Prayer or Science?

W Credit: CNS photo/Kham, Reuters

In our local newspaper, a recent article on the editorial page caught my attention. It was entitled, “Coronavirus is what you get when you ignore science.” A NY Times opinion columnist was the contributor.

Here are some of the first few lines:

Let us pray now, for science. Pray for empiricism, epidemiology and for vaccines. … Pray for flu shots, herd immunity and washing your hands. Pray for reason, rigor and expertise.  … Pray for the NIH and the CDC. Pray for the WHO.

And then this …

And pray not just for science, but for scientists too, as well as their colleagues in the application of science

From the context of the rest of the article, I don’t think the writer was being sarcastic (as I originally surmised). In fact, he made it clear later on that science is often “actively undermined, underfunded, ignored and suppressed.”

However, for me personally, those first few lines were dripping with irony.

As many of us know, the tendency to berate and discount science is prevalent among a large percentage of Christian believers. This isn’t to say they point to all facets of science as being morally deficient, but they DO contend that -GOD- is above, beyond, and superior to anything science can offer. (In fact, some cults faiths refuse to even acknowledge medical science, in particular, and rely instead on the power of prayer to heal themselves and loved ones.)

So one can’t help but ask … why aren’t the churches filled to the brim with -GOD- believers who are PRAYING for the virus to cease and desist? Could it be because the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) takes no prisoners … has no concerns about one’s faith (or lack thereof) … and hears no prayers?

Perhaps, in this instance, when Christians feel an overwhelming need to pray, it should be (as the columnist wrote) for (gasp!) Science and all that entails since -GOD- doesn’t seem to be making much headway in curtailing the spread of Covid-19 among the various inhabitants of this planet.

108 thoughts on “Prayer or Science?

  1. I, too, kept waiting for the irony to be revealed but… nope. And here I thought faith was widely touted to be such a powerful shield against doubt. Seems the virus is a better measure of who the real believers are… the ones warding off Kung Flu with the power of prayer.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Well, based on the rest of the (rather lengthy) article, I don’t really feel it was an ACTUAL “call to prayer.” More of a play on words at the beginning since the rest of the article was centered on the role (and denial) of science.

      But his opening definitely caught my attention.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oh, the NYT is now very, very woke. Didn’t you know they’re busy rewriting history, too? (See 1619 program.) Also, wasn’t it an ‘editor’ of the times who did the maths and figured out Bloomberg could have given every American a million dollars for the money he spent on his doomed campaign? Yup, an ‘editor’ who only missed the mark by a factor 5. So very close. So very woke. But maybe not quite so good at division.

      Liked by 2 people

        • I think it’s tildeb’s new favorite word …

          Anyway, definition from dictionary.com:
          Woke means being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice. In mainstream use, woke can also more generally describe someone or something as being “with it.”

          Liked by 3 people

          • It’s a stolen term from the 60s racial awakening retooled to mean only the active supporters of Critical Social Justice ideology. All others are asleep, you see.

            You aren’t you, an individual responsible for the quality of your character: you are a compendium of the groups that define your character. Group rights are all that matters; your individual rights are a left-over of colonialization and give cover for institutional abuse of power primed and motivated only by group-hierarchical privilege.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Kind of a side note to this, I though it quite amusing that religious services were cancelled here in Washington by Governor Inslee, along with all other non essential services. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. “‘Coronavirus is what you get when you ignore science.’ A NY Times opinion columnist was the contributor.”

    Okay. Is there something I missed?

    Sounds pretty damned pro science to me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The columnist I referenced in my post supports science. In fact, the balance of the article was his defense of science. Here’s an excerpt:

      On social networks and in too many corners of the mainstream media, scientific expertise is cloaked by a fog of propaganda, misinformation and scam ads for essential oils …

      I picked up on his opening because prayer for many people is the answer to all that ails us. But it most definitely ISN’T the answer in the current scenario.

      Liked by 3 people

    • I would disagree with this.

      Coronavirus is what you get when you live in a dog-eat-dog world where life forms constantly emerge and prey upon other life forms. Especially when one lives in dense populations and interconnected societies that facilitate rapid transmission of said life forms to new victims!

