Ten Commandments

[Thorne]

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?

The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.

Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it.

How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?

Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else.

That's perfectly true. But they don't require the existence of any supernatural beings.

It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.

I don't find it hard at all. I find it harder the see how the existence of supernatural beings can be so widely believed without evidence. But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.

Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?

I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.

And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.

Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.

I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.

And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

[MMI]

The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

I think you are making a false distinction: what is the difference between a truth if I am told it and the same truth if I discover it for myself?

But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.

That is true, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it advances your argument. If it is your suggestion that before the Big Bang there was a period (I will use the term even though there weas probably no such thing as time) when all that would be was caused pending release then your assertion is no less unfounded, ludicrous and insupportable as is the eternal existence of a deity.

How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?

I cannot know in the sense you demand it: it is a statement of faith. Religions happily admit that their beliefs do not rest upon proven fact, but upon some other basis instead, such as revelation, perhaps. I agree that, if God has to be created, there is a problem over who or what created Him, but the causa causae problem actually does not exist for religions, only for science. God is not constrained by time. He is eternal. He precedes the Big Bang and everything that went before it.

But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.

This can be said of religious faith, too

I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.

You are making assumptions too, equally unfounded, based on your belief that there is a scientific answer to everything, and faith that it can be found.

God can be supernatural without being perfect. In fact, He could even be supernatural and thoroughly imperfect. I am thinking of supernatural beings such as Satan, the Daevas, Paantu, and so on.

Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.

Science was once a poor discipline, founded on thoroughly shaky principles that, for millenia, held back its own development. Religion supplied answers science could not. As scientific knowledge grew, religion was able to withdraw to its proper spheres of influence, which was to explain why we are here rather than what we are made of and how we work. Science can continue to grow and religion, though perhaps more focused on particular answers than before, can continue to develop in its search for Truth.

And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

I cannot rule out the possibility that after Armageddon, or in whatever new order your preferred religion proposes, the people living in their new Eden will have transitioned from mere mortals to supernatural beings who are no longer bound by laws of nature.

[Thorne]

I think you are making a false distinction: what is the difference between a truth if I am told it and the same truth if I discover it for myself?

It's the difference between a truth that you have sought out evidence for, studied and deduced for yourself, versus "truth" which springs into being at the whim of superstition. If you were an investigator and found substantial and compelling evidence that a criminal had murdered someone, only to have someone proclaim that they learned in a dream that your suspect was innocent, which "truth" would you believe?

That is true, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it advances your argument. If it is your suggestion that before the Big Bang there was a period (I will use the term even though there weas probably no such thing as time) when all that would be was caused pending release then your assertion is no less unfounded, ludicrous and insupportable as is the eternal existence of a deity.

That's my whole point! One can dream up all kinds of possibilities about what came before. None of them have any more validity than the others.

I cannot know in the sense you demand it: it is a statement of faith. Religions happily admit that their beliefs do not rest upon proven fact, but upon some other basis instead, such as revelation, perhaps.

That depends on the religion. There are fundamentalist Christians here in the US, and elsewhere around the world, who proudly proclaim that their beliefs are based upon the reality of the Bible, which they proclaim to be the divine word of God. Anything which contradicts their Bible is therefore untrue. Evidence means nothing to them.

I agree that, if God has to be created, there is a problem over who or what created Him, but the causa causae problem actually does not exist for religions, only for science. God is not constrained by time. He is eternal. He precedes the Big Bang and everything that went before it.

As an article of faith I have no quarrel with that statement. The problem I have is that, should science some day be able to peer through the veil of the big bang and find out exactly what came before, the religious will change their image of God, redefining his existence, rather than giving up. It's basically the same battle that religion and science always have.

You are making assumptions too, equally unfounded, based on your belief that there is a scientific answer to everything, and faith that it can be found.

I suppose there's some merit in this statement. Because I certainly do think that science can eventually learn just about anything. And I also know that science does not know everything yet. But if we are ever going to find the gods, it will be science which does it, not superstition.

God can be supernatural without being perfect. In fact, He could even be supernatural and thoroughly imperfect. I am thinking of supernatural beings such as Satan, the Daevas, Paantu, and so on.

And how do we know that these beings are imperfect? How do we know that Satan is not the True God and Yahweh is his imbecilic brother? Yeah, that's right. Faith. We just know. Because God tells us so.

