The difference is that science doesn't claim to know what is true in advance. It derives truth from evidence, instead of deciding what is true and looking for evidence that supports it.
Is that all? Belief in God requires certainty. That's what faith is.
What is faith? And how is it a source of evidence? And what reasoning led you to the conclusion that there is a benevolent God?
Faith is belief in things not seen. No matter how much we explore and experiment, there will be things outside of our physical realm of understanding.
I believe that God is benevolent based on the evidence of our existence. He created this perfect machine that is man. He gave us this world that could be a paradise. It's only our fear, stupidity and arrogance that causes us to destroy our world and ourselves.
No. You just need to provide objective reasoning for how you think different parts of the bible should be interpreted. If you don't have objective reasons then you're just picking and choosing the parts you prefer.
I have objective reasons. I believe that God is loving and benevolent. That he values all of us. So any part of the bible that suggests we should destroy each other, or devalue each other is wrong as far as I'm concerned.
Saying a hypothesis is unfalsifiable isn't a cop-out. It's valid grounds for dismissing that hypothesis. A strong theory is one that could easily be falsified, but hasn't been. The theory of evolution could easily be falsified. Rabbit fossils in the precambrian layer is the famous example given by Haldane. But there is no way to falsify the God hypothesis, because it is always pushed just outside the boundaries of scientific knowledge.
And because it can't be falsified, that means it's not valid? Again- evolution will never provide answers for where we came from. Why we're here. Why we humans have cognitive thought, identity- if we have a spirit- the beginnings of the universe. If there is a God. Belief in God does answer those questions. For me at least.
Not going to do this here.
You are invoking something like Hempel's dilemma which I admit is a problem for me as a naturalist. I like the elegance of Beenakker's proposed solution, which relies on the finiteness of the universe to create a boundary between natural and supernatural.
The universe is finite? Where did it begin? Where does it end? What came before? What's outside of it?
The usefulness of a belief has no bearing on whether or not it is true. And if a false belief proves useful, we'd be better served to figure out what about it is beneficial and discover the truth in that. For example, an ancient tribe that believed dragons lived in volcanoes might benefit from that belief if it caused them to stay away from an active volcano, but they'd be better off in the long run using science to understand the mechanics behind volcanoes so they could predict their behavior.
This doesn't apply to my beliefs, since I know they're not false. You may suspect that they are, but that's your choice.
Again I'll point out that by claiming to know God exists you are putting yourself in a bad position to objectively weigh evidence. And the theory of evolution isn't meant to answer all of man's questions. It is only meant to explain the diversity of lifeforms we observe today. It doesn't even try to explain how life originated on earth, that is abiogenesis. If you're looking for a gap to squeeze your God into, abiogenesis is the latest trend.
I'm not looking for a gap to fit God into. I believe in God and seek to deepen my connection to him- and by extension- other humans and ultimately the universe itself. IF evolution can't answer all of man's questions then it is by your standards, no more valuable than belief in God. Now to me, evolution is a valuable way of understanding how things work. Belief in God is the way to understand
why things work.
