There were no answers

by Devon Bate

Anthony DeLucchi wrote:

“I am no biblical scholar nor do I attempt to be, but having said this I will admit I can read and in reading I find it quite natural to conclude certain discrepancies in both science and in theological argument.”

Of course I can agree with that. I am not a scholar or a scientist, and do not pretend to be. I read everything from the Bible, and science textbooks. So, knowledge and understanding of a variety of the various ideas and beliefs is what I am basing my views on. If one day as I read the bible I realize that He, in fact, is real and did create all of existence, I would be arguing just as much for the other side.

Your baseball analogy, or that idea confuses me, to say the least. I apologize if I misinterpreted this. How is it science that “skips bases and think we are home free”? Our knowledge of the world through science is always evolving and growing, we learn new things; thus we can understand better where we came from, where we could be going, etc. Christianity and the Bible, on the other hand, remains the same. As time goes on we can interpret the Bible differently, as you and many others have shown us, but it never changes to stay logical and up to date with actual discoveries! The idea that God is the creator and the reason for virtually everything is skipping the bases and thinking we’re home free! It is an explanation with much less observation and study.

What answers does the Bible give, and to what questions we don’t seem to know? I have no idea what this argument is supposed to be. And surely if you were bemused at school because you didn’t know the questions to the answers you were studying… well, you must have failed school. If we knew the questions to the exams and were studying the answers, then everyone would ace the exams! We need to learn things so when we get into the classroom we can use our obtained knowledge to answer the questions given. Surely you must understand this concept.

As for your last two paragraphs, I could go into this and argue all day, but I don’t think I want to. You have avoided the arguments you have lost and have ended up with this. “Science gives me no soul”. Yes, that is very true. Of course I could argue if the ‘soul’ and all that exists, but that is an entirely different discussion. Are we significant? Are we here for any reasons? Hope, I believe, is the biggest cause for creationism and religious belief. And I choose not to argue that, as I am in no way against it.

I just think that the religious should leave science to obtain knowledge of purpose (or lack of) and existence, and the scientist leave religion to give hope and happiness to the people. And this is where your argument has boiled down to, and where I stop.