Which side are you in?

[chinaappleamui]

Good question! I am a scientist myself but that doesn't mean everything has to be based off of science. I would fall in the second category. I believe in a God but having knowledge of science whatever I don't know I associate that with my belief.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I think there's a fourth group: people who are on both sides and believe that there is just more to it than we can possibly know as humans.

I agree with you that there's a fourth group, I once met a pastor who believed in God and he was also interested in science's explanations pertaining subjects the bible doesn't cover.

If one believes in God, but at the same time has a scientific knowledge is more likely to belong in the second group. The third group above was for the ones who had a knowledge regarding both aspects, but did not take any side, and kept their minds open.

So yes, we can have a fourth group, and as I see, it has to be named as neither above, and then you have to explain what are your thoughts and why do you think that you does not fit in any of those three groups.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Good question! I am a scientist myself but that doesn't mean everything has to be based off of science. I would fall in the second category. I believe in a God but having knowledge of science whatever I don't know I associate that with my belief.

So, if I get you correct, you are a scientist, and you believe in God, and when you see something that you cannot explain, you associate that with what you believe, and that means you associate it with Godly doings and Godly wishes, am I correct? If so, indeed you fall in the second category. Being a scientist and to be in this second group, you should be a strong devout.

So, as a scientist, what do you think about our origins? How may the universe and earth have begun? How may the life have begun on earth?

[Guda Lydia]

I am on the fourth; I believe in both and also I'm of the school of thought that there is more to it than we will ever understand. Not everything in the bible is as easy as taking it at face value and due to our limitations like in technology, we're yet to fully grasp the entirety of the universe.

[Sonya Nicolaidis]

As a younger person, I was firmly on the side of the second group and rabidly defended religion’s view of things, even in the face of compelling arguments from the scientists. As a more mature and hopefully more humble adult, I now see the folly of being too dogmatic on either stance. Certainly, both sides have merits and flaws, but I find I am leaning more towards the idea that both science and religion are not completely ‘knowable’, and that there will always be gray areas that we have to either accept by faith, or reject on a scientific basis. This is that fourth group that Sam Lauren refers to in an earlier comment.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I am on the fourth; I believe in both and also I'm of the school of thought that there is more to it than we will ever understand. Not everything in the bible is as easy as taking it at face value and due to our limitations like in technology, we're yet to fully grasp the entirety of the universe.

I don't understand why many try to say that bible has told the truth, but humans are yet to understand it. As per my knowledge, bible is also written by human. And many agree that it has been subjected to various alterations throughout the history due to many reasons.

In that case, when there is something in the bible that is either not found by science or disproved by science, why people try to say that we need to search more about that and then we will see that that is true?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

As a younger person, I was firmly on the side of the second group and rabidly defended religion’s view of things, even in the face of compelling arguments from the scientists. As a more mature and hopefully more humble adult, I now see the folly of being too dogmatic on either stance. Certainly, both sides have merits and flaws, but I find I am leaning more towards the idea that both science and religion are not completely ‘knowable’, and that there will always be gray areas that we have to either accept by faith, or reject on a scientific basis. This is that fourth group that Sam Lauren refers to in an earlier comment.

That is a real mature way to put things in. People know only what they are being taught when they are young. But when they grow older, they learn things as well as learn to think and analyze facts. With that they tend to see that some of their beliefs are either childish, or impossible. So, with this revelation, some tend to change their minds, but some are too adamant to do so. And that is how people can be categorized into the above three groups (or the four or many groups as the above comments suggest)

[riyosha]

of course there are more categories. There are many other religious and non-religious explanations for the same and some may even believe that the world is just a simulation and none of it is actually real. I am not sure what I think yet.

[Ivana Tomaš]

I would say for myself that I am in the third group. I think that science and religion, that is, the Bible, complement each other. I think that science alone and the human mind cannot fathom the source of the whole universe. Even well-known scholars and philosophers throughout history have interpreted the transcendental and the divine and the incomprehensible. Likewise, what is true is that biblical stories should not be taken literally, which is sometimes the case.

[DanaNS]

I think there's a fourth group: people who are on both sides and believe that there is just more to it than we can possibly know as humans.

I completely agree with this! I think that of what we know, the Bible and science can go hand in hand. However, I won't pretend to know what happened way back when, let alone claim to understand it.

[DanaNS]

I'm not sure which scientific evidence to which you are referring that does not corroborate the bible, but I do know that science and archaeology have proven the bible true repeatedly with historic artifacts and evidence that is inarguable. It's amazing how history, science, and faith are so tied together.

I agree with you! Science has proved many of the stories in the Bible through archaeology and history corroborates it through this evidence. Anything that science disproves just removes the false information that we have been taught! So I believe that science and religion/the Bible go hand in hand too!

What science disproves removes the false information that people are taught! Do you suggest that the bible has false information too? So what we can believe is only what is scientifically proven?

In that case, we are well aware that even scientific data and researches can be altered according to various personal agendas. So what guarantee that we have to say what are already proven by science are actually true? What I believe is that the scientists who proved the biblical facts scientifically are the ones who wanted to believe those facts. But the ones who did not want to believe has disproved those facts

You could definitely say the Bible has false information. I may be religious but I know that the Bible was written by humans, from their human perspectives. Even more specifically from their (almost entirely) male perspectives. There are undoubtedly biases in play and things they mistook. How many retellings of the birth of Christ are there? It is as trustworthy as anything else written by a person.

However, you could say the same about science. While "science" is supposed to be pure facts and statistics, humans have biases and it is impossible to remove them. As you said the facts that were proven were proven because the scientists wanted to prove them. Additionally, as our technologies develop we're constantly DISPROVING old science.

Therefore, I'd argue there is no guarantee. We don't know what happened way back when, but the fact that both science and the historical records of the Bible have "proven" similar things makes them all more believable, doesn't it?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

of course there are more categories. There are many other religious and non-religious explanations for the same and some may even believe that the world is just a simulation and none of it is actually real. I am not sure what I think yet.

I agree with that, but the different kinds of beliefs were not I mentioned with that categorisation. Whatever the people who believe in a creation-like beginning for the universe can be put in the second group. In addition to these, we can put extremists as well, those who believe only in either religion or science, and are too adamant to accept a different opinion. A fourth group has been suggested by many in this conversation, and I think such a group can be broadly named as 'nothing above', but then all will choose that

[Shanaian]

Science is yet to convincly prove the "Bang Theory" to which began the world. Am strong 2 believing in God's creation.

[GoodLuck ES]

My belief tilts more towards God than to science. I believe there's a biblical explanation to everything and that is the most valid explanation.

[Chizioboli]

Group three it is for me. I believe In God and then I am a scientist. However, I do not let the things science has proven make it seem that God doesn't exist. You see, God actually let man have these scientific achievements. So I see no point why these sciences should be used hand in hand. One is over the other here and that one is God