      Science can help us MITIGATE the reality of our raw and bloody natural world, (often temporarily-look at antibiotic resistance)

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Hello Nan. Yet the cognitive dissidence among the faithful followers is massively unbelievable. Silence from the pulpits about god not stopping this and no credit to science helping to manage the symptoms. Preachers not giving any advice other than to keep tithing yet never mentioning basic medical knowledge like washing hands and cleaning surfaces. They are giving thanks to god yet go running to the doctors, medical professionals, when they have any symptoms. Could it be the next thing will to claim anyone who gets the virus is not religious enough, not in favor with god, not praying properly?

    Oh Nan, yesterday I read that several of these TV faith healers now claim they can cure Covid-19 even through the TV, just give them money first. Hugs

    Liked by 6 people

      • Hello Nan. I know that if I , a heathen, had the ability to cure this along with all the other things they claim to faith heal, I would be storming every country healing people and proving the power of my god. Look at what my god can do, believe in him. Yet it seems they can only heal in special circumstances and only after a paid admission or large donation. That people believe this stuff is beyond my understanding. Again if I tell you I can take a fish and two loaves of bread and make it feed hundreds with left overs I would be in every starving country, every homeless camp, every where I could get to. I should be supported by those who claim to worship the god who says I can do that in his name. Instead every food producer, farmer, store that sells food, every preacher, and those that move the food goods would be out to kill me as I would be eating into their profits. Hugs

        Liked by 5 people

    • The irony is, no matter what science/doctors/research comes up with for this thing, among the believers and the prayers-to-whomever, it will be because “God willed it.” “Jesus heard our prayers.”

      Sigh.

      My great aunt Jennie was a Benedictine nun (cloistered), and her goal in life, as well as the other nuns in her home, was to end the spread of communism. That’s what they prayed for, daily. I hope she lived long enough to see that their prayers apparently worked. One day, poof, no more Communism. (I don’t buy it either, but she did)

      Liked by 3 people

    • Why is there such a….THING….as a successful Jim Bakker television and retail empire. Colloidal silver is a hoax, people! Jim doesn’t need another new suit or “parsonage” or jet. Stop sending him money!

      Liked by 3 people

  5. Here in the good ole U, S, of A, the preachers got it right. This disease is God’s punishment for the gays and them LGTPQ folks. This is God’s punishment for not doing for God what he apparently cannot do for himself. We need to get right with God … And, oh, show up on Sunday and tithe, we really need you to tithe.

    Liked by 3 people

    • One wonders how many churches will close their doors … especially when one of the congregants tests positive? Or will they just pray harder, longer, more fervently?

      OR … perhaps the leaders will tell the failhful to stay home and let the TV evangelists that Scottie mentioned HEEEEAL them?

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Nan, where do you get your information? And why this false dichotomy? I know this straw man plays well in anti-Christian echo chambers, but according to a Tegmark UROP study, only 11% of American Christians are anti-science, mostly hardcore Fundamentalists. So, why must we choose between science and faith? Most Christians are all for science…and prayer. So, why would you berate believers who want to pray for those involved in mitigating and finding solutions to the COVID-19 crisis? It’s not an either-or. And most churches are still meeting and praying (unless not allowed to by their state or local authorities because of health risks). Those who can’t meet in large public venues are meeting in smaller groups. Many are helping in any way they can to assist those who are suffering in their communities. Many of these are doctors and health officials themselves.

    I’m not interested in having everyone pile on me here for having a differing opinion. I just wanted to point out to you that your depiction of the Christian community’s reaction to COVID-19 is very distorted. And pitting science and faith against each other is a shopworn straw man. I do hope the scientists finds a solution and I pray for them myself.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I’m sure you will agree that believing in God and his/her powers is the core essence of the “Christian community.”

      And while I agree there may be many believers who don’t discount science entirely, as you yourself wrote … Most (?) Christians are all for science… and prayer.

