Do you believe in aliens, extra-terrestrials, life on other planets, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

You can't prove the non-existence of something, moron

So God exists then. Case closed.

Yeah it doesn't surprise me you believe that.

You believe something that is unprovable.

You believe something that is unprovable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

I suspect that's because they hold these separate ideas in their head simultaneously - as the other pp said, they compartmentalize. Religion got the story of creation mostly all wrong. As far as how to live your life now, Religion and Philosophy do an equally good job of that. As for the afterlife, that's the exclusive realm of religion. Science can't prove it. Of course you can be a scientist and religious at the same time. But the existence of God is more the area of metaphysics (philosophy, not science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

I disagree. We understand how humans form from egg/sperm to infants. Biology clearly explains that. Saying God had a hand in forming that process isn’t explaining the unknown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

I disagree. We understand how humans form from egg/sperm to infants. Biology clearly explains that. Saying God had a hand in forming that process isn’t explaining the unknown.

It's classic "god of the gaps" which fill in until the gap is otherwise explained.

[Anonymous]

No. SDA. Immediate family member worked on Apollo and was and still is a well known astronomer and tried to, as I understand it, solve an equation for life. Never any belief in aliens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

I disagree. We understand how humans form from egg/sperm to infants. Biology clearly explains that. Saying God had a hand in forming that process isn’t explaining the unknown.

"God created science" is a cop-out. And bad science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

I disagree. We understand how humans form from egg/sperm to infants. Biology clearly explains that. Saying God had a hand in forming that process isn’t explaining the unknown.

It's classic "god of the gaps" which fill in until the gap is otherwise explained.

Um… we know how babies are made. What gaps am I filling in with God?

You may choose not to believe this. Fine. But don’t misrepresent my beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

I disagree. We understand how humans form from egg/sperm to infants. Biology clearly explains that. Saying God had a hand in forming that process isn’t explaining the unknown.

"God created science" is a cop-out. And bad science.

It’s not science, so it can’t be bad science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

I disagree. We understand how humans form from egg/sperm to infants. Biology clearly explains that. Saying God had a hand in forming that process isn’t explaining the unknown.

"God created science" is a cop-out. And bad science.

It’s not science, so it can’t be bad science.

It's bad science to say that a supernatural force is "involved" in a biological process.

As Francis Collins said, ”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

This is so elementary it shouldn't need explaining, and I even assume believers and non-believers agree on this: God requires belief, fine. Science doesn't depend on belief, but on the scientific method. Science, if it doesn't know the answer at admits it doesn't know the answer. It doesn't just make stuff up out of whole cloth that can't be proved.

...Right, but I'm not sure why believing in God and understanding science would need to be compartmentalized as two wholly separate things when, in fact, many people of faith don't see any contradiction between their belief in God and scientific discoveries/advances.

The don't contradict, they just don't overlap.

People use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.

One can also believe that God put the objective, physical world into play. It isn’t just the unknown that can be explained by God.

That is explaining the unknown.

I disagree. We understand how humans form from egg/sperm to infants. Biology clearly explains that. Saying God had a hand in forming that process isn’t explaining the unknown.

"God created science" is a cop-out. And bad science.

It’s not science, so it can’t be bad science.

It's bad science to say that a supernatural force is "involved" in a biological process.

As Francis Collins said, ”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives.”

Isn’t it a good thing that’s not what I’m doing!

You appear to have decided that ANY mention of faith as it relates to science is a distortion. I disagree, and will continue to do so no matter how many times you misrepresent my words.

.