I'm a logical thinker and I'm also a Christian, those two things don't really cross eachother's paths. Logic and Religion should be kept separately - God's ways cannot be explained by simple human logic, his design cannot be described with letters or digits. There is a greater pattern going on in the world, something we cannot comperhend, just believe it.
Obviously, science unveils some mysteries, but do notice that explaining one thing creates two questions. I do believe that we'll never answer the questions like "what's the point of life" etc. - they're too subjective, too vague, and that's why "religion" was created.
The point of being religious is to believe in a supreme being - the world works according to too strict rules to be a coincidence in my opinion. It was "meant" to work as it does and left for us to keep and maintain. It's not supposed to have sense, it's supposed to be a moral framework of your life.
Take bible for example - a set of stories that are more or less sensical, mostly fiction though. However, following them does point towards what's "evil" and what's "good", and that was the idea behind creating it and editing it over and over.
Religion is not composed of "facts". That's what science is for. Religion is a set of vague theories that are open for interpretation. These are just things *you* believe in, the way *you* comperhend them. Truth to be told, *you* create your own version of "religion", whichever one you choose, since as a human being, you interpret things in a specific, one-of-a-kind way... and this is a good thing, really.
First off, nothing against you, but you this post just seemed to be perfect for my current argumentative mentality...
QUOTE said:
Logic and Religion should be kept separately - God's ways cannot be explained by simple human logic, his design cannot be described with letters or digits. There is a greater pattern going on in the world, something we cannot comperhend, just believe it.
This is one of the reasons religion is always the most fundamental rival of logic and science. To put it simply, you cannot have the best of both worlds without taking the burden of either. It's just not possible - one way or the other, your belief/faith
will clash with your logic. There's no getting around that, and I think assuming that there's a way to do so is denying that humans are free to study the things they believe in.
Consider this, of all "illogical" things, religion in general is the only one that denies almost all ties to science and logic. Love is being studied, the supernatural is being studied, extraterrestrials are being studied, legends and myths get studied. Why can we not study the most important thing in the history of humanity [yes, religions is the most important thing in history; there is no denying that fact]? Because its leaders say no? Because its believers hate the idea?
QUOTE said:
Obviously, science unveils some mysteries, but do notice that explaining one thing creates two questions. I do believe that we'll never answer the questions like "what's the point of life" etc. - they're too subjective, too vague, and that's why "religion" was created.
Some questions are questions only to the human mind. Some things just are, scientifically speaking. For example, "what is the point of life?" is the question. Biologically, life is about ensuring the existence of the future generation. Of course, that's fine for animals and plants, but humans just ask more, they want more. It's inherent in the human nature, and no fault of science whatsoever - our curiosity, our problem.
Now, religion-wise, does that also answer
all our questions without creating further ones? Or are we asked to be content just to keep the questions to ourselves and [of course] believe that the answer is out there. That's not even an answer, that's called evading the question entirely, though no one seems to mind.
QUOTE said:
The point of being religious is to believe in a supreme being - the world works according to too strict rules to be a coincidence in my opinion. It was "meant" to work as it does and left for us to keep and maintain. It's not supposed to have sense, it's supposed to be a moral framework of your life.
Too strict rules? Most of the rules we live in are logical. [for example's sake] Eat something poisonous, do something stupid = die | breath oxygen, eat, drink = live. That's not strict, it's just life. Now if you were talking about the rules that govern the universe... How do we say they are "too strict to be coincidence" when we have yet to understand them all? That's presumptive judgment, IMHO. As far as I've researched, the universe works under rules that allow it to either maintain or change itself [depends which theories you subscribe to, really] while allowing it to work.
Wait, you're telling me that our moral framework shouldn't make sense? I think above all things that religion gives us, morality is the most logical of them.
QUOTE said:
Take bible for example - a set of stories that are more or less sensical, mostly fiction though. However, following them does point towards what's "evil" and what's "good", and that was the idea behind creating it and editing it over and over.
Ouch. As something of an aspiring writer, I take affront at this sentiment. Fiction is a form of escapism, not a guide for anyone. It's true, some works of fiction do indeed give out small facets of good or bad [thus protagonists and antagonists/conflict etc] but fiction is just that - fiction.
Please do not tell me that the bible is fiction. It does not fly - with me or with the people who [continually deny that they] supposedly created it. It's almost unfair to have something so reverently "holy" be called fiction - it's almost insulting. Again, you can't have things both ways, without taking the burden of either. Either the bible is God's words/our moral compass or it's fiction, and nothing other than fiction.
QUOTE
Religion is not composed of "facts". That's what science is for. Religion is a set of vague theories that are open for interpretation. These are just things *you* believe in, the way *you* comperhend them.
I've sincerely never heard any religious leader/preacher/believer saying that their beliefs are open to personal interpretations. Maybe you're luckier than I in that respect, but for the most part, religion is a set of beliefs you either believe in or don't.
QUOTE
Truth to be told, *you* create your own version of "religion", whichever one you choose, since as a human being, you interpret things in a specific, one-of-a-kind way... and this is a good thing, really.