      Therein lies the big difference, Mel. For many of us, science is sufficient. There is little to no value in the addition of prayer. In fact, the only benefit that might be derived is to the individual doing the praying.

      Bottom line … if it makes you feel better, do add your prayers that this crisis will pass quickly. As for me, I intend to put my faith in medical science and the providers of same.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Nan, I have no problem with people who don’t believe in prayer. That’s totally up to you and them. I was only trying to give you a more accurate picture of what Christians are doing, and to say it’s prayer and science doesn’t have to be an either-or. And that’s the opinion of 89% of Christians in America, according to the study. Anyway, thanks for your gracious response. Be safe and well.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I think the point here, Mel is not anti-prayer, but the fact that people believe that prayer heals them or will protect them from sickness, which makes it all the more dangerous. Right now there are prayer meetings, Im sure, with people huddled together praying away this virus. Odds are pretty good that at least one of them has it. And if they get it, they will say ‘we didn’t pray hard enough.’.

          And while we’re at it. I’d say that Pence’s prayer meetings apparently weren’t working, since it looks like his boss is about to come down with it himself. If your own VP can’t pray away the virus, who can?

          Liked by 4 people

          • First, of course, we believe God can heal and protect, but that doesn’t mean we act without common sense. Our church, and every church body I’m personally aware of, are already taking all necessary safety precautions. We also monitor state and CDC recommendations and act accordingly in order to ensure the safety of the people who attend our churches. I’m sure you understand that this pandemic is developing very quickly and measures are being adjusted almost on a daily basis, as this plays out. Like with many universities and other public venues, many churches are already only meeting by live streaming as per government recommendations. We’re also doing what we can to assist our communities.

            Liked by 2 people

      • The church I was part of was attended mostly by upper-middle-class well-educated professionals. Unlike some of the more “fundamentalist” congregations, no one at this church would ever have said: “Don’t go to the doctor or take your medicine, but pray instead.” It was both God and medical science. (This church just announced they are cancelling all meetings and worship gatherings, and will be using Internet “live streaming” for worship for the foreseeable future.)

        Prayers for the sick were usually formulated thus: “Lord, give her doctor wisdom to be able to diagnose what this mysterious illness is.” or “God, guide the hands of his surgeon and give him health and a successful recovery.” etc.

        What this effectively does is subsume the medical practitioners, their long training and skill and dedication, underneath God. When the illness is diagnosed and treated correctly, when the surgery is performed successfully and the patient recovers thanks to the medical staff, God is given the credit. Of course, though, when those things don’t happen, God is not given any blame — usually the answer is, well, we don’t always know why God does what he does, but we have to trust that he has our good in mind.

        I hope you might see, Mel, why even in this “both/and” situation, unbelievers get a bit miffed. Not only, as Nan said, is faith adding nothing useful here, but it steals the credit from the medicine and people which are actually doing the good. It utterly fails to recognize that it is humanity, not God, which has greatly improved our own health and longevity.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Oh, look boys and girls. It’s John Branyan’s Not-really-a-religious-person Jesus follower, Mister Wild-thang.

      So, why must we choose between science and faith?

      You don’t have to choose at all .

      In fact you can lead your congregation in prayer just like Dickheads such as Mike Pence and his jolly little prayer circle.

      However, it would be a mark of respect of science that you at least acknowledged prayer is as effective as sprinkling Holy Water over an AIDS victim.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Ark, you’re right. There’s no harm in praying. The harm comes when you neglect what works, too. Pray all you like, if it makes you feel better. But get the damn flu shot, stay away from crowds, and try to stay out of prayer meetings until Corona goes away.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Pray all you like, if it makes you feel better.

          Absolutely! The act itself isn’t going to change the natural order of things, but if it warms the cockles of your heart … pray away!

          Liked by 1 person

      • No, not lukewarm, just not extreme Fundamentalist (which are a minority of Christians). I don’t know anything about Ernest Angeley. And Paul’s protege was Luke, who was a physician. They utilized the natural means of medical care available to them. You won’t find anywhere in the New Testament where they were against doctors or medical treatment.

