Your conception of Christianity sounds like a form of therapy, which is the real religion of the post-modern age.
Hello Razumov,
I havenât been here for a while. But I didnât stop thinking about the things that look like in different dimensions.
So, why do we the more intelligent human beings have to seek the right life and the right way to live the right life while the less intelligent animals donât have to?
What I can explain now is the limited power of brain and the flexibility.
However intelligent we are, the capacity of our brain is limited.
We donât have many preset behaviors like animals but have the flexibility that allows us to develop certain patterns to fit the situation we are in, and when the situation changes we can change. We are flexible. At the same time, being flexible means we have to find the right pattern for ourselves to live better every time when the situation changes.
And this becomes something we also need experts to work on, just like physics, chemistry, and all of the rest professions.
Christianity offers us one idea among many. And I find Christianity quite true (reconciling with a lot of human natures) when at the same time I also find something I have to pull myself back like loving everyone or even loving the world just like some people suggest. (They may not be Christian at all!)
But therapy?
No. In my darkest days I did think about going to the church but I didnât stay because what I heard was to believe without my own judgment. Itâs horrible. I became interested in Christianity more than a decade later when someone didnât preach but showed what he believed. What he did to us, not what he told us to do (he had never), converted me.
Hello Jennifer,
I believe the world is bigger than what scientists could see. And we are something that involves more. When scientific findings are hard and more reliable in the material world (thatâs why we need science), they are not complete. Christianity offers us more.
But I admit I find a lot of conflicts between science and religion. I still struggle. But I would not choose one and reject the other. I need both of them.
Yes, I think so too.
Yes, I believe that the methodology of science only works because of the space-time mathematical relationships which governs everything we call physical almost completely â not quite, but almost. Science has discovered the limits in quantum physics. For example, one of the most basic of those mathematical relationships is the conservation of energy. But it isnât quite as absolute as most people think. The energy-time uncertainty principle means that the conservation of energy only holds to an uncertainly factor that is inversely proportional to the interval of time. In other words, during very short periods of time energy can come from nowhere as long as it disappears before that short period of time is over. That energy can alter the course of events â we know that for a fact!
Yes. It doesnât offer objective certainty for it relies on evidence which is subjective and requires faith. But while atheists like to make a big deal of that, the fact is that while science relies on objective observation (where what we want doesnât matter), life requires subjective participation (where what we want is crucial). So trying force all of life into an objective scientific vision & methodology only is downright delusional. They cannot do it and if they claim they are doing so then they are lying (perhaps to themselves). Life forces us to make choices and will not wait until we have proof and objective evidence for them.
But on the other hand, they do have a legitimate complaint that Christianity is no more objective than their own conclusions. And Christians who try to claim that their choices are objective are just as delusional as atheists making this claim. The choices of atheists may be just subjective as ours, but their choices are also just as legitimate and rational as ours.
This only happens when religion seeks to compete with science or set itself up as the arbiter of what discoveries should be accepted. And when it does that, it is doomed to lose. Science has always been a fundamental part of my perceptual process, and that means that when I went looking to see if there was anything of value in religion, I rejected anything contrary to the findings of science right off the bat as just plain wrong.
Some in religion find that approach frightening, wondering if anything is left to religion. Atheists or rather naturalists would like you to believe that the answer is no. But there are criteria for what constitutes a proper scientific hypothesis based upon what the scientific methodology is applicable to. And however much those like Carl Sagan would have you believe that this is the limit of what has any truth value at all, that claim is something which ironically has no truth value by their own criterion.
1 Like
The answer is no if they could explain what honesty is in a scientific way. Or they have to leave something to religion.