companioncube#3

Thank you for your kind statement. I would rank my own eloquence as being only slightly greater than my physical beauty, which places me somewhere about the level of a tree stump.

As for your comments regarding religion and community, I think there is a difference, to some extent,between a religion and a church of that religion. The churches provide a place for communities of like minded people to come together, for whatever reasons, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. Yes, the religious experience is an integral part of that, but the belief system does not, in my opinion, foster the community experience. I feel that the churches offer the sense of community as a means of attracting people in order to, eventually, immerse them in the belief system.

What I'm trying to say is that the neighborhood churches/temples/mosques can do an inordinate amount of good for their communities, but that the rigid, uncompromising belief systems they preach make their motives suspect in my mind.

As for science being interesting, the statement, "SCIENCE IS INTERESTING, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN FUCK OFF" is no less narrow-minded and arrogant than the statement, "GOD IS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE, AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE I'LL TORTURE YOU INTO SUBMISSION."

Yes, I think science is interesting. But if you are going to teach science, and try to make others see it as interesting, you have to make it entertaining, as well. Isaac Asimov, for many years, wrote science essays for several Sci-Fi magazines. I have many books containing his collected essays. They are, almost without exception, informative, interesting and entertaining. I have also seen essays, by other scientists, which are dry, boring and far too detailed, even if they are, ultimately, informative. You attract the non-scientist to the science through entertainment much better than through text books. That's why so many of the shows on the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, and other like them, are so well received.