        So, even if one believes in healing, it doesn’t follow that they have to reject science or doctors. Again, this is a shopworn false dichotomy. We don’t believe in a god of the gaps, but yet you seem to argue for one. But one doesn’t displace the other. Besides, science cannot even address the question of God, one way or the other, for methodological reasons. Eugenie Scott, former Director of Education in Science said that very thing.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, it’s true that, “Besides, science cannot even address the question of God, one way or the other, for methodological reasons.” But the part you always leave out is, “… and neither can religion.”

          Liked by 5 people

            • So it’s not the rejection that matters; it’s why accept the religious one – with all the ludicrous knowledge claims it comes with – when you admit it can’t answer the questions you pretend it can?

              Liked by 2 people

            • That’s your opinion. And I would chat about the “why religion” question if I thought for a moment you were honestly asking it, but I know from history that you’re not, so we’ll just leave it there. I wish you well.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I ask it for a reason, Mel: if you know neither science NOR religious has the methodology necessary to answer the questions you wish answered, but you still decide to go with a religious one that is INCOMPATIBLE with scientific answers about the real world ( I won’t go into the myriad of examples available), then we find the source of disagreement when it comes to, say, the rejection of certain scientific explanations. This source is religion. Not knowledge. Not science. Not unbelievers. Not extremists or radicals or fundamentalists. Religion itself. And that means, Mel, you understand why this rejection of so many scientific explanations in favour of religious ones is considered anti-scientific and the source is religion.

              So when you apologize for religious bias on the one hand and yet pretend the two areas of science and religion are perfectly compatible when you know they are not, then surely you can appreciate why you held to task for making this false statement, a statement we both admit cannot be true.

              The ONLY way one can claim to hold two beliefs that are incompatible is by compartmentalizing. And this is what you’re doing here. You want to use science and the trust all of us have in its products and claim this offers no difficulty by the religious. But the you want to use religion to provide answers you know are not based on obtaining knowledge about the real world. Further, you then use religious claims that ARE about the nature of the real world and wave away reality – and the knowledge we accrue from studying it – if it proves probelmatic for your religious beliefs. Not the beliefs of fundamentalists only as you are claiming here but the religious beliefs of anyone who claims to be religious and elevates these religious beliefs over and above and often in place of reality’s arbitration of its knowledge claims.

              This is why the religious believer who claims both are sympatico and therefore can respect both (and expects others to go along with this) is wrong. There is no middle ground to be had because the religious person has already rejected any means by which agreement could be found, namely, in recognizing that neither method can produce the answers you seek.

              So the little bit at the need of the quote you use is actually VERY important and its omission a significant error. That’s why I provided it.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Yet you cannot answer why you exist this very moment. And science CANNOT answer that question for you (again, for methodological reasons). And there are a lot of very important aspects about life that science cannot address. And when you try, you sound like like the extreme Fundamentalist Christians (only the flip-side).

              Tiledeb, what you are proving to me again with your very long response is exactly why I said I don’t want to get into this with you. Be well.

              Liked by 1 person

            • “And science CANNOT answer that question for you (again, for methodological reasons). And there are a lot of very important aspects about life that science cannot address.”

              Again, Mel, the vital understanding here is the part you leave out: NEITHER CAN RELIGION!

              Liked by 2 people

            • Sure it does for those who believe. That’s exactly where religion comes in. It’s just answering different questions than science does. And, of course, it’s faith-based. But there is a tangibility to our faith, even if it were only psychological. And it takes just a much faith to believe there’s nothing more than the physical world, because you cannot prove that this physical world is all there is either. Science cannot address this question at all. And you’re still left with why and all the other intangibles that give life meaning and purpose.

