randman writes:
I think you misunderstand the nature of religion personally
Personally, I think people who hold firm religious beliefs misunderstand nature.
and also seem to think religion and science should work on the same sort of basis, which is a fundamental error
On the contrary, I know that religion and science each work on fundamentally different sorts of bases. My initial comment (considering some portions of biblical text open to objection due to being counter-factual) was an attempt to pinpoint a sort of cognitive schism in your world view. Some of the things you say seem to indicate an open-mindedness toward findings based on observation and physical evidence, yet based on other things you say, you absolutely accept certain assertions that are physically impossible, simply because they derive from your chosen interpretation of some fragment of biblical text (or you reject assertions that are based on firm observation because they contradict your interpretation of the text).
but then again, I think of evolutionism as religion.
I find it astonishing and sad how frequently and persistently this opinion is expressed. If religion were like "evolutionism" (i.e. scientific method), my initial comment (objecting to biblical text because its counter-factual) would have been on topic, or you might have at least responded that you are open to re-interpreting some portions of the text (e.g. as being metaphorical or symbolic in some way, rather than as historical record), as you improve your own understanding of the physical world around you.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
