Replies

FWIW maybe that is the problem science changes and adapts new interpretations. Religion, as more information becomes available, does not - causing people to look at it with a skeptical eye.

Why should people look at religion with a skeptical eye for not changing? If it is the truth, then it shouldn't change. As a matter of fact, I couldn't imagine any one in their right minds wanting it to change so the skepticism is unwarranted.

If it isn't truth and does change, then it's no different than science. Yet when people are skeptical of science, they're criticized for that.

So what's the conclusion then? Do we accept and applaud something that changes and condemn something that doesn't for those reasons alone? Is one position superior to the other?

The thing that changes is never right and cannot be presumed to be right the next time. The thing that doesn't change may not be right, but then again it might be and you wouldn't want something that's true to change. Then it wouldn't be true any more.

I do not hold one position superior to another. My point is that they should be considered equally. Religion has changed in spite of many who will not acknowledge it. Yes the basic tenants of many have not; however, many have changed some rather startling things in their dogma. I cite for example Vatican 2. Paul was most likely spinning in his grave over that. How many Christan religions have said for years some version of the world is going to end next week? Many have just given up and started to follow the Bible "No man shall know" theory. Science is no different but does have the benefit of peer review in the mainstream.

I can tell you from close personal experience that only a handful of people in 1980 believed that Pentium style processors could be built by 1986 - I was one. We did it and the rest is history. Conventional wisdom said it could not be done with the technology available. Did the semiconductor community ignore it because it happened - no they used the information and built on it. I see things like the Dead Sea scrolls to be key to a better understanding of religious positions - many churches consider them irrelevant at best and heresy at worst. Everything historical is data. Data is data some is good some is bad. Some supports the argument and some does not - whatever it is. I do not "believe" in science. Science is a tool to use in exploring the world and our universe. Is it always right - No, but neither is religion.