              Things like meaning and purpose and ontology are in the realm of metaphysics and/or religion, not natural science. So, again, I have no reason to reject science in order to have faith in God.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Right. This is why people ask you to DEMONSTRATE that religious CAN answer these questions that science cannot. That’s why the onus is on those who, like you, believe it can. And you can’t. You simply insert ‘faith’ and then claim the answers are available. That ‘faith’ comes from you, Mel. No other source. And as many have done, they have shown you that your ‘faith’ does not now, has not in the past, and probably never shall yield one jot or tittle of evidence that it has any kind of insight into the reality we share. That’s YOUR problem. So when you teach youngsters to ‘follow’ your ‘faith’, you are providing no means to differentiate your faith-based beliefs from those who think praying away, say, measles is just as effective if not more so than a measles vaccine. And this kills and maims children in the name of your ‘faith’… unless and until you put aside your faith whenever it comes into contact with claims science CAN address. This is your great vice because you ALWAYS side with your ‘faith’.

              Liked by 2 people

            • My opinion is supported by compelling evidence and solid reasoning as far as I know. But by all means show us where I go wrong and I will be the first to change my opinion because it was not as well informed as it could be and will give you thanks.

              Your faith is fully synonymous with assertion, assumption, and assignment but without any compelling evidence or solid reasoning. I have shown you where you go wrong but you seem to be the last person to change your ‘faith’ because you have already decided to remain committed to it.

              Apples and oranges.

              And I do all this to demonstrate why when you say, “My only point here was simply to say that one doesn’t have to reject one to accept the other,” you have neither compelling evidence nor solid reasoning to back it up. All you have, again, is assertion, assumption, and assignment, which is about as weak an opinion as there is because it’s based on nothing but yourself in spite of what reality tells you about it. That’s why religious apologetics is held by non believers with such disdain. You bring it on yourself by trying to pretend you have answers not from yourself but from somewhere ‘out there’ to unanswerable questions.

              Liked by 4 people

            • Five’ll get you ten the reply (if it comes ) will be along the lines of, ”Whatever”.
              And don’t we just knowthis was the first thought that went through his mind!
              🙂

              Liked by 2 people

            • The question of ”Why religion” has been asked of people like you by non believers for millennia and no truly honest answer has ever been forthcoming, and never will because the moment you decide to offer an honest answer is the day you deconvert and walk away.
              Ask any deconvert and more so those who are part f the Clergy project.
              Until then the only option you have is to uphold the charade.

              Liked by 1 person

  7. Hi Nan,

    I am here to inform you (being that I’m a Christian apologist), we are actively praying every week for the cessation and termination of the wuflu 
    Anyway, on to business. Nan, it is common for people that have tremendous skepticism towards Christianity to question the existence of “pain.” If God exists, why doesn’t he just stop pain from being inflicted? Primarily, I think we can all agree, pain is a universal fact of life. Everyday millions of people experience the terrible reality of pain, and I have tremendous sympathy for them, but where does God stand in all of this? Obviously every religion attempts to properly explain “what pain is”, whether it be through explicit or implicit means. But why do we ask questions regarding SUFFERING within the framework of morality? Why have we mixed the fact of physical pain with the necessity for a moral explanation. Who resolved that pain was immoral? In the Judeo-Christian worldview, pain is linked to the reality of evil and to the poor decisions made by humanity at the beginning of time. The problem of pain and the problem of evil are inextricably connected. So when we assume evil, we assume good. When we assume good, we assume a moral law. And when we assume a moral law, we assume a moral Lawgiver. You might object and ask, “Why does assuming a moral law require a moral lawgiver?” One reason is that because every time the question of evil is posed, it is either by a person or about a person-and that implicitly assumes that the question is a worthy one. But it is a worthy question only if people have inherent worth, and the only reason people have inherent worth is that they are the creations of One who is of ultimate worth. That person I believe to be God.
    I cant proclaim to have all of the answers Nan, certainly God never intended for the world to be inhabited by disease and death, but it’s the price we pay for Adam’s trespass. Romans 5:17 says, “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

    Stay safe Nan, praying for you.

    Dylan,

    Liked by 4 people

    • “The problem of pain and the problem of evil are inextricably connected. So when we assume evil, we assume good. When we assume good, we assume a moral law. And when we assume a moral law, we assume a moral Lawgiver.”

      1) The problem of pain and the problem of evil are inextricably connected.

