Proof is an island in the setting sun, but faith is the bottom line for everyone.
In my mind, the course of human existence comes down to matter of questions and answers. To boil it down, the more of those questions we can answer, the better life is. So when we come across a method to give us a more satisfying answer to a question, we naturally abandon the old answer. The most prominent example of this is the religion versus science debate. Early on, religious answers were our only answers for everything, but as our scientific technology advanced, we found better and better answers to, say, agricultural and environmental questions. We could grow better crops, settle in permanent locations, take better care of the land, and improve our quality of life because we were able to accept the scientific knowledge over religious shots in the dark. Even within the world of science, research and improvements in our knowledge are always being made. As time passed, science continued to provide more, and better, answers to more aspects of our lives, and the role of religion faded exponentially. Based on this trend, one would think that religion would eventually become completely obsolete. One would be wrong. I'll be the first to tell you that there is no debate between science and religion, there are only questions and answers. The two occupy entirely different realms, and answer entirely different questions. Just because religion was originally used to answer questions that are now answered by science does not mean that all religious answers will give way to scientific ones. There are some aspects of life which science will never be able to satisfy. Questions like "Why am I here?" and "How should I live my life?" are the domain of a different institution. The best answer to those questions science has is "You are here to consume and digest the necessary amount of the necessary substances to sustain your biological functioning in order to reach sexual maturity and reproduce." Matters of right and wrong, are also impossible for science to answer, as the closest thing to morality in science is Darwinism, and even that comes out of a social belief system. This is one area, known as soteriology, in which religion has always provided better answers than science. What no one wants to tell you is that there are more social institutions in place than just those two, and religion isn't the only one with answers. Atheists and those without organized religion aren't necessarily lost on these questions just because they put no stock in religion. They may choose to find their answers in the arts, in sport and competition, or in the practice of science itself. What it comes down to is that every ism and every person on this planet has an answer to everything; you have to decide which answers satisfy you the most, and you don't have to pick the same one for every question. This is where the faith comes in. Your faith tells you to follow God, where mine says that to follow God is to commit a moral sin, all because I rely on a different source to answer the questions we all have. I don't have any more proof of anything I believe than you do; even trusting science takes a certain amount of faith. Proof is beautiful when possible, but proof is but an island in the setting sun. Faith is the bottom line for everyone.
In my mind, the course of human existence comes down to matter of questions and answers. To boil it down, the more of those questions we can answer, the better life is. So when we come across a method to give us a more satisfying answer to a question, we naturally abandon the old answer. The most prominent example of this is the religion versus science debate. Early on, religious answers were our only answers for everything, but as our scientific technology advanced, we found better and better answers to, say, agricultural and environmental questions. We could grow better crops, settle in permanent locations, take better care of the land, and improve our quality of life because we were able to accept the scientific knowledge over religious shots in the dark. Even within the world of science, research and improvements in our knowledge are always being made. As time passed, science continued to provide more, and better, answers to more aspects of our lives, and the role of religion faded exponentially. Based on this trend, one would think that religion would eventually become completely obsolete. One would be wrong. I'll be the first to tell you that there is no debate between science and religion, there are only questions and answers. The two occupy entirely different realms, and answer entirely different questions. Just because religion was originally used to answer questions that are now answered by science does not mean that all religious answers will give way to scientific ones. There are some aspects of life which science will never be able to satisfy. Questions like "Why am I here?" and "How should I live my life?" are the domain of a different institution. The best answer to those questions science has is "You are here to consume and digest the necessary amount of the necessary substances to sustain your biological functioning in order to reach sexual maturity and reproduce." Matters of right and wrong, are also impossible for science to answer, as the closest thing to morality in science is Darwinism, and even that comes out of a social belief system. This is one area, known as soteriology, in which religion has always provided better answers than science. What no one wants to tell you is that there are more social institutions in place than just those two, and religion isn't the only one with answers. Atheists and those without organized religion aren't necessarily lost on these questions just because they put no stock in religion. They may choose to find their answers in the arts, in sport and competition, or in the practice of science itself. What it comes down to is that every ism and every person on this planet has an answer to everything; you have to decide which answers satisfy you the most, and you don't have to pick the same one for every question. This is where the faith comes in. Your faith tells you to follow God, where mine says that to follow God is to commit a moral sin, all because I rely on a different source to answer the questions we all have. I don't have any more proof of anything I believe than you do; even trusting science takes a certain amount of faith. Proof is beautiful when possible, but proof is but an island in the setting sun. Faith is the bottom line for everyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