Science was once a poor discipline, founded on thoroughly shaky principles that, for millenia, held back its own development.

Quite true. But you neglect to point out that one of the biggest blocks to science was in trying to rationalize the physical with the supernatural. It's only with the gradual development of the scientific method that we've managed to throw out the supernatural and advance the world's knowledge of the natural. And we went from the first powered heavier-than-air flight to putting a man on the moon within a person's lifetime, less than 60 years.

Religion supplied answers science could not.

What answers did religion provide, other than "god did it"?

As scientific knowledge grew, religion was able to withdraw to its proper spheres of influence, which was to explain why we are here rather than what we are made of and how we work.

Religion was able to withdraw? Rather they were forced to withdraw, and they are going down fighting. And what makes you think there is a reason we are here? Just asking the question, "Why are we here?" assumes a creator with a purpose. If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why.

Science can continue to grow and religion, though perhaps more focused on particular answers than before, can continue to develop in its search for Truth.

And again you make the assumption that there is some ephemeral "Truth" which transcends the natural world based upon nothing but your need for such a truth to exist.

I cannot rule out the possibility that after Armageddon, or in whatever new order your preferred religion proposes, the people living in their new Eden will have transitioned from mere mortals to supernatural beings who are no longer bound by laws of nature.

And I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a jolly old elf living at the North Pole who delivers toys to good children every Christmas. And I have evidence for mine! NORAD tracks his sleigh on radar!
I wouldn't lie to you.

[MMI]

It's the difference between a truth that you have sought out evidence for, studied and deduced for yourself, versus "truth" which springs into being at the whim of superstition. If you were an investigator and found substantial and compelling evidence that a criminal had murdered someone, only to have someone proclaim that they learned in a dream that your suspect was innocent, which "truth" would you believe?

In answer to your question, I don't know: clearly either the "evidence" or the "dream" is wrong. Who is to say which?

What I asked was, what's the difference between a truth you discover through research and the very same truth if you are told about it?

That's my whole point! One can dream up all kinds of possibilities about what came before. None of them have any more validity than the others.

Then you agree that both science and religion rest on similar, if not the same, foundations, and therefore deserve each other's respect?

That depends on the religion. There are fundamentalist Christians here in the US, and elsewhere around the world, who proudly proclaim that their beliefs are based upon the reality of the Bible, which they proclaim to be the divine word of God. Anything which contradicts their Bible is therefore untrue. Evidence means nothing to them.

While I sympathise with your assertion wholeheartedly, doesn't that mean that science has so far failed to make its case in the Southern States. Take evolution, for example. It is a scientific theory, not an absolute fact. Intelligent Design is an equivalent theory which finds support among those fundamentalists and which does take account of the evidence.

As one fundamentalist says, if you cleared a space in your garage, how long would you have to wait until a Mercedes materialised out of nothing in that place? A day? A year? A thousand or a billion? What about "googol" years (not sure if I have used that correctly). Surely there's a chance that something, even if not a Mercedes, will materialise out of nothing in that time, isn't there?

Or is it more likely that, if, at any time a Mercedes does appear in your garage, someone with the powers to do so put it there?

As an article of faith I have no quarrel with that statement. The problem I have is that, should science some day be able to peer through the veil of the big bang and find out exactly what came before, the religious will change their image of God, redefining his existence, rather than giving up. It's basically the same battle that religion and science always have.

And why should that be a problem for you? You clearly expect religions to accept scientific proofs when they are discovered - as do I - but if that still leaves areas where science has no answer, and religion does, then it remains possible that the answer is right.

Likewise if one day, science peels back the veil between the Big Bang and the Before, and find a little old man with a long beard and sparks coming out of his fingers, while over in the corner hangs a red suit he only wears once a year, then I expect the atheists and agnostics who base their denials and doubts on the absence of proof to immediately recant, and crawl on their hands and knees to the Vatican City where they can confess the error of their ways and surrender themselves into the loving arms of Mother Church (or if it's a Hindu, Farsi, Norse or other god, to do whatever is appropriate in that case).

I suppose there's some merit in this statement. Because I certainly do think that science can eventually learn just about anything. And I also know that science does not know everything yet. But if we are ever going to find the gods, it will be science which does it, not superstition.