      No they’re not. This is a category mistake. You state this as if it’s true. You’ll have to demonstrate with evidence from reality this ‘obvious’ connection. And when you try that, you’ll immediately see why my objection has merit: you have to define ‘evil’ in a way that allows reality and not your own religious presumptions to describe it. I don’t think you can (or bigger brains than either yours or mine like Aquinas – would have already done so). This means you’ve crossed a barrier by fiat here from a natural mechanistic process to asserting an ethical connection, from the physical (pain) to metaphysical (evil). This is a common thinking mistake of mixing up categories committed by apologists.

      2) So when we assume evil, we assume good.

      When we assume evil…. what? You haven’t described what you mean here, other than the previous reference to ‘pain’. How does this assumption work going from assuming pain (to substitute with the terms you have selected) to creating the notion you have of what is ‘good’? Again, you offer us nothing to follow but confused thinking that from pain, a natural state of biological critters with appropriate receptors, we can assume evil and now good. You can see this line of reasoning is getting rather stretched.

      3) When we assume good, we assume a moral law.

      If granted the former statement is true (and I don’t) – that we do indeed assume ‘good’ – you now insist on the latter, that we are actually assuming a moral law exists (again, like the pain you conflate to be synonymous with ‘evil’. This does not follow unless you presume ‘good’ is external to the connection you claim is real… you’ll recall that is the same naturalistic material process we call pain you assume is synonymous to evil. Now when we go from pain to evil to good you take us to a moral law. But if it were a law, we would work backwards and see evil as a necessary virtue! If evil is a virtue, then you can no longer claim ‘good’ to be a higher virtue! You have some muddled thinking here that grows ever murkier.

      4) And when we assume a moral law, we assume a moral Lawgiver.

      Again, let’s grant the former statement is true (and I don’t) – that we do indeed assume there is a moral law – you now insist on the latter, that we must accept a moral Lawgiver. Again, we remember that the Lawgiver has to be external from natural mechanistic biological processes to create the external law necessary you say is have ‘good’, that we accept ‘good’ to be descended from ‘evil’, and evil synonymous with pain, a natural mechanistic process reliant on chemical receptors. But you arbitrarily stop here. This is the Infinite Regress problem, satisfactorily ‘solved’ only by those who first assume it makes sense to believe in an un-created creator capable of designing and implementing a physical world with physical processes like pain but purposefully designing it in a way to have only a prey/predator system (when it didn’t have to be this way) where untold suffering unfolds throughout this magical kingdom every second of every day without any natural mechanistic process to reduce the pain associated with it. You think this indicates a moral lawgiver who is, in fact, moral and is the source of ‘good’. That hardly fits the real world evidence before us but stands in stark contrast to it. And this is the argument John Zande uses in his book to claim your god is actually The Owner of All Infernal Names.

      Liked by 4 people

    • @Dylan

      I am here to inform you (being that I’m a Christian apologist), we are actively praying every week for the cessation and termination of the wuflu

      .

      Then you are an ignorant nob.

      However, in case your god is listening perhaps you ought to to Tweet Trump and suggest he forgo making all those federal funds available and inform him that Yahweh has got it covered!

      Liked by 3 people

    • God, being omniscient and knowing what would happen from the beginning of time, obviously KNEW Adam would trespass. Yet in His arrogance, he created a flawed, contingent being and then blamed innocent Adam for his stumble.

      So, who is to blame for Adam’s sin? And don’t babble about free will. There is no such thing with an omniscient deity.

      YOUR God is to blame, Dylan. I think WE should demand HE ask US for forgiveness, because He created this vale of tears deliberately as some kind of sick video game or novelization.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. It’s of note, The Catherdral of St. Paul in Birmingham, AL held a prayer march on Wednesday against the COVID-19. I suspect the real reason this kind of tactic isn’t being employed by the majority of congregations is because it would be looked upon as too odd; this day and age is too concerned with appearances for us to see any real religious turn out for extraordinary circumstances.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Do you think that Christians are overreacting? In my opinion, natural disasters and diseases are part of a normal cycle. God intended it to be that way. What do you think?

