Ten Commandments

[Thorne]

Wikipedia says:

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin

It is the responsibility of the person making an extraordinary claim to provide proof of that claim. Since it is impossible to prove a negative (except, perhaps, mathematically) there would be little chance of my proving that they are not divine in origin.

However, it is possible to show that the likelihood of that is so far removed from reality as to be next to impossible.

The article states that these "religious and moral imperatives" were "authored by God" "according to the Hebrew Bible." And what proof does the Bible give for this? Only that it is the written word of God. And how can we be sure it is the written word of God? Because the Bible tells us it is! A bit of circular logic here, isn't it? While the Bible is certainly a historical document, it is not a history book! There is no evidence outside the Bible that Moses existed or that the Exodus even took place.

Even if we assume that there was an actual Moses, how do we know that the Commandments were given to him by God? We only have his word for this, after all. He went up the mountain alone, and no one saw God hand him the tablets.

Perhaps the fact that there were at least eight previous codes can give some insight into the true origins of the Commandments.

And just as an aside, which version of the Commandments are we supposed to follow? Those given in Exodus 20, those in Exodus 34, or those in Deuteronomy 5?

While it's true that none of these items constitute proof that the Ten Commandments were not divine gifts from God, they do cast significant doubt on that hypothesis. And with the only evidence for that assertion being the words of some 11th or 12th century BC nomads I think we have to lean more towards doubting the Bible than accepting it.

After all, in the words of Dara O Briain, "It's only the Bible. It's not gospel."

[MMI]

I agree with every word of that. However, on the other thread, where the post you quoted appeared, I had stated that the Constitution of the USA was not a document of divine origin, like the Ten Commandments were. I didn't think anyone would interpret that statement so literally that he would fail to realise that it was made sardonically.

However, I think the excuse that you can't prove a negative in this case isn't good enough, because, ultimately, you can't prove a positive either. I offered a Wikipedia article in response to your demand that I prove the divine origin of the Commandment: you challenge the authenticity of the source, the Bible, because no-one can prove it to be truly the Word of God. If Jesus spoke to you and said, Verily, I say unto you, obey, for they are my Father's orders, you would ask Him to prove it ... after all, even JC's paternity can be called into question. If He would deceive you about that, what other lies would He tell? Furthermore, if the Good Lord Himself came down to answer your questions, you would ignore Him and tell Him He doesn't exist, so His answers don't count.

Even if you deny everything, you don't prove anything and you don't prove nothing either.

Yes, it is highly improbable that the Ten Commandments really are the Word of God. But isn't the reality of existence itself so highly improbable that even divine interference seems no less unlikely?

[Thorne]

if the Good Lord Himself came down to answer your questions, you would ignore Him and tell Him He doesn't exist, so His answers don't count.

If he could prove that he was indeed a supernatural being, able to do something which contradicts the laws of nature, then I would have to believe, wouldn't I? All he would have to do is, say, give new legs to an amputee, in a flash, immediately, with no external assistance, under proper supervision (to avoid fakery). Or make gravity reverse itself. Something which is technologically impossible, but certainly a piece of cake for a supreme being. In fact, the Amazing Randi has been offering $1 million to anyone who can prove a supernatural power. No one has yet come close to winning it.

Yes, it is highly improbable that the Ten Commandments really are the Word of God. But isn't the reality of existence itself so highly improbable that even divine interference seems no less unlikely?

What's so improbable about it? We're here, aren't we? That makes it a certainty in my book. There are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. At odds of a billion to one against the formation of habitable planets, there would likely be 200 such planets in this galaxy alone. Astronomers estimate that there are more galaxies in the universe than the total number of humans who have ever lived on the Earth! Even if there were only one habitable planet in each galaxy, or one for every ten galaxies, or one per hundred, the probability of at least one habitable planet forming is astronomical! Literally!

No, I still maintain that those who profess a belief in a supernatural being, whether divine or otherwise, are the ones making the extraordinary claim, and are therefore the ones who must provide the proof for those claims. Without that proof one might just as well claim that Santa Clause created the universe. There's just no way to prove that he didn't.

[MMI]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?

Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.

[Thorne]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?

Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.

Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.

What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.

[MMI]

Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.


What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.

First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."

In this discussion we are nbot only limited by our own powers of expression, but by language itself. I am certain you understood me, just as I understood you.

Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?

[Thorne]

First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?

Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

[MMI]

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

I am by no means competent to criticise Descartes's Cogito, however it does puzzle me why it is felt to be so conclusive. I cannot think things into existence: that would be magic, or a divine act of creation. How, then can I think myself into existence? Surely, Descates should have said, I am, therefore I can think. Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).

Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

What's hard to reconcile about, "God made all that there is"? If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin. Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too: if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ... and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

[DuncanONeil]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

[Thorne]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

Well, for one thing, proving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists. Unless that god comes out and says, "Hey people, all you snake worshipers got it right. You other poor saps have been barking up the wrong tree.", you'll just have to have FAITH that it is your god who's been proven to exist.

But we don't even need to go that far. Just provide clear, concise, consistent evidence that ANY god exists. Just one example of something happening that could not possibly happen without the intervention of a divine, supernatural being. Like maybe a church which burned down after being struck by lightning miraculously rebuilding itself in front of eyewitnesses and TV cameras and maybe a few skeptical scientists thrown into the mix. Hell, that should be a piece of cake for any god who can create the universe.

As for faith, well I have faith, too. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that summer will follow spring, and that fall will follow summer. I have faith that if I jump off of a tall building I'm going to splatter myself all over the ground below. But who knows. Maybe your gods will intervene and none of those things will happen. But I'll still have my faith that that church won't rebuild itself.

[DuncanONeil]

"(P)roving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists"

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.

I will presume that the rest of the message is tic

Well, for one thing, proving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists. Unless that god comes out and says, "Hey people, all you snake worshipers got it right. You other poor saps have been barking up the wrong tree.", you'll just have to have FAITH that it is your god who's been proven to exist.

But we don't even need to go that far. Just provide clear, concise, consistent evidence that ANY god exists. Just one example of something happening that could not possibly happen without the intervention of a divine, supernatural being. Like maybe a church which burned down after being struck by lightning miraculously rebuilding itself in front of eyewitnesses and TV cameras and maybe a few skeptical scientists thrown into the mix. Hell, that should be a piece of cake for any god who can create the universe.

As for faith, well I have faith, too. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that summer will follow spring, and that fall will follow summer. I have faith that if I jump off of a tall building I'm going to splatter myself all over the ground below. But who knows. Maybe your gods will intervene and none of those things will happen. But I'll still have my faith that that church won't rebuild itself.

[Thorne]

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.

You don't think that the Greco-Roman gods were different from the Abrahamic God? What about the Egyptian gods, or the Norse gods. The Hindu gods are certainly different. Or the Amerindian gods, Aztec, Incan, Polynesian, Australian Aboriginal gods? Are you saying that, despite all of the documented differences these are one and the same God? Who just happens to be the current version of the Christian God?

But I can be magnanimous. I will accept the argument that, despite these differences, all of these gods are actually the One True God®. You still have not provided any credible evidence for his, or their, existence.

I will presume that the rest of the message is tic

I must be feeling particularly dense today. I don't understand this comment, either.

[leo9]

"(P)roving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists"

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.

So you'd be just as happy praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so long as it's some kind of Supreme Being?

Tell you what, archaeological evidence suggests that the Great Mother and the Horned God were the first deities worshipped by men. (Certainly, the first they made lasting images of.) So would you be happy to accept that your god, and all these other JHVH-come-latelies, are just other, later names for those original True Gods?

No, I thought not.

[leo9]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

Until a couple of hundred years ago this would have been a nonsense question. The Fathers of the Church enthusiastically offered miracles and such as proof that their teaching was true, and every generation of priests thereafter collected new miraculous cures, wonderful manifestations and the like to prove God's and the Church's power.

Only when science started debunking the miracles did the doctrine arise that it was more holy to believe without proof.

[denuseri]

Nor has any credible evidence been provided to support a lack of their existance.

"It is the responsibility of the person making an extraordinary claim to provide proof of that claim."

I purpose that it is just as "extraordinary" of a claim to say that God/gods do not exist.

[Thorne]

I purpose that it is just as "extraordinary" of a claim to say that God/gods do not exist.

Tell me, please, which is the more extraordinary claim here:

1. There is a man who lives in my attic. You cannot see him. You cannot hear him. You cannot feel him. He leaves no tracks in the dust. There is absolutely no tangible, verifiable evidence that he exists. But I know he's there because he talks to me in my mind. He doesn't talk to anyone else, just me. Therefore, he is real.

