same experiment and get the same results. In that sense even science involves some faith, since most of us simply believe the scientists that gravity works the way it does - most of us do not actually verify it. But this kind of belief is different from religious belief, because any of us can question the laws of gravity, devise a new law, implement experiments and show that the new law is correct and the old one is not. The only requirement is that the new law must explain all phenomena related to gravity just as well as the old one did.

While scientific truth is not "absolute truth", because measurements depend on properties of physical devices and results are biased by measurment errors, they still can be considered true and they're still not affected any personal views.

Using Occam's razor doesn't apply here, simply, because while it states: 'all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one', the decision about which one is the simplest solution will be different when you ask a theist and an atheist in this case. Which again shows that the solution depends on a persons pre-assumption, and thus that is subjective.

The problem with your logic is that a scientific approach excludes personal preferences and views, while a religious answer is deeply corrupted with it. You might just as easily get different answers from two theists, but you will not get different answers from two scientists. (If you do, there will be a logical explanation for the difference and there should be a way - maybe in the future - to evaluate them. Something like this is fundamentally impossible with religion, because of the very nature of it: you cannot question the basics of it, because you become a heretic.)

Atheism only works if you don't question the non-existence of God (because if you start to question that fundamental principle, you can't maintain being an atheist technically), so being an atheist requires someone to be as ignorant as being a theist

This is a patently incorrect statement. Science doesn't even concern itself with a god (just like I don't.) I don't need to "not question" the nonexistence of a god, because the whole topic is irrelevant. Describing reality doesn't require the use of a god, because it can already be done in simpler (and verifiable) terms. I'd only need to even think of questioning the nonexistence of a god if I really, really wanted to somehow pull it into the solution. This would be a result corrupted by a personal view, as you pointed out.

And just because some people don't accept it, doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with reality...now does it?

You consistently seem to forget about an important detail: not a single theological/religious statement can be experimentally verified. All the claims (which are by the way, 2000 years old) are such that there is not even the theoretical possibility to verify them.

If I told you that I just healed 500 people by the touch of my hand, would you believe me? You wouldn't (rightly so.) Yet religious people do this on a regular basis, based on a text that was written some 2000 years ago and then translated multiple times by people of different times and cultures. Does that seem unreasonable to you?

That's one of the reasons why I try to interpret data/information from as many different points of views as possible...it's the closest I can come to objectivity.

You can make any statements and come to any conclusions you like. You're free to interpret anything in any way. But your interpretation will only relate to reality if it can be verified by others. If I come to a conclusion about reality and you show that my conclusion is wrong, my conclusion has no value anymore. I might stick to it but that'd make me a medical case.

Science only has contradicting theories because we are ignorant about details of nature that are important enough to have a big effect on our experiments. History shows us that most such contradictions were cleared up when science advanced.

One example is classical physics and quantum physics: Planck had to introduce the concept of quantum to be able to explain heat radiation. There was a massive fight againts quantum mechanics, but it was shown that it is more successful in describing nature than classical physics.

We now have a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Does this mean that they're equally useless and we should throw them away? By no means! It only means that one (or both) theories have missing parts because we're unaware of something important. But just because of this, there is no need to pull a god out of a hat and say "nature is so effing complicated, only a god could possible have made it."

The solution to these contradictions (especially if they really bother you) is to study up on those areas of science and think about these problems in a clear and logical way. That's the only chance we have to advance.

[Stupot]

Historically, religion (and I'm refering mainly to Christianity here) was used as a means of increasing territory and basically invading countries without obvious force.

Whenever Europe discovered countries, the jesuits were always there straight away, telling the natives about this God character who is like this cuddly but strict judge in the sky will look after you for all eternity if you obey his (ie their) rules.

The majority of the natives would embrace these new ideas and before you know it, there are churches being built, natives being baptised and everybody wants a peice of this God dude...

...well not everybody... some of the natives didn't like these new ideas, and would speak out about it.  But then they'd start getting imprisoned, even executed for daring to speak against God.  Even the brainwashed natives would turn on them.  And the few left who still didn't beleive would suffer in silence.