    Liked by 4 people

  10. If one is to claim to be a Christian and know the ‘Word of God’, I repeat, as I have so many times lately, that this world was created as a gift that was filled with wonders of which humankind was to be steward and protector of, not chief abuser and apathetic observer over. I was raised in church but before I was well into adulthood I just couldn’t make peace with the contradictions that plague even the most basic tenets of many religions. That there is a god who knows all, rules all, controls all and, yet, we have ‘free will’. One cannot choose to own God when they need something then cast aside those words when it is not convenient. I wouldn’t begin to try to delve into all those arenas, but when it comes to Science I have never understood how there needs to be a demarcating line. Science is discovery of all the magnificent things that exist and helps us to better understand the way they work, or don’t. I have known people who allowed family members to die because of their religious beliefs. No, that was ignorance’s will. Humans have an ineffable need to believe in anything greater then themselves, so that they have something to turn to and/or something to blame when things go wrong. God and Satan fit that bill nicely. While I myself believe in opposing forces that drive existence, my feeling is that they exist within every one of us, allowing every human to choose what voice they listen to. Most people don’t want to have that responsibility. Even the ability to heal comes from within, sometimes with the aid of medical science but often not. Balance is the key to harmony. Nice to meet you. Stay safe.

    Liked by 3 people

    • “I have never understood how there needs to be a demarcating line.”

      Then it’s high time, wouldn’t you agree?

      Faith-based belief imposes a belief about reality on reality. That’s religion. It is a method of belief. If reality supports the belief, then no faith is necessary; compelling evidence is sufficient to give credence to the belief. Belief called ‘faith’ unsupported by reality is seen by the religious communities as a virtue.

      Evidence-based belief extracts a belief about reality from reality. That’s science. It is a method of inquiry. Faith unsupported by reality is seen is seen by the scientific community as a vice.

      These two methods are incompatible when they produce different conclusions about reality. They are diametrically opposed. They are opposite. That’s why there is a demarcating line between faith-based beliefs and evidence-based beliefs.

      Now you know.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t need you to ‘educate’ me, thanks very much. You talk a lot but don’t say anything new or true for anyone but yourself. I have my own beliefs, I accept what is true for myself, and that is my right as a free human being. Live long and prosper, God bless you, Namaste and Nanu Nanu. 💕

        Liked by 1 person

        • Just trying to be of service where service is needed. You said you didn’t know. I explained why. You now have the explanation. Incompatible methods to produce insight into and the description of the world is why there is a demarcation between the two methods. The religious method produces not one jot or tittle of knowledge about anything. In stark contrast, the scientific method produces explanatory knowledge that works for everyone everywhere all the time. Again, that’s not my truth or opinion; it’s a fact that exists independent of thee and me. So the explanation for the demarcation is not mine. It’s not yours. It’s simply an accurate description of what is the case.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts, Cheryl. You make some excellent points … and I think many, if not most of my regular readers, would agree with you.

      Your observation that balance is the key to harmony is excellent. It’s just unfortunate that so many seem unable to find that balance.

      You stay safe as well. Hopefully things will return to “normal” sooner rather than later.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Humans have an ineffable need to believe in anything greater then themselves, so that they have something to turn to and/or something to blame when things go wrong.

      I don’t. And neither should you!

      Such nonsense is the sole preserve of those who are indoctrinated to believe this rubbish. The truly unfortunate ones are mostly children who have little or no recourse to believe otherwise.

      Any adult in this day and age who tries to promote some sort of compatibility between religion and science, be they Francis Collins or a Nob like Ken Ham is primarily either a liar or willfully ignorant.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Now is the time for the priests to show the power of the prayer to the invisible sky daddy.
    bring on the holy water and the Bible and spare the lives of the health workers.
    I would want to see all the priests going without PPE into various hospitals and curing all with the sips of Holy water and the Cross….as they show in the Horror movies…if jesus can banish demons..surely a Virus is nota big problem!
    But no…Vatican is closed and nobody is showing miracle. Otherwise, in normal times so many miraculous coming back to life after death after seeing heaven and God and other propagandist miracles are in the news.

    Liked by 4 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.