| It depends...
Quote:
Originally Posted by obvious Child  If your religious interpretation conflicts with facts, which do you change or stop believing?
For example, if you believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, do you stop using water out of the tap since municipalities across the US including the US army corp of engineers manages the water sources using hydrogeology which operates on an extremely long time span (millions of years)? Or do you change your interpretation of how old the Earth is? | Some engage in denial of the science (see: the evolution vs intelligent design debate) some then take a less biblical literalist interpretation in favor of a more allegorical type (see: those who believe that their god guided evolution, and set up the physical constants in the big bang) and some (very few I imagine) abandon their sense of mysticism entirely in favor of a more rational evidence based understanding of the natural world.
It all depends on the individual's skepticism and rationality when it comes to matters of fact and fiction. However, matters of probability tend to occur to people much sooner than scientific facts; like the improbability of truth regarding one's arbitrary religion of birth given the various other contradicting religions that all cannot also be true.
__________________
"Men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality. " - Ayn Rand
Last edited by Lachean : 06-03-08 at 09:54 PM.
|