Through this method Christianity became a global phenomenon, bigger than Pirates of the Carribean and Pokemon put together.  It was never even about worshipping a bearded ghost, it was merely one of the worlds first multinational corporations and was as much about exploiting the natives as many of todays MNCs.

[Khris]

Dear Misj',

I did understand your writing, I just don't agree with it. And that's why you apparently feel the need to insult me (or rather: my intelligence). To make it clear: I don't think mathematics is science.
I did say "The paragraph I disagree with the most is the one about mathematics not being a science."
That probably wasn't worded very well; I only wanted to identify the paragraph is was going to refer to.

I'm fully aware of the "logic reasoning" you are using to try to make us believe theology was a science.
I just don't agree. So would every logician.

Please look up a definition of pseudo-science first, in order to allow us to continue the discussion properly (link).

In my own words: mathematics is the basis for science in much the same way as a spoken or written language is the basis for a discussion.
It's necessary to establish axioms in mathematics in much the same way as it's necessary to establishing grammatical rules and vocabulary of a language.
Once a basis (mathematics/language) is established, people can start doing the real work (science/discussion).
So much for me mixing up science and logic, btw.

Now Theology is a completely different thing. It takes things for granted (immaculate conception, rising from the dead) and simply teaches them. Those things are never questioned or researched, just taught from one generation to the next. The degree of fundamentalism might vary over time, but that's it.
Laughing off my mentioning of the scientific method sarcastically doesn't change that.
Once again: a honest atheist is ready to throw his whole "set of beliefs" right out of the window at any time. It just takes a new, ground-breaking discovery.
Can you say the same thing about a theist? (In case you are unsure: no.)*

IMO, every newborn child is a perfect atheist. You might disagree, but that's my understanding of being an atheist: to have no idea of a god.
The point is: shouldn't the child rather be taught the mechanics behind observable facts only? Why push all those superstitions into it's young mind? It's free to choose any religion once it's old enough to make up it's own mind.

To conclude this post, I'll try to outline a piece of Dawkins:
Strong Christians constantly question the ways of science, plus, they try to drag it down to their level, calling it "a pursuit of beliefs", ignoring the fact that true science is trying to be as objective as possible.
Now imagine that suddenly new, conclusive scientific evidence is discovered: an immaculate conception is a biological possibility.
Do you think those Christians would be like "well, what do I care, it's just science"?
No way. They'd rave and pat each others shoulders and tell everybody "I told you so".
That doesn't tell us much about science or religion, but it's telling a lot about the average believer.

*If you decide to write a lengthy answer to my post, please address this point first. That way I have an indication whether it's worth my time to read the rest of your answer. Sounds harsh, I know.

[Misj']

[not really part of the discussion so I can safely post this without being in disagreement with my own words: So this will be my final post regarding this subject (until my next reaction that is...  )]

I've sent a response to KhrisMUC and Traveler via PM (a more appropriate place). If you're not one of them just be happy that you don't have to read it all. 

To Stupot (very shortly): True (especially for post-Constantine Christianity, but it more likely already started at Paul who - if look at objectively - at times acted more as a godfather than disciple of god (as he claimed to be). The same is also true for Incaism (or however you call their religion), which 'conquered' South America not with weapons but with missionaries...Power corrupts, and organized power corrupts even more.

Misj'

Ps. To quote Douglas Adams' God's final message to his creation: "We apologise for the inconvenience."

Pps. From www.phdcomics.com (while exaggerated, it's closer to the truth than I wish it to be  ):


http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761

[LimpingFish]

...than disciple of god (as he claimed to be).

He claimed to be a messenger of God. The Pope claims to be one. Jerry Falwell claimed to be one.

How can we prove them otherwise? Does the inabilty to ultimately test their claims leave them exempt from all but the weakest counter-claims of "Oh no you're not!"?

We are engaged in two seperate debates. The existence of God, and the place of Organized Religion in a modern healthy society.

