2 deleted 249 characters in body
source | link

Because science and religion are not systems that can directly compete with each other. It is only when we talk about certain things, like prediction in a specific situation, that we can say science is always superior. For instance, we might be able to use psychological sciences to predict with high probability that a psychopath will torture an animal at some point in his life. But a religious person is not interested in these kinds of empirical questions. A religious person might be more interested in issues of divine justice, fairness and desert, guilt, ultimate meaning and purpose, and so forth. We're talking philosophy, almost literature, versus science. Different content, and requiring different methods.

Therefore there is no clear inconsistency in believing that earthquakes are caused by rocks breaking along the fault lines (or whatever the latest scientific theory is), versus him believing that the ultimate cause being God's wrath. It's a question of motivation here, from an invisible being. It's not something you can exactly test in a lab, as ludicrous as it was when they did a blind study on whether a bunch of people praying for someone can speed up the healing process. As crazy as doing a blind study on whether certain truths that we hold to be "self-evident", are evident after all?!...

Because science and religion are not systems that can directly compete with each other. It is only when we talk about certain things, like prediction in a specific situation, that we can say science is always superior. For instance, we might be able to use psychological sciences to predict with high probability that a psychopath will torture an animal at some point in his life. But a religious person is not interested in these kinds of empirical questions. A religious person might be more interested in issues of divine justice, fairness and desert, guilt, ultimate meaning and purpose, and so forth. We're talking philosophy, almost literature, versus science. Different content, and requiring different methods.

Therefore there is no clear inconsistency in believing that earthquakes are caused by rocks breaking along the fault lines (or whatever the latest scientific theory is), versus him believing that the ultimate cause being God's wrath. It's a question of motivation here, from an invisible being. It's not something you can exactly test in a lab, as ludicrous as it was when they did a blind study on whether a bunch of people praying for someone can speed up the healing process. As crazy as doing a blind study on whether certain truths that we hold to be "self-evident", are evident after all?!

Because science and religion are not systems that can directly compete with each other. It is only when we talk about certain things, like prediction in a specific situation, that we can say science is always superior. For instance, we might be able to use psychological sciences to predict with high probability that a psychopath will torture an animal at some point in his life. But a religious person is not interested in these kinds of empirical questions. A religious person might be more interested in issues of divine justice, fairness and desert, guilt, ultimate meaning and purpose, and so forth. We're talking philosophy, almost literature, versus science. Different content, and requiring different methods.

Therefore there is no clear inconsistency in believing that earthquakes are caused by rocks breaking along the fault lines (or whatever the latest scientific theory is), versus him believing that the ultimate cause being God's wrath. It's a question of motivation here, from an invisible being. It's not something you can exactly test in a lab....

1
source | link

Because science and religion are not systems that can directly compete with each other. It is only when we talk about certain things, like prediction in a specific situation, that we can say science is always superior. For instance, we might be able to use psychological sciences to predict with high probability that a psychopath will torture an animal at some point in his life. But a religious person is not interested in these kinds of empirical questions. A religious person might be more interested in issues of divine justice, fairness and desert, guilt, ultimate meaning and purpose, and so forth. We're talking philosophy, almost literature, versus science. Different content, and requiring different methods.

Therefore there is no clear inconsistency in believing that earthquakes are caused by rocks breaking along the fault lines (or whatever the latest scientific theory is), versus him believing that the ultimate cause being God's wrath. It's a question of motivation here, from an invisible being. It's not something you can exactly test in a lab, as ludicrous as it was when they did a blind study on whether a bunch of people praying for someone can speed up the healing process. As crazy as doing a blind study on whether certain truths that we hold to be "self-evident", are evident after all?!