What you seem to be doing is projecting a scientific point of view on a topic which cannot be scientific.
THat's largely because of what you said. You said that religion can answer things science can not. And then when I ask you to give an example you claim that I am projecting a scientific point of view?
When people write down parables or stories or legends in a book in a pre scientific age, their concern is not with factual truth but rather with intuitive truth.
Acient people really believed in many of the myths they put forth. I am sure in Jesus time everyone thought that that described in Gen1-2 really happened. Really, critical thinking, even when biased against modern ideas, is something new.
...religion is all about how we as humans relate to the universe in a very personal, spiritual way. It has nothing to do with atoms and matter and so forth, though religions do often mention we are made out of those things. (it's like...duh, of course we are).
Religious people that accept the existance of what science calls atoms accept this not because of religion but because of science. And often in spite of religion.
Before science make these discoveries no one believed them. Religion does not mention atoms or molecules, obviously.
So you are saying that religion does not concern truth and vice versa?
From my point of view philosophy deals with how humans relate to the universe and other questions outside of science. While religion may express ideas on this it is not about this. If you are correct then what is the difference between religion and philosophy?
One does not abandon reason by considering carefully what truths are actually revealed in a religious text such as the Bible.
I think the view that bronze age myth, written down by people considered highly immoral by our standards, doesn't really have anything to tell us or to teach us is quite a rational and careful consideration of religious text. You are making a straw man saying that those who do not find anything worthwile in the bible can't have considered what is in it carefully enough.
My point is quite clear. Maybe science and religion oppose each other. I think they often do but that they don't have to by definition. But I do think that reason and belief/faith contradict each other. If you are religious this can only be because you abandon reason. And if you abandon orthodox religion because it is too irreasonable but when you stay a believer you clearly abandon both faith and reason.
I don't think people have to be reasonable per se. I probably have quite some irrational faith and belief in my friends. But you need to accept this as irrational.
One abandons reason by taking a black and white, either/or attitude towards it such as yourself and others on this website.
I don't think so. I may have questioned that what you have said. But I don't oppose it per se. I am critical, yes. But I am also willing to hear your answers though I must say you did dissapoint me a little in discussing my questions.
As you have seen I do not discuss with someone like Pianistimo. I only point out their disinformation or their lies. Or in the case of Pianistimo probably honest misunderstandings.
Your method is a cop-out, a dismissal of any endeavors made by C.S. Lewis or like minded individuals to reasonably discuss what truths the bible reveals.
So what truths does the bible reveal? You claimed before that religion can answer questions. I asked which ones. But you didn't answer that point. Sure, the bible can tell us something about what kind society the writers lived in. And though that we can understand human nature. But the relation of humans with the universe? As far as the people of the bible is concerned the earth was flat, there were waters underneath and above was a firmamentt seperating earth from heaven. And the stars were little holes in this firmament. Really, these people had no conception at all of the universe.
The truth is, there is scientific research, and then there is religious thought and theology. We cannot scientifically analyze something which does not produce any sort of physical evidence. Therefore, the existence of anything which does not produce physical evidence (such as God, or souls, or anything else super-natural) cannot be proven nor disproven by science.
So because of this you also can't answer my questions?
Also, you misunderstand something. If you can't prove or disprove something because of a lack of evidence then it just does not exist. Or we have to assume it does not exist.
The only method left to us to find out the nature of these super natural things is religion (or some sort of spritual mysticism---obviously organized religion is not neccessary for this pursuit).
I agree that science can't tell us anything about the super-natural, even if it would exist. But what can religion teach us? Doesn't it just say that we have to believe? I mean, if religion could really tell us about the supernatural and answer questions about things outside science then it wouldn't require faith, right? And then it wouldn't be religion.
Some people, such as Lewis, begin with an assumption that we have a soul, and that this super natural element of our own minds is what allows us to learn about God and the spirit world in general.
I should add that this assumption is not taken for granted---in Miracles, C.S. Lewis discusses at lengh even a plausible scientific "vulnerability" in the very matter we are made out of which makes the idea of a super natural force altering our physical behavior/thoughts etc. plausible.
If a supernatural force alters the physical then wouldn't that leave behind physical evidence? I don't see how a supernatural can exist, not generate physical evidence while being relevant. Either the supernatural should produce evidence. Or it is outside our reality which makes the question of its exiistence or not irrelevant.
Your way of thinking is very Newtonian. Cause and effect. Either/or. Black and white. You should move into the relativity/quantum mechanics age---there is more room for the spirit world in science today than in the Newtonian past.
I think this is a gross misunderstanding. Modern physics may allow about every 'miracle' and act of 'magic' you can come up with, but only under very special circumstances, but it does not give more room to religion. On the contrary. I don't see how you can say this. I also don't see how you can say I think newtonian. Surely no one can think in terms of quantum mechanics.
You are implying I misunderstand modern physics. I don't. I may know very little compared to a actual physicist and my understanding may be shallow. But I have been careful enough to make sure that that what I understand I understand properly.
New Age thinkers have been trying to hjiack quantum mechanics for all kinds of things. Maybe some theists have done the same. But this is just wrong. Both in terms of if it is true or not and in terms of ethics.
As for being religious and being honest at the same time. I think one should just make up your own religion or set of beliefs. And either make sure that you keep all of them inside the supposed supernatural or you apply double think.
This way you can use religion especually for the way it wants to be used and it solves all problems of religion I have except that it is not reasonable. But I said before I don't have that big a problem with that. As long as you are honest about it.
Topic: Huge!