let the two then shake hands

Let science and faith then shake hands.

Does not each need the other? Doesn't science need ideas about reality to explore the way in which reality, and even non-reality may work? Why would science refute philosophy or faith? Instead, let it happily wager the challenge as a friend.

Personally, I don't get angry now when new science comes about to explain the world. When I questioned the existence of God because of new findings in science, I began to realize how silly I was. What is even more amusing to me, is how quickly and frequently the foundations of science change, and how consistent and always present God has been. There is no formula or complication in God, he just IS. If he wasn't simple and readily available to every human who seek Him, what kind of loving God would He be?

I have been amused today when I started reading an article today on Scientific American about how Einstein was afraid the notion of quantum mechanics would throw his theories of relativity and the everyday physics as we know today out the window. Well, his physics are still with us today, but just as we look out to the stars at the seemingly infinite vastness, we are now turning our microscopes inward to seeing an even smaller universe at the molecular level. Why then does science pride itself into thinking it will one day know all the answers about how reality works, when we continually keep finding new evidence that blows old theories out of the water? Could this not go on forever? You then begin to see that we may never understand our world completely and we may even become extinct before we figure that out. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, what I am getting at, is there needs to be halting of the fisticuffs between science and faith. There needs to be a friendship.

Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Science and religion can and should co-exist. It has in the past, and it's not until this decade that there has been such blatant opposition by secularists and atheists.

intelligence

If we revere intelligence as something well-respected and worth achieving, why would it be preposterous to think something more intelligent created us?

Which is more intelligent to think or believe: something came from nothing, or something came from something? Both of which can be valid arguments.

Intelligence is a 21st century dressed up word for wisdom. Review history for human thoughts regarding wisdom.

Which then is more intelligent, the one who asks questions or the one who makes statements?

Hope

What then, shall we think about hope? Since this is not a tangible item, what good does it do for us? If one has hope, one must go on. If one does not have hope, one will not go on. How has the concept and idea of hope, perpetuated human kind?

Why is it that atheistic regimes are not around today, and if they are, are not fairing well against representative democracy? Why do small atheistic regimes spring up in history and are then quickly stamped out by the surrounding 'goodness' in our societies? Don't the people that stop these regimes, the so called religious nuts, offer hope and aid to stop this suffering? Don't the secular societies stand by and watch(to each their own, your tears are like water)? If these secular societies don't help, what good are they doing for human kind? If hope is offered and the killing stops, haven't we progressed as humans? Haven't we been able to allow evolution and mother nature to run its course in this sense? Why aren't barbaric principles, best man for himself, and other primitive ideas around today? Does the tribe that does not believe in God and eat each flourish and spread their ideas around the world? These tribes have not flourished and rather, religion has snuffed these tribes out. If our species still exists today, then why is religion considered so damaging to the human condition and the 'evolution' of our kind? Can it not be said that religion has actually contributed to the advancement of mankind?

Hope and goodness perpetuates mankind. Without these ideas, we would be extinct.

How then can we keep our values, but dispel God? Simply put, and by Nietzsche for that matter, we cannot.

On a separate note, Christopher Hitchens, famous anti-theist(or however else you want to dress your beliefs Mr. Hitchens: atheists dress their beliefs like a Christmas tree, just like theists do with their various denominations), is an asshole. I would not let him into my tribe/home/community/group and I hope the grace of God falls upon him, because I will not give it to him. I know that I'm not preaching forgiveness as I normally try to do, but rather, from a point stating that if he is an asshole to everyone, his kind will be sussed out by other humans - it's been proven by history once, and it will be proven again. To the dismay of the science/darwinian-lusting atheists(and I say lust because I love science, but I don't lust after it), evolution will stamp out these people, whether or not they want to believe evolution is a product of a greater Good, or dare I say, God. So in turn, these so called idiotic religious nuts are some how programmed to perpetuate their kind, whether they know it or not.

Atheism is like a fish out of water, gasping for air, and not believing the water he would be placed back into would save him anyways.