It was always my view of science that, if it could not prove something, then it had no comment to make, not that it rejected and denied that thing absolutely. Science is perfectly happy to allow things to be posited without proof; it just won't accept them as fact.

If I am right, then science does not deny the existence of god - it simply has nothing to say about it one way or the other, and that is the end of the matter.


If someone denies the existence of god, that is his belief. If he denies it on scientific grounds, he must prove his assertion scientifically. If he can do that, then it will be a scientific fact that there is no god.

If it is objected that one can't prove a negative (there is no god), then prove that the existence of god is a scientific impossibility (there can be no god).


As for the book burning issue - remember that? - we do see Moslem fanatics desecrating Christian and Jewish places of worship, and I expect they would happily burn the Bible. Those Moslems are behaving in exactly the same way as Pastor Jones and his crew: fanatically, in a way each side would characterise of the other as evil and satanic. Such behaviour is deliberately provocative, and a violent reaction is the least they are hoping for. It is neither Christian nor Moslem. That is why I say the book-burners are equally responsible for the deaths caused in the subsequent protest riots as the rioters, because those deaths were within their contemplation (or should have been) as they set light to the sacred documents they despise.

Is book-burning an expression of free speech? To my way of thinking, that is a perverse argument - it is the very opposite, the suppression of ideas, knowledge and free thought, and the great irony is that the perpetrators of these oppressive acts espouse freedom and equality as if they are the sole guardians of such precious liberties.