I'm not Bahai and I don't see anywhere where religion and science conflict.

That's one of the many reasons I like the Baha'i Faith. Although we most definitely believe in teaching the faith, we don't proselytize. If someone isn't interested, that's fine. I guess one big difference is that I believe there is more than one way to get to Heaven - you don't have to be a ____________ (insert religion of your choice) to be "saved".

I really admire all the study and research you have done in order to reach the conclusions you have. While I completely disagree with your conclusions, I can certainly agree on the dangers of blind faith.

Given the strength of your convictions, and my conviction that everyone must find their own way to truth (not THE truth, just truth), I'm not going to try to convince you of the existance of God. I do however, want to point out some of the similarities between science - which is often seen as the epitome of logic and reason - and religion, which you characterise as mythology.

Religion is seen by those who don't believe as irrational and illogical because of, among other things, a belief in God - an invisible, unknowable being. Science however, also believes in invisible, as yet unknown things. One example that comes to mind are WIMPs. Physicists are convinced that they exist, but they have yet to find them. I've included an excerpt from bbc.uk.co with a brief explanation of WIMPs.

The Baha'i Faith believes that science and religion must agree, and that does not mean that science must be wrong.

Science without religion is magic and religion without science is superstition. That's what I believe.

As for a Baha'i deity - there is one God. He (limitations of the English language, not a designation of sex) may be known by different names to people of different faiths, but there is only one God. I would argue that the proofs of His existance are everywhere, but I doubt that will get me very far with people who don't believe in Him. I would, however, be equally interested in proof that He doesn't exist.

In terms of creation and evolution - Baha'is believe that God created the universe, but not in seven days. That doesn't make any sense and is not supported by scientific evidence. To quote Abdu'l-Baha (son of the founder of the Baha'i Faith)

" Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly.  29  One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life."

Is faith an important aspect of the Baha'i Faith? Absolutely. We have taken that leap that Kierkegaard spoke of - the leap of faith.

"One of the proofs and demonstrations of the existence of God is the fact that man did not create himself: nay, his creator and designer is another than himself.

It is certain and indisputable that the creator of man is not like man because a powerless creature cannot create another being. The maker, the creator, has to possess all perfections in order that he may create.

Can the creation be perfect and the creator imperfect? Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation. Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter; otherwise, the painting would have created itself. However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.

The contingent world is the source of imperfections: God is the origin of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.

For example, when you look at man, you see that he is weak. This very weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of the Eternal Almighty One, because, if there were no power, weakness could not be imagined. Then the weakness of the creature is a proof of the power of God; for if there were no power, there could be no weakness; so from this weakness it becomes evident that there is power in the world. Again, in the contingent world there is poverty; then necessarily wealth exists, since poverty is  6  apparent in the world. In the contingent world there is ignorance; necessarily knowledge exists, because ignorance is found; for if there were no knowledge, neither would there be ignorance. Ignorance is the nonexistence of knowledge, and if there were no existence, nonexistence could not be realized.

It is certain that the whole contingent world is subjected to a law and rule which it can never disobey; even man is forced to submit to death, to sleep and to other conditions -- that is to say, man in certain particulars is governed, and necessarily this state of being governed implies the existence of a governor. Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be an independent being whose independence is essential.

In the same way it is understood from the man who is sick that there must be one who is in health; for if there were no health, his sickness could not be proved.

Therefore, it becomes evident that there is an Eternal Almighty One, Who is the possessor of all perfections, because unless He possessed all perfections He would be like His creation."

Evolved from what? I'm trying to get at the first cause - where did the first life forms come from? Where did the first cosmic dust come from? Where did the first matter come from? To be more than a little facetious, as Maria sings in The Sound of Music "nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could..."

it is entirely based on a set of random mutations and the best adapted mutations are continued. Although I have no problem whatsoever with things evolving, I do disagree with the idea that it is entirely random. Do I believe that human beings have always looked this way? No, not at all. That does not fit the evidence we have. I believe that humans have evolved from ape-like creatures, and before that from smaller mammels - and on back to the earliest one celled creatures. Where I would differ from true evolutionists is in the randomness of it.

I believe in God, and I believe that God created humans. I believe that we have a soul, and this ability to have a soul, and to know God has always been in us - whatever our physical appearance may have been. That is what separates me from an evolutionist.

I've been thinking a lot about everything that has been posted here during this discussion, and I'm so glad that it's confirming my faith. Reading the reasons why people don't believe in God has made me even stronger in my faith.

I'm currently thinking about logic (having been told more than once during this discussion that I'm not being logical), and I'm realizing that not being logical when it comes to discussions of faith really isn't such a bad thing. Logic is a man made construct, and as such, is as limited as the people who created it. If something appears to be illogical, that may be a result of the fallibility of logic, rather than anything else. I'm pretty sure many people will disagree with me on that, but hey - that just makes life more interesting.

This is the primary tenet of the Baha'i Faith. There is a Baha'i children's song that says it very well, "God is one, man is one, and all the religions are agree, when everyone learns the three onenesses, we'll have world unity."

I think you are starting to become slightly combative. I wouldn't say that you are getting rude, and it may just be that with the limitations of an online discussion tone of voice is lost, but the sense I'm getting is that you feel that your position is superior to mine.

One of the tenets of the Baha'i Faith is individual investigation of the truth. If I did not investigate my faith, as well as other faiths, as well as evidence that there was no God, I would not be following the tenets of my religion.

Quote:

Science without religion is magic and religion without science is superstition. That's what I believe.

 

I believe the phrase is

 

"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame."

 

You mean except for virgin births.

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you tweak science to fit your religion or just accept it?

I accept science.  Like Aquinas, I believe that in those areas where theology and science conflict, we have a faulty understanding of theology.  Hence, I have no problem accepting an old universe, or the evolution of species.

jcgadfly wrote:

So if science is in conflict with theology, the theology can't be incorrect - it's just improperly understood?

I think I actually misquoted Thomas Aquinas.  He said that where science and Scriptures conflict, something is wrong with our interpretation of Scripture.  But, yeah.

jcgadfly wrote:

Interesting way to let God (if he exists) off the hook.

To steal more thoughts from a dead guy, St Augustine said, "We do  not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, 'I am sending you the Holy Spirit, that he may teach you about th course of the sun and moon.'  He wished to mak people Christians, not astronomers."

Too, though, Christianity views what science teaches us of God's Creation is itself Revelation by God about Himself, His reason and wisdom.  True reason and true faith are not opposed, but complementary.