Let's at least recognise that religions are not superstitions. We all know that black cats don't bring good luck (or bad luck, depending on where you live), and we also know there aren't pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. Religions offer an explanation about life that superstitions don't even consider. Science may not like those explanations, but they are not to be contemned as trivial fairy stories that have no meaning at all.

And how do we know that these beings are imperfect? How do we know that Satan is not the True God and Yahweh is his imbecilic brother? Yeah, that's right. Faith. We just know. Because God tells us so.[/i]

<sigh> Quite so. But the point is the same: just read Satan for God and God for Satan.

Quite true. But you neglect to point out that one of the biggest blocks to science was in trying to rationalize the physical with the supernatural. It's only with the gradual development of the scientific method that we've managed to throw out the supernatural and advance the world's knowledge of the natural. And we went from the first powered heavier-than-air flight to putting a man on the moon within a person's lifetime, less than 60 years.

I see no reason why religion should welcome a scientific proposition that contradicts a religious belief until it has thoroughly demonstrated itself to be true - I'm thinking of evolution here as an example. Likewise, I see no reason for relgions to deny a scientific truth once it has been conclusively demonstrated - choose your own example.

What answers did religion provide, other than "god did it"?

What more do you need? Apart from, What is the purpose ... Which, of course, science doesn't address at all.

Religion was able to withdraw? Rather they were forced to withdraw, and they are going down fighting. And what makes you think there is a reason we are here? Just asking the question, "Why are we here?" assumes a creator with a purpose. If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why.

That is an absolute statement of faith, Thorne, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. From a religious perspective, it is also wrong.

And again you make the assumption that there is some ephemeral "Truth" which transcends the natural world based upon nothing but your need for such a truth to exist.

Just as science "assumes" factual evidence provides a true explanation of how the physical universe works. It has to assume that its goal is to discover the truth, that it is completely unbiased and wholly objective, and that the march of science is resolutely forward and unrelenting, but in real life it promotes truths that are convenient (often for the sponsor - like tobacco firms or oil companies) - such as, there is/is no significant human cause to global warming, and in any case we will/will not enter an ice age before too long (look at the debates we've had here, both sides spouting scientific data to support our views). Why can we not find a way to create cold fusion? We've been trying long enough, but we're getting nowhere fast. And who will suggest that science searches for the truth? what about eugenics ...

Or is it the case that we actually can improve humankind by selective breeding? In which case, the orthodox scientific position is covering up the truth.

And I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a jolly old elf living at the North Pole who delivers toys to good children every Christmas. And I have evidence for mine! NORAD tracks his sleigh on radar!
I wouldn't lie to you.

I can beat that ... he left me toys when I was young.

[Thorne]

In answer to your question, I don't know: clearly either the "evidence" or the "dream" is wrong. Who is to say which?

My money's on the evidence. There's no evidence that the dreamers even have a clue.

What I asked was, what's the difference between a truth you discover through research and the very same truth if you are told about it?

The difference is that a discovered truth is one you've learned for yourself. You know it's true. A truth you are told about, even if it's the same truth, requires you to have faith in who is telling it. I prefer to trust myself.

Then you agree that both science and religion rest on similar, if not the same, foundations, and therefore deserve each other's respect?

I do not! The foundation for science is always, "We don't know! Let's find out." The foundation for religion is always, "God(s) did it, so shut up and accept it." Religion is not interested in the truth and, in the more conservative sects, actively discourages the search for truth.

Take evolution, for example. It is a scientific theory, not an absolute fact.

Evolution is a fact. It has been proven in numerous species. The mechanisms of evolution are theories, describing how we think evolution works. It's like gravity. We know it's there. Gravitational theory explains how we think it works.

Intelligent Design is an equivalent theory which finds support among those fundamentalists and which does take account of the evidence.

No, it denies the evidence in favor of the God hypothesis. ID is just whitewashed creationism, as was shown in the Dover, PA case.

As one fundamentalist says, if you cleared a space in your garage, how long would you have to wait until a Mercedes materialised out of nothing in that place? A day? A year? A thousand or a billion? What about "googol" years (not sure if I have used that correctly). Surely there's a chance that something, even if not a Mercedes, will materialise out of nothing in that time, isn't there?

Well, you're going to need one hell of a big garage. Packed to the rafters with hydrogen. Then compress that hydrogen to form stars. Lots and lots of stars. The stars will form elements heavier than hydrogen in their cores and, when they "die" will scatter that material all over the garage floor. Do that enough and you'll build up enough chemicals to form the building blocks of life and, eventually, life itself. I estimate it will take about 13 billion years before you get your Mercedes.

