P.S. I have no idea if I'm doing this dialectic correctly, but I interpreted the word 'conversation' in the literal sense...
Science: How do you defend all these completely unproven claims? Your assertions have no logical sense or scientific backing, yet you blindly follow them nevertheless. What makes you so confident that a higher being exists?
Faith: The purpose of religion is to believe without seeing. It could not be called faith if all claims were proven. There is no concerete evidence to assure that God exists, but no evidence is necessary to feel the presence of His omniscient power in our lives.
Science: I see. What of creation? I presume you would dismiss all evidence of evolution as false?
Faith: It depends. Different branches of faith believe different things. There are theories that evolution could be true, but God may have been behind it. Conservative Christians may believe completely in Creationism, and reject evolution altogether. My question is, how do you live without God? Don't you feel alone and insignificant, believing in nothing at all?
Science: But we do believe in something: science. Science can be viewed as a sort of religion in itself. We practice it, believe in it...it governs our lives, much like faith to you. And as for feeling 'insignificant', how could we, knowing there is so much more to discover?
Faith: Ah. Well that makes sense. But do you think there is any way for faith and science to coexist?
Science: Hmm. Good question. Yes, I believe there could be some kind of compromise...
So, I'm still not sure if I did this correctly. But, based on this little conversation I set up, I've concluded that both science and faith have value, and there may be a way to believe in aspects of both.

No comments:
Post a Comment