Scientific discussion can include speculation. Religious ideas can be part of the discussion as speculation.

I believe some ideas, thought of as religious or supernatural, can have validity as speculation. In science, there are many lines of thought that are speculation; for instance String Theory in cosmology. Scientists often speculate about big ideas beyond what's considered more proven fact.

String Theory, Quantum Gravity and other ideas, on the frontiers of physics and cosmology, are fodder for educated discussion. There may be a time in the future when more clear evidence becomes available bringing some these ideas into the realm of more fact, or on the other hand, these ideas might be discarded. In the past ideas that societies had about the earth being flat have been discarded, for the most part.

Speculation about big questions such as what brought the universe into existence, the meaning of life, whether there is any intent or design to the universe beyond us and even speculation about an afterlife, is all fodder for good discussion.

There is still a lot that we don't know. I think religion makes a mistake when speculations about these things are thought of as being proven fact. Speculation does have a place in real science, but speculation shouldn't be confused with more proven fact.

Thousands of years ago, many societies thought it was a fact that the earth was flat. This was based on the evidence one sees just standing on the level ground. We could have stuck to those so called facts, or we could speculate and explore the possibilities of things beyond that worldview.

Rejecting scientific evidence often comes from a position of being over confident in oneself

Too much overconfidence, or self self assuredness, causes people to reject evidence that is different from how their minds are already made up. Strong beliefs and confidence can cause people to reject scientific evidence.

Religious fundamentalists tend to be super confident, but within religious thought, there is the concept of humbleness. Humbleness before God. I think this concept can be used for opening the minds of some people. Few people want to admit they are a "know it all." At the same time, it does seem to me like a lot of religious folks have forgotten the concept of humbleness to the point of being over confident in their own righteousness.

I was brought up in fairly open minded religion so I realize that not all religion is self-righteous. I also know that science, in itself, can be very humbling. Scientists are often reevaluating what they are thinking as new evidence does have a tendency to upset old thinking. Willingness to learn is a form of humbleness.

Self deprecating humor is a good thing. I hear quite a bit of self deprecating humor in science lectures I watch on YouTube. I think more people need the realization that we owe a lot of our successes to the work of others. Another concept coming to mind is gratitude. I've even heard it said in churches as I was growing up. We can be thankful.

Some of my thoughts after reading this article. Overconfidence bolsters anti-scientific views, study finds.

The arbitrary "truths" of religion are not convincing.

I recently had a conversation with a friend who has studied various religions. As he has learned more about religion, he has become less convinced that there is any validity to religion at all.

Yes, it does seem like religions bring a grab bag of beliefs. Arbitrary creation stories, the so called truths of astrology and so forth.

My own thinking and background is more from science than the humanities, I guess. Ironically, I still hold some hope for a larger reality beyond what we see. This might be partially because science doesn't make claims about that "beyond." Basically, scientists tend to just admit that there is always more to learn.

To me, it seems like the mystery of not knowing is more comforting than a grab bag of what seems to be bogus answers.

Liberal, open minded religion provides a good foundation for accepting our ever changing understanding of science

I got to thinking that liberal religion provides a good foundation to accepting science. By "liberal," I mean the accepting that our understanding of truths can evolve. The realization that each of our understandings of truth isn't necessarily cast in stone.

Science provides a pretty good approximation of truth that works enough to get us through the day. It's practical. It provides our technologies, modern medicine and so forth. At the same time, these ideas are subject to revision and improvement.

Liberal religion is okay with an evolving understanding. Okay with change that can come from learning.

Religion isn't necessary for science, but I think a willingness to learn and change is pretty much necessary for science.

Religion, while not necessary, still provides hope for things that science has not yet provided convincing evidence for.

A sense of life being more than just a short trip to a dead end. A sense of meaning and purpose in the universe. The idea that something one thinks of as "good" will ultimately prevail.

There is also a lot of community connection that some people get from religion as well.

Dogma remains rigid while science changes

I say that there needs to be open mindedness in religion. Not following only one dictatorial interpretation. Some folks would say, "what about science itself?" "Isn't science dictatorial?"

Scientific understanding is always changing. It isn't cast in stone. That's what I would say. Our understanding of what we think is the truth is subject to revision. In science, they often say, based on the best evidence we are aware of to date.

It's also true that not all scientists agree on things. Debate and civil discussion is par for the course.

Experimenting with my camera by the living room lamp when I was in 7th grade. Back in the days of film cameras.

I sometimes say if the people who invented the incandescent lightbulb were like religious fundamentalists, they might have decided that a bamboo filament was God's intended solution for all time. We could still be using bamboo filaments that burnout in a short period of time. Luckily, inventors, such as Thomas Edison, changed course many times. For many decades, lightbulbs settled on tungsten for the filament.

Now we are moving on again as most of the lightbulbs, in my place are LED. The filament solution is history.

A church that doesn't require one to believe in so called "truths" without scientific evidence is good

I like the liberal church of my upbringing even though I don't currently work "church" into my schedule. I like not being required to believe in anything that doesn't have strong scientific evidence supporting it. I don't consider myself an atheist, however, as I still hold out some hope for things that may transcend this limited life.