Or is it more likely that, if, at any time a Mercedes does appear in your garage, someone with the powers to do so put it there?

Yeah, they're called "used car dealers" and they're less trustworthy than gods.

And why should that be a problem for you? You clearly expect religions to accept scientific proofs when they are discovered - as do I - but if that still leaves areas where science has no answer, and religion does, then it remains possible that the answer is right.

The problem is that religion doesn't claim that the answer is POSSIBLY right, but that it is ABSOLUTELY right.

Likewise if one day, science peels back the veil between the Big Bang and the Before, and find a little old man with a long beard and sparks coming out of his fingers, while over in the corner hangs a red suit he only wears once a year, then I expect the atheists and agnostics who base their denials and doubts on the absence of proof to immediately recant, and crawl on their hands and knees to the Vatican City where they can confess the error of their ways and surrender themselves into the loving arms of Mother Church (or if it's a Hindu, Farsi, Norse or other god, to do whatever is appropriate in that case).

But again, you're assuming that the little old man is divine, even supernatural. The "fact" that he has fingers and a beard and wears a red suit tells me he's not.

[Thorne]

Let's at least recognise that religions are not superstitions. We all know that black cats don't bring good luck (or bad luck, depending on where you live), and we also know there aren't pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

But if you pray hard enough good things happen to you? IF there is a dividing line between superstition and religion it is a very tenuous one.

Religions offer an explanation about life that superstitions don't even consider. Science may not like those explanations, but they are not to be contemned as trivial fairy stories that have no meaning at all.

I never said that their fairy stories are trivial and have no meaning. We can learn a lot about the human condition from parables and stories. But putting the story of David and Goliath into religious terms doesn't make it any less fictitious than the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.

<sigh> Quite so. But the point is the same: just read Satan for God and God for Satan.

Yes, the point is the same. There is no evidence for either of them.

I see no reason why religion should welcome a scientific proposition that contradicts a religious belief until it has thoroughly demonstrated itself to be true - I'm thinking of evolution here as an example. Likewise, I see no reason for relgions to deny a scientific truth once it has been conclusively demonstrated - choose your own example.

I don't expect them to welcome truths which contradict their beliefs. And evolution is a perfect example. As I stated above, evolution is a demonstrable fact. We see it happening all around us, and find conclusive evidence for it throughout the fossil record. The mechanisms are still being debated, but the fact remains. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges this. I don't think they welcome it, but they acknowledge it. Creationists, on the other hand.... Look up "God of the Gaps" if you aren't already familiar with the term. You may also want to look at this site,

What more do you need? Apart from, What is the purpose ... Which, of course, science doesn't address at all.

What do I need besides "god did it"? How about evidence?
Science doesn't address that question because it is still trying to answer the question, "IS there a purpose?" So far, at least, the answer is, "Not as far as we can tell."

"If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why."
That is an absolute statement of faith, Thorne, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. From a religious perspective, it is also wrong.

I said IF you remove the concept of a designed universe.

Just as science "assumes" factual evidence provides a true explanation of how the physical universe works. It has to assume that its goal is to discover the truth, that it is completely unbiased and wholly objective, and that the march of science is resolutely forward and unrelenting, but in real life it promotes truths that are convenient (often for the sponsor - like tobacco firms or oil companies) - such as, there is/is no significant human cause to global warming, and in any case we will/will not enter an ice age before too long (look at the debates we've had here, both sides spouting scientific data to support our views).

Please see my response to denuseri, above.

Why can we not find a way to create cold fusion? We've been trying long enough, but we're getting nowhere fast.

Probably because the laws of nature, as we understand them, do not allow cold fusion to occur. It requires tremendous amounts of heat and pressure. That doesn't mean scientists have given up. Just that the likelihood of developing it is growing more remote.

what about eugenics ...

Or is it the case that we actually can improve humankind by selective breeding? In which case, the orthodox scientific position is covering up the truth.

"Improvement" is a subjective term, or course. But if we assume that we can all agree on what such an "improvement" might be, yes it should be possible to selectively breed humanity to achieve it.

That doesn't mean that we should, however. Aside from the risks of interfering with the natural path of evolution and "improving" ourselves into extinction, there are moral considerations to consider. Morals having nothing to do with religion.