I don't subscribe to Organized Religion, though I was born into a catholic community. Religion plays no part in my everyday life, as it simply has no bearing on my world views or how I live.

I don't believe in Organized Religion, and I can do so because it's basic concept is tangible.

Only a God can Prove that It exists. But once It's existence is verified, then the concept of Faith becomes moot, and thus the need to believe in a God is rendered obsolete.

I can't believe or disbelieve in the existence of God, because it lies beyond my ability to do so.

All evidence to support either stance on It's existence is inadmissible on the basis that these facts are bound to minds without the intrinsic ability to comprehend anything beyond their very own sphere of existence.

[dasjoe]

seen this pic today, feel free to discuss.

[vict0r]

It weren't possibly 4chan you saw this today?

[dasjoe]

i probably got it from 4chan but no, i saw it on my own space, uploaded ages ago

[space boy]

seen this pic today, feel free to discuss.

The diagram to the left confuses and scares me. The one to the right looks easier to memorize.

[lo_res_man]

I have reconsidered my position and consider myself a christian agnostic, I just think the concept of faith and science don't get along that well. Faith is believing because you believe and it helps you live your life, hopefully for the better. Science is the repeted testing of ideas to find more univeral ideas. Niether can give all the answers. No scientest can  tell me how I can get an 'I' out of a  few pounds of intercontected hydrogen carbon and a bunch of other elements. On the other hand faith can't tell me how a cell works. I am certin that I am uncertin scientificly.
ANd I find that chart a tad offensive. I have faith yes, but I question it all the time ask myself why I believe whatI believe. I know I have touted this guy before, but Michiel Fareday was a christian, AND he was a great scientist. The idea isn't inconcieveble.

[paolo]

Why don't Topsy and Henrietta just bring in a new, female cat.
If Tuesday Fucks its brains out, then I will happily hang up my atheist cape and go on a spending spree at the local Gideons outlet.

Topsy and Henrietta thought that Stupot's suggestion was an excellent idea, and bought a new cat, naming it Wednesday. Tuesday and Wednesday had a wonderful time together making (ahem) "the beast with two backs" (see http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/58450.html).

Unfortunately, Henrietta insisted that this proved Tuesday was a boy, while Topsy insisted that this proved that Tuesday (and Wednesday, for that matter) was a lesbian. So nothing was proved at all, and the arguing continued as fiercely as ever.

This might sound like a flippant comment, but I am making a serious point. This sort of shift of position to suit current knowledge happens all the time in religion. Science comes along and demonstrates that a natural phenomenon can be explained in scientific terms rather than religious ones (such as the Flood or the Creation), and religious believers simply move the goalposts to fit their argument. This has happened over and over again in history - one of the worst examples was the persecution of Galileo over his publication of the heliocentric model of the solar system, which contradicted the Biblical geocentric model. The Catholic Church did not apologise for this until the 1990s, a full 350 years after Galileo's death and well after the universal acceptance of the heliocentric model.

You'd be hard pressed to find a Christian these days who would insist that the universe revolves around the Earth (unless they happened to be a Flat Earther), but that was once an accepted and supposedly unshakable part of Christian belief. (Sure, scientists believed it too, but they were happy to give up that theory once another came along that gave a better fit to astronomical observations, and they didn't go around putting Christians who continued to believe in the old theory under house arrest.)

Niether [religion nor science] can give all the answers. No scientest can  tell me how I can get an 'I' out of a  few pounds of intercontected hydrogen carbon and a bunch of other elements. On the other hand faith can't tell me how a cell works. I am certin that I am uncertin scientificly.

True, neither religion nor science can give all the answers, and it never will, as each answer leads to more questions. However, science comes up with many, many more answers than religion does, and its answers are based on sound logic, unlike religion's answers, which are based on faith alone. ("God made it so - just believe rather than questioning it.")

Yes, science can't currently tell you how you come to be out of hydrogen and carbon, etc, but it is entirely feasible that one day it might. That's not scientific arrogance, by the way - several centuries ago, science could not explain how the heart worked, for example, but nowadays, it can.