Confessions

If you have not read my profile, you may not know where I'm coming from. It behooves me to be open about my background in such a blog as this.
I am in fact the pastor of a Lutheran church in Iowa. Therefore, of course, faith is important to me; and I come with all the baggage and bias thereunto appertaining.
Yet alongside and perhaps even in spite of my past (and present), I hold Truth to be of highest value. If something I have always believed turns out to be false, then the truth in the present is more important than any sense that I was right in the past.
I believe what I believe because I think it is true. Normally that would be a tautology. However, religious faith has been described in so many other ways, that one's reasons for believing now must be laid out. I personally had no idea that truth was so flexible.
I do NOT have faith because I think I am making some sort of deal with God, in this life or the next. Likewise, I do not have faith because I think religion is good for society and turns us all into little ethicists and Good Neighbors.
Primarily, I believe in God because I think there really is one. If such God came to me today and said there really is no heaven, I would still be faithful. I would still be faithful if a nonreligious polis were perfectly well behaved anyway.
It seems to me that the only legitimate reason to choose religion, or the lack thereof, is because one is convinced of its truth. Then proceed with its implications.

So, talk to me about Truth.

Open invitation

Sure, all we needed was yet another blog or web page all about how science and faith are in total opposition to each other - or in total agreement. It's all been done, you say, and so you are right.
But there lies the problem, I think. We have become entrenched, we who care at all, on our own side of the matter, without reference to one another. Science does not listen to faith nor faith to science; to do so would feel like a betrayal of one's own truth.
I am hoping, perhaps against hope, that this blog might be different. I really don't want to disprove one side against the other. What I'm hoping for is honest open dialogue, mutual repect, and growth.
The Myth is that the disagreement started when Galileo got condemned by the pope. This I doubt. But even if true, I don't think that one scientist with bad manners and one pope with a short fuse should determine the course of dialogue for the rest of us.
Anyone in science or religion is welcome to contribute here. We want to hear it all. But don't comment if you won't listen to people who disagree with you. Last thing we need is more thick skulls and self-righteous, self convinced sticks using up blogspace.