I can beat that ... he left me toys when I was young.

OH! You were one of those GOOD kids! That explains it.

[MMI]

But if you pray hard enough good things happen to you? IF there is a dividing line between superstition and religion it is a very tenuous one.

Agreed

I never said that their fairy stories are trivial and have no meaning. We can learn a lot about the human condition from parables and stories. But putting the story of David and Goliath into religious terms doesn't make it any less fictitious than the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.

The story of David and Goliath is a religious tale, and is much more meaningful than Jack and the Beanstalk.

Yes, the point is the same. There is no evidence for either of them.

... apart from the fact that we know them by name and have detailed accounts of their activities.

I don't expect them to welcome truths which contradict their beliefs. And evolution is a perfect example. As I stated above, evolution is a demonstrable fact. We see it happening all around us, and find conclusive evidence for it throughout the fossil record. The mechanisms are still being debated, but the fact remains. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges this. I don't think they welcome it, but they acknowledge it. Creationists, on the other hand.... Look up "God of the Gaps" if you aren't already familiar with the term. You may also want to look at this site,

Why wouldn't they welcome it, if it's true? I've said before, religions must accept scientific proofs if they cannot refute them, and I believe science should not scoff at religious truth simply because it is inadequate to prove/disprove them. It is science that is falls short in these cases.

Of course, pursuing this argument enables you to say I am using the "God of the gaps" argument. But just because you can put a disparaging lable on my argument doesn't mean it is wrong. As I said, science falls short here, not religion

As for the other site ... I looked at it and it smacks of the same kind of obsessive fanaticism that you see on the Christian fundamentalist sites and the militant atheist sites of people like Dworkin. It just cannot accept the idea that religions might have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything long before they do.

What do I need besides "god did it"? How about evidence?

It's all around you. It's exactly the same evidence that you cite to prove the validity of science.

Science doesn't address that question because it is still trying to answer the question, "IS there a purpose?" So far, at least, the answer is, "Not as far as we can tell."[/i]

I'm not aware of any scientific enquiries into the purpose of existence, so I think that answer is one you have drummed up yourself. Science, in fact, restricts itself to a lower order of question, the "how" rather than the "why" and this is because it focuses exclusively on the natural, whereas religion's focus is on the supernatural. It is perfectly possible, Thorne, for science and religion to co-exist until one of them tries to deny the other.

I said IF you remove the concept of a designed universe.

What would be the point of that?

I still consider your words, We are here. Period. There is no why to be nothing less than an assertion based on faith.

Please see my response to denuseri, above.

Having looked at that response, I conclude that you consider scientists to be as capable of corruption and as flawed as ministers of religion. The existence of corrupt practitioners does not prove that what they practice is false, whether that be science or religion.

Probably because the laws of nature, as we understand them, do not allow cold fusion to occur. It requires tremendous amounts of heat and pressure. That doesn't mean scientists have given up. Just that the likelihood of developing it is growing more remote.

I think this demonstrates that science has its holy grails, where it pursues enquiries into things it believes to be so, yet cannot prove. Acts of faith.

"Improvement" is a subjective term, or course. But if we assume that we can all agree on what such an "improvement" might be, yes it should be possible to selectively breed humanity to achieve it.

That doesn't mean that we should, however. Aside from the risks of interfering with the natural path of evolution and "improving" ourselves into extinction, there are moral considerations to consider. Morals having nothing to do with religion.

And morals have never held science back for long.

OH! You were one of those GOOD kids! That explains it.

I suppose I must have been, although I wouldn't want to make a big thing about it.

[Thorne]

The story of David and Goliath is a religious tale, and is much more meaningful than Jack and the Beanstalk.

I agree, but that doesn't make it any less fictitious.

... apart from the fact that we know them [God & Satan] by name and have detailed accounts of their activities.

I have read a dozen books about a man named Dirk Pitt. There are detailed accounts of his activities. That doesn't make him a real person.

Why wouldn't they welcome it, if it's true? I've said before, religions must accept scientific proofs if they cannot refute them, and I believe science should not scoff at religious truth simply because it is inadequate to prove/disprove them. It is science that is falls short in these cases.

Just why is it that science has to prove its case to the religious, but the reverse is not true? I'm sure scientists (well, most of them, anyway) would be happy to accept the findings of the religious, if they would only provide PROOF!

