D L Henderson
2 min readNov 7, 2024

--

I think I agree with some of what you swrote, especially your premise:

"By contrasting the methodologies of science and religion in this way, we can gain a deeper understanding of how they approach knowledge, evidence, and the search for truth."

I don't know about other people and their religions, but I am a Born Again Bible Believing Christian who started with only this one conclusion: I needed to be saved from where I had landed.

My "selective evidence" is how God, Jesus, and the Bible have drastically changed my life and how itis supported by other people's testimony along those same lines.do not

As for myself, I never ignore contradictions - contrived or factual. Rather, I confront them using the scientific Method.

As for me, I never redraw the bullseye. In fact, I never think of drawing one in the first place. I think it's called being open-minded and honest. My faith stands on evidence, not speculative predetermination... and it does still stand. God is real. God rewards. Jesus saves.

However, I do disagree with your analysis of world religions and philosophies.

The appearance of Buddhism in your list of your approved religions starts out with the fallacy of deducinging truth with subjective opinions and assessments. ("Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.")

Unitarian Universalism is a free-for-all, accepting everybody's opinions, beliefs, and philosophies as universal truths. All answers to a test question cannot be true. Two plus two cannot equal both four and twenty-seven and one half. Also, anyone can change their mind and go back and forth unlimited times. That is not Science and does not resolve into any conclusion. it is superstition, plain and simple.

Process theology, as you described it, begins with no hypothesis and therefore cannot form even an initial theory to be tested. This is contrary to the Scientific method you embraced.

Liberation Theology seems to be akin to the Bohemian philosophies based solely on an individual's worldview, that is , strictly one's own opinion... "One's man's meat is another man's poison."

Well your very lengthy treatise is interesting, but I find it less than Scientific with a mere superstitious slant and, at best, openly debatable philosophical/religious opinions and a conglomerated mix of controversies, in which, ironically, you employ that moving target of the Texas Sharpshooter by "throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks."

There's no working conclusion but only many shots forming a whole mess of random data points. It's not a roadmap. It's only a lot of scribbles on a stained piece of paper.

Please forgive me that I chose not to follow it.

--

--

D L Henderson
D L Henderson

Written by D L Henderson

Born 1950; HS 1968; Born again 1972; Cornell ILR; Steward, Local President/Business Agent; Husband, father, grandfather; winner/loser/everything in between

Responses (1)