1. religion is a (usually organized) system of belief regarding a number of issues, usually including creation and the existence and characteristics (and demands!) of a supreme being. science is a study. how can a study make mistakes? science has made terrible mistakes? you mean some scientists got it wrong? that's NOT the same thing!

2. there is no law that says we have to understand old stories only in their original context. it is helpful to do so. it is not helpful to do so to the exclusion of all other contexts.

3. which bible? whose bible? why does a magnificent universe prove god exists? why do i have to take YOUR word for it that this universe created me? what bosom? does god have teats? this assertion is patently fantabulous and i don't mean that in a good way. and quite frankly, there are some pretty ugly things in the two books that two major religions refer to, separately, as "the bible." as for objectivity, it wasn't invented. it is a way of seeing things. unless you're talking about some former hominid that somehow couldn't observe anything objectively and yet had the wherewithal to express stories of that sort, this assertion is TOTALLY ridiculous.

4. make sure that the sensibilities you're trusting are your own before you trust them. examine them, too, to make sure they are sensible sensibilities.

g

@genessa

1. I'm using the word science here to refer to the greater institution of scientific endeavor, not just the study part. There is also the part where we interpret those studies and then attempt to integrate them into various practical uses like education, industry, medicine, public policy, etc. In the 80s public health institutions declared that the consumption of two ounces of alcohol per day was better for your health than none at all. Just last week it was announced that none is now considered better than any. Both studies were probably conducted in earnest at the time they were done, but we learn a lot more about all the possible variables in 35 years. Even individual studies can make internal errors of methodology, or insufficient sample size, etc. Why is getting it wrong not the same thing when a scientist does it?
2. There is no law that we have to understand anything at all. I'm not saying we shouldn't be aware of any other pertinent context, but seems to me, failure to notice the original context would be the height of negligence. The original context should be the starting point of our studies, but not necessarily the only focus.
3. I was speaking of the one I have some familiarity with, the Christian Bible, but I think the point applies equally to all ancient religious texts. I said IF you take God to be the personification of reality, THEN when you look at the reality that surrounds you, you will see that it exists. I'm just doing what everybody else is doing here; sharing my opinion. I can't think of any reason you should feel constrained by it. I'm wide open to hearing what you think created you if not this universe. Are you offended or confused by the use of metaphor? I was just trying to point out the similarities between metaphorical descriptions on the one hand, and the literal fact that the stuff we are made of will return to the environment from which it came, after our death. Dust to dust. I am TOTALLY capable of being wrong, but I usually learn more effectively by being exposed to the correct information than by simply having mine ridiculed. So correct me where I am wrong but I am currently laboring under the assumption that the habit, not to mention skill, of constructing one's worldview from objective facts and sound reasoning was indeed pretty much invented in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. I hope you can forgive the painterly liberties I take with the English language; I'm an artist, not a mathematician.
4. I agree completely.
5. Cheers.

@skado you may use the word science as you please but that doesn't make it something that, as an entity, can make mistakes. people make mistakes. in point two you are contradicting what you said in your previous point two. i am not offended by metaphors, if they are apt. i do not consider myself to have been created. i will correct you on your timing for the habit of constructing a world view from objective facts and sound reasoning was invented in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. in ancient times there was an arabian scientist whose name i have forgotten, who, while in prison, made some startling observations about light and reasoned quite soundly about its nature, despite his time's prevalent beliefs that were somewhat less correct. i wish i remembered his name. i probably couldn't spell it if i did, though (and i am a good speller). as for math, i am mathematically challenged and also am an artist, so we appear to have that in common.

g

@genessa
OK, so by the same logic, religion, as an entity, can't make mistakes either, right?
I stand by both number 2s.
Do you consider yourself to exist? Did you at one time not exist? Did the universe not bring you from non-existence into existence?
I'm going to try to clarify my comment about the Age of Enlightenment, which may appear to you as another self-contradiction but again won't be because if I tried to include every conceivable nuance in my original statement it would create such a long run-on sentence that the reader would forget what the subject was before she got to the end of the sentence but my original point was not to claim that no individual on earth had any capacity for rational thought before the 17th century but rather that the population at large, including the 40 or so authors of the Christian Bible and the intended audiences of those various writings could not possibly have possessed the general set of assumptions and modes of thinking that we take for granted today because they did not start to become popularized until the Enlightenment and for that matter aren't well established still. I hope you'll share some of your work in the visual art group. [agnostic.com]

@skado correct, religion doesn't make mistakes. religion is, in general, a mistake. religionists make mistakes. yes i exist. that doesn't mean i was created. the multitudinous authors of the christian bible are not known, for the most part, and the ones we do know about are not who we have been led to think they are (even the "originals" have been shown to be forgeries) so i am not especially worried about them. my art is mostly not visual, though i do occasionally paint. i am a writer. i've composed the odd musical piece as well but can hardly claim to be a composer, but i am a writer, that i will admit. i even make initial caps in formal writing! woo HOO! )

g

@genessa
What word do you prefer instead of created? There are some writers groups here too.

@skado i don't know. something that doesn't mean "created," as in "someone created me"? i don't necessarily need a word, or a statement. i just don't like THAT one!

g

@genessa
I understand.

I'm pretty sure that one and one is two.

@Gareth so does -1- (-1) =2 and an infinite amount of combinations of real numbers. Not just one answer.

@Martie1965 None of that stops one and one making two. Nobody said there was just one answer. No straw-manning please.

@Martie1965 actually, -1 - (-1) = 0, not 2

Theologians have nothing to offer except opinions, as for them, facts are in short supply.