Of course, pursuing this argument enables you to say I am using the "God of the gaps" argument. But just because you can put a disparaging lable on my argument doesn't mean it is wrong. As I said, science falls short here, not religion

I did not mean that label to be disparaging, but descriptive. Scientists sees any gaps as a challenge to be overcome, searching for more evidence to support, or refute, their claims. The religious see those gaps as proof of their god, despite lacking any evidence to support that claim.

As for the other site ... I looked at it and it smacks of the same kind of obsessive fanaticism that you see on the Christian fundamentalist sites and the militant atheist sites of people like Dworkin. It just cannot accept the idea that religions might have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything long before they do.

But the WOULD accept it, if there were any evidence to prove the assertions.

It's all around you. It's exactly the same evidence that you cite to prove the validity of science.

So, the evidence which tells us that the Solar System is made from the congealed detritus of long-dead stars is exactly the same evidence that tells us that God wished the world together from nothing? The very same evidence that tells us humanity is descended from other primates and, ultimately, from even lower forms of mammals is exactly the same as the evidence for man being cobbled together from a lump of mud, and woman being an afterthought made from an extra rib? Nah, I ain't buying it.

I'm not aware of any scientific enquiries into the purpose of existence, so I think that answer is one you have drummed up yourself. Science, in fact, restricts itself to a lower order of question, the "how" rather than the "why" and this is because it focuses exclusively on the natural, whereas religion's focus is on the supernatural. It is perfectly possible, Thorne, for science and religion to co-exist until one of them tries to deny the other.

This Wikipedia article explains things a lot better than I can. But it all boils down to what I've already stated. In order to determine WHY we are here, one has to assume that there is a purpose in our creation, which presupposes a creator with such a purpose. With no evidence of that creator there is no way to scientifically determine the WHY.

What would be the point of that?

I still consider your words, We are here. Period. There is no why to be nothing less than an assertion based on faith.

Those words apply ONLY if you assume a natural universe without a designer. If you assume a designer, or creator, than presumably it had some purpose in creating the universe, and ultimately us. ("Ultimately" is, of course, a relative term. There will almost certainly be creatures around a million years from now who are as different from us as we are from our evolutionary ancestors.) However, even assuming that there was a designer/creator it is dangerous, and vain, to assume that WE are its desired end point. We may be only a minor step to achieving that end, expendable cogs in the universal machine. Paraphrasing George Carlin, maybe the Earth brought us into existence because it wanted plastic. Now that it has plastic, it doesn't need us anymore.

Having looked at that response, I conclude that you consider scientists to be as capable of corruption and as flawed as ministers of religion. The existence of corrupt practitioners does not prove that what they practice is false, whether that be science or religion.

Individuals, whether scientists or ministers, can be corrupt, yes. But the systems in which they serve are quite different. The scientific method is designed to root out the corruption, bring it out into the daylight and toss it out with the trash. It can be a slow process but it works.

Religions, on the other hand, seem to be more concerned with saving face than in exposing corruption. The ongoing troubles of the Catholic Church is a perfect example. Despite massive testimony and evidence of priests abusing children, and others, the Church still tries to hide the wrongdoing, punishing the victims rather than the criminals. And we are talking about crimes which go back to the very beginnings of the church!

And the Catholic Church is not alone. More and more reports are coming out of the abuses and outright crimes committed by those who claim to hold moral authority over others, crimes which their leaders knew about and tried to hide. Everything I've seen and learned about religious organizations points to the same thing: protecting the image of the church is far more important than punishing the perpetrators, or protecting the victims.

Now, on the science front, we have a man like Andrew Wakefield, basically the "father" of the anti-vaccination movement. His supposed research has been discredited, his license to practice medicine has been revoked, other research he has reported on has been brought into question and, just recently, a second paper of his has been discredited. Based upon the reports I've seen, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if criminal charges were brought for some of his actions in the name of his "research". But you don't see other scientists trying to bury the dirt, cover up his crimes and blame it all on the victims, do you? That's because the scientific method works!

I think this demonstrates that science has its holy grails, where it pursues enquiries into things it believes to be so, yet cannot prove. Acts of faith.

That is typical of the religious viewpoint. I see it as scientists being willing to study even those things which might not be possible if only because of that one-in-a-million chance that they may be.

And morals have never held science back for long.

Nor religions. Morality is, after all, a human construct, and therefor fallible.