...implying that the existence of God is merely to be accepted rather than thought through critically? That's a mistake.
Just accepting God's existence isn't what I'm advocating at all. There just comes a point where people start questioning things He did with "Well why did He do that?". Nobody has an answer for that b/c nobody's spoken to Him. And any believer, priest, etc who offers up an explanation as to why God ever did anything is making it up.
Don't make the mistake of confusing religion with creationism: creationism ("intelligent design") proposes that all forms of life were created in their current state. Creationism leaves no room for evolutionary theory.
In this case, I'm def guilty of confusing the two terms. Based on that definition, I completely disagree with Creationism
A literalist interpretation of the Bible is wholly incompatible with evolutionary theory.
That does not mean, however, that religion and evolutionary theory are wholly incompatible. It's important to make that distinction.
I agree with that. I also think literally interpreting the Bible leads to a world of other problems as well. Not something I recommend anybody do. I'm unsure what to call what I believe in I guess. It's less religion as it is divinely inspired evolution.
A couple hundred years ago, we thought that disease was spiritual/supernatural in nature. Demonic possession was a popular diagnosis. Thanks to the scientific method and Germ Theory, modern medicine was made possible.
Often times in human history we attribute natural phenomena we are unable to explain to supernatural/spiritual causes, particularly where God is concerned. This is called "The God of the Gaps."
The spark that started the cosmos is about the only thing I attribute to God physically doing with His own hands. I don't think He sat down and thought up lizards, mustard, and pencils. He got the ball rolling and nature took it from there. I think this "God of Gaps" is erroneous as well.
Sometimes it is harmless. Other times (as with the example of associating illness with supernatural causes), it can cause harm. What's worse is that when we start attributing supernatural causes to natural phenomena, we often create an intellectual barrier that prevents us from seeking further answers. If our answer is simply left at, "God did it," what use is there in continuing investigation?
Sometimes it has taken decades (even centuries) to overcome the barriers brought on by this sort of thinking.
Again, we are in agreement. Thought I don't think "God did it" needs to bring the investigation to a halt. Even if you say God caused the Big Bang, we made the Collider to recreate the smashing of protons together to see exactly what happened. It's when people start wondering why God did it, that we come to a stalemate.
Actually, the burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim, and for good reason. It's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (God, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, etc.). Methinks you either misunderstand that phrase or are misapplying it.
People who claim to be 100% positive that God exists and did certain things should be put on the spot and asked for proof. I'm not one of those people. I "believe" in God and will admit to not having proof till I'm blue in the face. What I'm saying is that I don't feel the need to prove it to anybody, hence it not being a burden.
