When he explains to them, however, that the story (myth) does affirm belief that God created the «heavens and earth and all that in them is,» but does not require belief that he did it in six twenty - four - hour days, they are set free to correlate their religious
beliefs with their scientific knowledge.
Not exact matches
``... [the] gulf between the Church and the
scientific mind... widens
with each generation, and modern means of diffusing
knowledge by the press, radio, and film, have brought us now to such a pass that the Christian, and especially the Catholic, whose
beliefs are enriched in their religious manifestation by the ceremonies and practices of a most ancient past, finds himself considered the initiate of a recondite cult whose practices are not only unintelligible to men around him, but savour to them of superstition and magic.»
What religion offers: — The opportunity to avoid eternal punishment for not worshiping / believing in my god (not worried enough to care)-- An explanation for the universe and why we are here (I'll take the
knowledge gained from the application of the
scientific method, but thanks)-- Living forever in heavenly bliss (I am content
with this life)-- The opportunity to divide humanity based upon different
belief systems (There is enough dividing us already)-- Purpose, a code of ethics, and fulfillment (I have that already, without religion)-- Develop a personal relationship
with god (I've never seen or heard from any gods nor have I seen any independantly verified scientifically collected peer reviewed proof.
Yeah, nevermind your well established 21st century
scientific knowledge, I'll stick
with my nonsensical bronze - age book of conjecture and fairy tales for all of my
beliefs.
Thus when we have stripped
scientific knowledge to its essentials we are left
with both its particularity and its universal intent, a step that would require us to modify any rigid distinction between the objective and subjective poles, or between
knowledge and
belief.
The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world... but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more
with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those
with less
knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions... The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual
beliefs from a
scientific perspective... without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other.
Certainly some religious
beliefs are not compatible
with scientific knowledge and thought.
But most forcefully in his statement he asserts that: «
Scientific knowledge, the theory of evolution in particular, is consistent
with a religious
belief in God, whereas the tenets of Creationism and the so - called Intelligent Design are not.
If the Supreme Court had consulted the accepted body of
scientific knowledge, however, they would have found that the companies» religious
beliefs were not in conflict
with the birth control methods they opposed, says Pratima Gupta, a doctor at the San Francisco Medical Center and former board member of the pro-choice network Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
However, only Democrats, not Republicans, hold
beliefs about
scientific consensus which vary
with their level of science
knowledge.
When it comes to Hansen, who has publically stated his
beliefs, and his position, and done so in a manor that can not be confused
with stating
scientific knowledge or facts.