Personally, I put ideas about what are called "super natural" things into a category of speculations, hopes and unknowns. Seems like most humans need these hopes for getting through this life. That need may come from our survival instincts, if nothing else, but that need is evident to me. No wonder religions remain popular tho their popularity is declining in the west. The alternative; a world of nothing that we think of as spirit, seems rather bleak.

There seems to always be plenty of room for speculations and these glimmers of hope as we haven't yet run out of new things to learn. I think of many ideas as being interesting speculations, rather than hard facts. That's where fundamentalist religions get into trouble. It's easy for people to fight over what they think are rigid facts; especially if there's no scientific way to verify those facts.

Ancient peoples would have thought of electricity as being magic. Now we are getting better at understanding electricity. Similar to learning more about electricity, something as fundamental as time, itself, is not understood. I like thinking about big questions like what is time? I like wondering about what causes the universe to exist and what causes our biological bodies to create self awareness. I still think there are a lot of truths that are beyond what we are currently able to conceptualize, given the way our minds have evolved. This gives me hope about some meaning beyond just our short lives, but hope and speculation is different than solid fact.

I'm also thinking about the concept of rigid fact versus ideas of Relativity Theory where things like the length of a yardstick become fluid. Then there's the weirdness of the quantum realm. That weirdness and fluidity is part of science also, not just imagination. My mind goes to many tangents.

Religion, more of an art than an exact science

One can say that religion is more of an art than a science.

A science implies definite and absolute answers. Evidence based, "the facts," objectivity. Art is more about freer thinking and creativity, personal experience, intuition.

When we look deeper, tho, science isn't all rigid either. There's relativity theory that we are still struggling to wrap our minds around. The truth of things like distance and time being relative to the observer. Then there's also the quantum realm. A realm where something can be in more than one place simultaneously. Multiple truths at once. Fuzzy logic.

At the level of everyday life, there are many seemingly rigid scientific facts and truths. We base a lot of our technology on these truths; like assuming electricity behaves in a certain way. This isn't the "be all and the end all of science," but it works to keep the lights on and to keep our lives running.

On the other hand, there are many things that science doesn't answer. It doesn't answer these things yet at least; if it ever will. Questions like, what started the universe, if there was a start. Is there a larger meaning to our lives? Seems like these questions lead to the fuzzier, quantum side of science. There's lots of room for creative thinking. Religion deals with these questions also.

Seems like we get into trouble when we try and put these unanswered questions into the realm of rigid, absolute fact; especially when we don't have definite answers. It just causes us to start fighting among ourselves.

My variation on the God search for a cat in a dark room

The scientist brings a real flashlight and doesn't claim, yet at least, to have found any evidence of the cat. The scientist admits that the dark room is very large and the search isn't exhaustive. Also the scientist finds many very useful things besides the cat, such as electricity, for instance.

The conservative Christian refuses to bring a light to the dark room, proclaims he found the cat and if anyone questions the conservative, he slaps them around.

The liberal Christian often forgets to bring a light, but does bring it on occasion. He gives validity to many different modes of search for the cat and spends most of his time exclaiming how wonderful the cat is and how everyone should have a right to the cat.

The Bible is just a book of history and mythology

I grew up in a liberal church that I still have good feelings for. It basically thinks of the Bible as being a document of history and mythology. Can be interesting reading for folks studying the humanities, like reading Shakespeare, but not that good for prescribing how to live our lives, do politics or explain the origins of the world. We have science and a few other tools for that. While I don't use the Bible, I still think it's possible that there is something that folks could call a spiritual dimension to life.

If scientists believed their understandings of truth were infallible, we might still be using vacuum tubes

Some religious people think evolutionary theories are flawed because scientists often admit that they were wrong about an old explanation when a new explanation comes along. The theories keep evolving.

Folks can see evolving truths as a sign of weakness. They seem to assume truths must always be unchanging. Others see the admission that understanding of truth can change as a sign of strength.

Science is more of a process of learning and changing, rather than a set of absolute principles or dogmas.

In the 1930s, vacuum tubes were considered orthodoxy for amplification devices.

Then along came the transistor.

If scientists of the 1930s were like religious fundamentalists, we would still be using vacuum tubes.

Understanding of truth, in science is always changing and that can be seen as a virtue rather than a weakness. Scientists are often more humble than fundamentalist religious people. They are willing to admit that their answers are open to scrutiny and modification is possible.

Here's an interesting aside.

Some folks still claim vacuum tubes sound better in amplifiers than solid state components. Especially for electric guitars.

Interesting that electric guitars often hold onto tube technology when rock music was once thought of as "cutting edge rebellion."

Then there is spin as in advertising. What is actually "better."

When I was a kid in the 1960s, there was an encyclopidia article about how transistors were better than vaccuum tubes. My dad read that article to me as I sat on his lap. Maybe I was in second grade then.

"Transistors better than tubes."

I looked up at him and ask,

"Is that true, or is that just a commercial?"

Couldn't figure out why that question made my dad crack up laughing.