On Jun 10, 2015, Aus wrote:
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways

Personally I’ve always seen religion try to partner up with science not to reconcile with it but instead to control it or stamp its own agenda on it.

In recent history, the theory of evolution has been at the center of some controversy between Christianity and science. Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation find incompatibility between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and attempts to disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

Another form is Theistic evolution which attempts to reconcile Christian beliefs and science by accepting the scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism, which accepts some findings of modern science but also upholds classical religious teachings about God and creation in Christian context.

Religion doesn’t just try to exert it influence on science, it has it hand in everything we do and as a non-religious person I can see our society shaped by it.

Look at our justice system. In our system alleged wrong-doers are taken to a room presided over by a judge on a raised dais. Those found wanting in their behaviour are then taken away to prisons, which we quite happily build and fund, despite the fact that they are the closest things to hell on earth that one can find in a modern society.

Where do you think that idea came from? Doesn't it sound familiar?

I happen to think that science shouldn't be viewed alongside a religious perspective since the relationship between science and religion is philosophy, not science. Science and religion are not compatible in the way they operate, and the distinction should be absolutely maintained. Science actively seeks new knowledge while religious doctrine is a closed set of beliefs that is, at best, indifferent to new knowledge.

Personally I find religion partnering up with science muddies its sense of independence which is the characteristic I turned to it for in the first place.

Magically

Aus

On Jun 17, 2015, Mike Ince wrote:
Today's podcast of R.C. Sproul's "Renewing Your Mind" series is entitled "No Idols". Yesterday's entry is worth a listen, too. I'm thinking about what he said today regarding the use of Magic in religious practice. Often Christians think if they say the right words in prayer, they can control God. They treat the Holy Spirit as a magical force to be used to control circumstances.

Idolatry also involves invoking something other than God for help or guidance. I've performed mentalism for several years and I think it's strong to use trickery to reveal someone's star sign. I don't want to do that in a way that might lend credence to astrology, however, so I usually don't reveal star signs. Now, some performers will say, "astrology isn't something I believe in, but using the tools of the so-called psychic I can tell your sign is Taurus". The question is, did your effect draw someone close to the truth or closer to reliance on lies? Does your performance lead others to a dry well like astrology or some other form of idolatry?

On Jun 21, 2015, sunnymagician wrote:
I know the case of an young priest who put up a magic show based on biblical incidents. The church told him to stop it, saying that such shows would create the impression that the miracles performed by Christ also would be counted as magic.

On Jun 26, 2015, funsway wrote:
I have reread all of these posts with interest -- more as a student of human decision make than a questioner of faith or the validity of religion.

Yet, one statement by Aus bothers me : "since all religions profess themselves to be THE ONLY WORD OF GOD."

This is so obviously false that I am surprised no one else commented. I have studied religiosity and world religions for 60 years. It simply is not factual.

Many religions profess to have a sure path to God, and most err in attempting to limit God to their version of human perfection.

Some Christians claim that the Bible is the only true word of God (which version? Which Century? Which translation. What of the a passeges deliberately left out for political reasons?)

But none of that can be cited as claiming to have the "Only word of God."

It is possibly this shaky foundation of thought that causes Aus some angst.

I understand that when Thomas Merton was asked to teach a class at Harvard, he started off with saying, "This class will be taught on the premise that all religions are correct." HAlf the student sleft. Tose that reamined commented that it was the best class they ever took in college. Somewhere between unquestioned acceptance of dogma and rejection of any notion beyond man's imagineering is a comfort zone in which an individual cna both question and enjoy the companionship of others in their search -- regardless of what that search is.

To the extent that performance magic can cause a person to question closely held "believed things" it is good. To the extent that it is used for ego enhancement or the desire to foist one's beliefs on another it is less good.

Man has both gifts and givens including the ability to question and a analyze information. To refuse to use these gifts is to deny your birthright and can hardly bring you "closer to God" if that is your focus.

For me, I observe how a person treats strangers, their mother and their dog. I consider how well they use reasoning to support their claims. Do they "walk the talk?"

Only then might I choose to consider their opinion on religion or any matter.

The noted statement above cause my to not take Aus's opinions very seriously.

In finality it may not be the answers a person has, but the quality of their questions that matters -- if one chooses to believe in "something after."

There is an ancient thought that when you meet God face-to-face you will be allowed to ask one question. Living is a way of preparing you to ask that question.

Performing magic and observing people's awe and wonder prepares me to find awe and wonder in everyday life.

Listening to another's claim of "the only right answer" prepares me for nothing.

On Jun 26, 2015, funsway wrote:
...Some Christians claim that the Bible is the only true word of God (which version? Which Century? Which translation. What of the a passeges deliberately left out for political reasons?)

But none of that can be cited as claiming to have the "Only word of God."...

Man has both gifts and givens including the ability to question and a analyze information...
For me, I observe how a person treats strangers, their mother and their dog. I consider how well they use reasoning to support their claims. Do they "walk the talk?"

Listening to another's claim of "the only right answer" prepares me for nothing.

On Jun 27, 2015, funsway wrote:
"Let's use reason with the Thomas Merton claim that all religions are equally valid"

That is not what he said. He said they are all correct. Big different.

and neither "correct" or "equally valid" equal "true" It is your argument that is circular and "nonsense."

Merton is considered by many to be greatest scholar of all time. That means man's interpretation of information, not necessarily the truth of it.

All religions can be correct by being internally consistent -- and if followed provide a path for unity with the divine.

Jesus also referred to old Testaments as the way things used to be done -- and said he was bringing a new testament to follow. He also said that he was bringing the testament to all people, and was setting an example of how to act. Thus, the passage quoted above of "by me" can be interpreted as "to follow my example" of giving up all of this world such as ego, pride and self-importance and surrendering yourself to God's will.

I never suggested that Christianity is unreasonable, though I do think that many interpretations are beyond reason. Part of free will is to doubt, which is a form of question. I am always open to learn, and can rely on faith when reason fails. But to deny reason in the name of faith is folly. Not sure where I express "having doubts" though. And why would you assume I am not Christian?

I will admit to not finding much to follow in any organized religion today. If Jesus arrives tomorrow he would not join any of them.

I am glad you have fund a path that seems to work for you. So have I.

I just chose to follow Christ's teaching of "pray alone in the closet," and "let your actions be your gospel."

I also am interested in Scripture and reason. ALL scripture and consistent reasoning. Both seem in short supply.

At least your first paragraph leaves reason in doubt.

On Jul 3, 2015, Dougini wrote:
When Jesus said, "I Am...", I wonder if we really know what that means? >Shudder...<

Doug