I always wonder about the argument that since I believe in a higher power I am excluded from a belief in science and medicine. It is mostly an argument to diminish someone's position and make them defend territory that 90+% of religious people don't believe or want to defend.
On a personal level, I am a Christian and I believe in the Big Bang (let there be light). I don't have any problems with evolution (1). I believe in pursuing science and medicine is good and fits in fine with that whole dominion thing (Genesis 1:26). One's faith is awful fragile if using the mind we were given breaks our world. I personally can't prove a lot of things (love for example), but I have faith. I don't follow everything in the bible (for example: Deuteronomy 23:12-14 and Exodus 21:2-6), but it is an inspired work not literal and some practices just aren't acceptable these days. I really think it is also important to understand that there seems to be an unfortunate separation between people's belief and the earthly institutions that are supposed to embody them.
1) if you breed dogs for ability (e.g. hunting) and don't believe in evolution or Darwin's writings on the subject, then I am really confused how you explain the whole adaption thing.
The problem that I have is that the 90+% of religious people are awfully hazy on which bits of the bible are inspired vs. literal, but all too keen to inflict the results of their beliefs on everyone else, despite no credible evidence that they have any benefit - universal suffrage, contraception, homosexuality/same sex marriage, single mothers, abortion, the earth going around the sun, etc.
In fact, religion has been fighting a rearguard action against science and the enlightenment for hundreds of years now; there's not a huge amount left to believe in, from what I can see.
That's a false dichotomy for the vast majority of religious people. There are very few people that believe exclusively in faith healing and don't accept modern medicine.
This always struck me as unfair - and as an indication that religious types haven't really studied their own beliefs.
Either science is bunk and god answers prayer, or science works and you can use medicine. Of course, the decisions to go to church as use medicine and largely automatic and irrational / social for many.
Faith healing was just an example. You can substitute pretty much any "because God said so" explanation.
I think the reason that the world makes sense for most people is because they have their adequacy levels set too high - they're too used to 'hand wavy' explanations and not having to actually think through things for themselves.
I think that was augustl's point. Most atheist understand just as little about science as most religious people understand about God.
And is there any difference really between a "because God said so" explanation and a "because the Doctor said so" explanation? To follow either, you must rely on faith in the goodness and wisdom of the instruction given as you don't fully understand the reasoning behind it. To the religious and science-skeptic alike, the explanations used by the other camp sounds "hand wavy".
But Truth is Truth and both religion and science, if practiced well, will guide the earnest seeker along.
For the "because the Doctor said so" version, you can at least ask for an explanation. If you ask, there'll be a number of papers and/or scientific studies behind the decision and the doctor will be able to tell you their reasoning, which is normally straightforward ie. we can treat it like this, which gives you an x% chance of recovery, or like that which is x+y%
I'm confused - why all the downvotes? My initial comment above is currently below the "Why isn't there a Cowboy Neal option?"
It's not a false dichotomy at all, as far as I can see. If you take religion at face value, then of course modern medicine shouldn't work and faith healing should - one of these is going against the will of God after all. It's an adequate explanation most of the time... until you have to cure a disease.
