A religious Discussion

[Originally Posted on 4/15/08]

Me: and they're all black
Dani: like your soul?
Me: black ink is nice
Me: haha
Me: naw, i dunno if i even have a soul
Dani: orly?
Me: if i do, it's probably greenish blue
Me: ya rly
Dani: why greenish blue?
Me: cuz i like that color
Dani: lol
Dani: k
Me: what color would your soul be?
Dani: hrrrm
Dani: probably orange
Me: you look good in orange
Dani: thank you.
Me: welcome.
Dani: do you believe in souls?
Me: i dunno
Me: i really have no clue
Dani: hmm
Dani: ok
Me: my religious views can be summed up by "Sh*t, I dunno...."
Dani: lol
Dani: do you mind if i ask why?
Me: sure
Me: uhm
Me: I've grown up in the church
Me: but
Me: I'm very scientifically minded
Me: and honestly
Me: there isn't clear evidence to either side
Me: and until there is, I'm not currently motivated to cast my bet on either team
Dani: hmm how did you come to the conclusion that there's not clear evidence on either side?
Me: took 4 seminars on it, 2 from my church, 2 at Stanford (the Stanford ones were taught by evolutionary biologists)
Dani: i hope i don't sound combative, i really am curious
Me: yeah, not at all
Dani: ah cool
Me: all four agreed
Me: that there is no clear truth to either side
Me: there's proof for both
Me: and proof against both
Dani: such as?
Me: pick something, like DNA
Me: it's a regular system across all life
Dani: ok
Me: that can point to two possibilities:
Me: common ancestor, or intelligent design
Me: there's no proof of either
Dani: true, but there is evidence pointing in the direction of common ancestor
Me: if you look at Darwinian evolution, there's nothing about punctuated equilibrium, which is what the fossil record shows
Me: such as?
Me: *hoping for a link to an archeology journal*
Me: or a bio journal
Me: everything I've read has had the opinion of "sh*t, i dunno"
Dani: lol
Dani: hrrrm
Me: here, let's look at another part
Dani: ok
Me: do you think Big Bang theory and Creationism agree or disagree?
Dani: er, depends on the versions of each theory i suppose
Dani: why?
Me: Bing Bang theory: Compact mass, flash of light (explosion), and universe gets swirled into creation
Dani: alright
Me: now, do you think the Flash of Light mentioned in Genesis is the same one
Me: or different?
Me: haha
Dani: lol
Dani: i wouldn't know i haven't read it
Me: see, they both agree and disagree on so many parts, that there's no concrete proof to either side
Me: in Genesis
Me: it says "God said let there be light (now here's where the translations differ) And there was a great flash, and light was."
Me: or it says
Me: “God said let there be light, and there was light”
Me: either way
Dani: huh.
Me: big bang
Me: and creationism
Me: have parallels
Me: yet
Me: they also want to contradict
Me: for example, common ancestry
Me: goes against creationism
Dani: mm hm?
Me: sort of.
Dani: go on
Me: it can also be argued (and i heard one pastor make a VERY convincing argument on this)
Me: that God used evolution as his means of creating life, starting from something simple (like dirt), and ending with a human
Me: in Genesis, God grabs some dirt and makes Adam, the first man out of it
Dani: hmm interesting interpretation
Me: and, if we believe evolution and common ancestry, we can see that it may have come form the bacteria in the dirt
Me: so both agree and disagree at the same time
Me: everywhere we look, there's nothing concrete for either
Dani: I've never heard an argument for religion that draws parallels to science rather then contradicts it
Me: they both seem to mesh a lot more than people give credit though
Me: it's not common, but it's a growing school of thought
Me: it's the one reason i still have an open mind to Christianity
Me: because both mesh and contradict, yet don't in so many places
Dani: true, but i don't think attempts to reconcile religion and science will ever be TRULY successful
Me: so i can't pick a stance until i see more info
Me: i think they will
Me: we're just not there yet
Dani: really?
Me: yeah
Me: want a scientific faith example?
Dani: sure.
Me: gravity
Me: tell me what it is.
Dani: ah see i cant, but that is why science is so much more powerful then religion
Me: haha
Me: but here's the catch
Dani: mm hm?
Me: scientists don't know what causes gravity
Me: they have NO idea
Me: there's theories
Me: but it can't be documented
Dani: not yet anyway
Me: you can study the effects, same way you can study the effects of religion on human population
Me: but you can't fully define it
Me: but, you have faith in its existence, because you experience it on a daily basis
Dani: but i don't experience god on a daily basis, so where's the parallel?
Me: you're not religious
Dani: no
Me: for those who are, they find a way to experience it
Me: for example, my mother sees the hand of God in every day actions
Me: she can "see" the effects of something she believes to be true
Me: but there's nothing concrete
Me: except the effect on human life
Dani: hmm
Dani: I'd like to continue this conversation but I'm worried about offending you
Me: you have the gravity "scientific faith" side of the view, she has the religious
Me: dear, you can't offend me
Me: so please
Me: continue
Dani: okay
Dani: we have 'faith' in gravity because it has a physical effect on the world which is measurable
Dani: your mother has faith in god because she chooses to
Me: same for the psychological and human effect of religion
Me: there's a dichotomy between religious faith and scientific
Me: both have measured effects
Me: for example
Me: it's been documented that patients who are "prayed" over heal more rapidly than those that aren't
Me: what causes that, i have no idea
Me: but
Me: the effects are there
Me: it's documented and clear that there ARE effects, but the cause of them we can't begin to guess at
Dani: i am sure that religion has profound effects on the physical well being of believers; that does not make it true
Dani: oh
Dani: something really interesting!
Me: hm?
Dani: dawkins theorized as an evolutionary biologist that religion is another survival mechanism
Me: yes
Me: but
Me: he had also theorized evolution as a change mechanism, not as a creation mechanism
Me: he made no claims (that I'm aware of) about where life came from in the beginning
Me: Darwinism does NOT equal life creation or first life
Dani: this is dawkins :P
Me: yeah.
Dani: oh ok
Dani: i thought you misread it as Darwin
Me: no
Me: er
Me: oh
Me: yeah, i did
Me: wow
Me: mybad
Dani: lol
Dani: no worries
Me: but yeah, it's my position that scientists and religious folks have yet to reach a concrete decision on where we all came from
Me: and until that's solved
Me: i can't see myself being fully engaged in a religion
Dani: hmm
Me: my brain is too logically based to work off of blind faith
Dani: yeah
Me: i wish i had the ability to, but I'm not wired that way
Dani: really?
Dani: why?
Me: because you don't have to think as much. :P
Dani: eh
Dani: Craig
Dani: don't even wish for that :P
Dani: most people don't think
Me: btw, there is no possibly way that anyone can argue that the church is bad
Dani: ...orly?
Me: it does wonderful things for the public, the economy, other nations, and so on
Me: the gov't hasn't done anything after Katrina
Me: new Orleans has been mostly rebuilt by churches
Dani: i agree with you, mostly
Me: there are countless 3rd world countries that would not have been rebuilt and would not have clean drinking water had the church not helped
Me: what part do you disagree with?
Me: I'm curious
Dani: oh well i don't exactly disagree actually
Dani: i do think you can argue that the church is bad but you're right
Me: how so?
Dani: most churches do only good things
Me: there are always exceptions
Me: exceptions**
Dani: exactly
Me: for example, the "god hates fags" church
Dani: yup, that one...
Me: the dudes who protest at soldier's funerals
Dani: if you can call it a church :P
Me: i loathe people like them
Me: they go against EVERY biblical teaching
Dani: yup they're f*cked up
Me: yeah.
Me: but yeah, i think the church has done just as much (if not less) harm than any gov't institution has
Me: but it has also done far more good
Me: than any gov't could ever hope to
Dani: the only argument i can make against mild-mannered, charitable churches is that they discourage rational thought
Me: oh, but they don't
Me: not at all
Dani: mm hm?
Me: most of the information I've quoted i learned from Pastor Ortberg at Menlo Pres.
Me: they encourage you to view the facts and make your own decision
Dani: that's good
Me: and we're a very mild mannered church
Me: it's quite common for modern Christian churches to encourage you to come to your own conclusion
Me: well, around here anyway
Dani: yeah
Me: the ones that aren't in that line are Catholic and Baptist, as well as a few others

The concludes the transcript. Hope you read it all, and it'd be fun to hear your opinion on it.