OR

2. The narrator of #1 is probably insane and there is probably no man in his attic.

Can you honestly equate these two statements as being equal in insanity? Can you honestly believe that the person who makes statement #1 should be treated as though everything he says is the truth? And what if he tells you that some person (or people) must be killed because the voice tells him they are evil, and the voice knows everything and is good, because the voice tells him so.

I think the man making statement #1 would have to provide proof before he could be released from the asylum. But if he says that the voice speaking to him is God, people send him money instead.

[denuseri]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

[Thorne]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

The fact that the story is centuries old has no bearing on the fact that there is no evidence for its validity! Whether it's one person, or a thousand people, or a million people saying it has no bearing because there is no evidence for its validity! Billions of people, both living and dead have believed in gods primarily because they have been taught since infancy to believe in the gods of their parents/culture! They are taught from infancy that it is a sin to doubt the existence of gods and that they will go to hell if they don't believe as the parents believe!

And why do these people believe it? Because there is a man who stands up in the church or temple or mosque or wherever and tells them that the man in the attic is real! And if you don't believe that he's real, aside from the spiritual price you will pay, you will be cast out of the community, or executed, depending on the religion. In some cases you will be shunned by your own family, just for not believing in the man in the attic! Of course so many people profess belief. The price for not doing so may be too high for them to bear.

Some people will tell me that they have turned away from their birth religion and found something else to replace it. I applaud them for exhibiting the strength to rebel against the status quo. I could wish that they had exhibited more critical thinking and spurned superstition altogether, but at least they have thought about their beliefs.

And for the umpteenth time, I have no problem with people who wish to believe in gods. Faith is not necessarily a bad thing, unless it is blind faith. If you have studied your religion, and have really looked at the arguments both for and against belief and still believe, then you have done all that can be asked of you. I have turned away from religion and superstition, finding their arguments false and borderline insane at best. I have chosen to not believe.

But when you parrot the comments of church leaders without really trying to understand what they are telling you, and then have the gall to state that what you believe is absolutely true just because you've been told it is so, then I will argue against you. Why? Because blind, unreasoning faith kills people!

So believe what you will, there is no man in the attic. The emperor has no clothes!

[leo9]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

Any smart Pagan knows that "my tradition is older than yours" is a dangerous game. My Scandinavian relatives follow Norse gods whose legends are certainly older than the legend about the revived rabbi, though probably about of an age with the legends about the burning bush and the stone law books. I know people who follow the gods the Egyptians had been worshipping for a thousand years before Moses proclaimed a new one. If ancient tradition were the test of truth, we should all worship the Great Mother depicted in Stone Age idols - which sounds good to me, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

As for preserving traditions, the same people whose folk wisdom you invoke also passed down a tradition that a fat man in a sleigh drawn by reindeer would bring gifts at Xmas...

[MMI]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

[leo9]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

A perfect illustration of the fundamental difference between science and religion. (The orthodox kind of religion, anyway.) The contradictions in the Bible are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (or to be more accurate, an apparently absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since.

This is why religious fundamentalists (and political fanatics, but that's another thread) cannot get their heads around scientific argument. They live in a world-view where dogmas must be perfect and unquestioned or they are nothing. Whereas any living scientific principle is always being questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And the religious see this as weakness and failure, and cannot understand why anyone should hold to creeds that are so impermanent when they could have one that hasn't changed in two thousand years.

[leo9]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

[MMI]

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

I refute the charge that the religious are unthinking, obstinate old fogies who haven't had an original thought in generations and who are afraid to question their most basic tenets. If they were, there'd have been no Jesus and no Mohammed ... and no Aquinus, no Luther or Calvin, and so it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that every living religion's dogmas and beliefs are also constantly being questioned and revised or perfected.

I guess you can compare the religious fundamentalists you deride with the scientists who denied Copernicus's theories, for example, because they preferred the idea that Earth was the centre of the Universe, which they had held, not for a few thousand years, but since time out of mind, or with the bigots who claimed "God does not play dice" when rejecting the idea of quantum mechanics.

[Thorne]

I refute the charge that the religious are unthinking, obstinate old fogies who haven't had an original thought in generations and who are afraid to question their most basic tenets. If they were, there'd have been no Jesus and no Mohammed ... and no Aquinus, no Luther or Calvin, and so it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that every living religion's dogmas and beliefs are also constantly being questioned and revised or perfected.

I will join you in refuting those charges. (Try not to faint.) There have been many great philosophers in many different religions throughout the history of mankind. But ultimately the entire foundation foundation of any religion is built upon little more than speculation and wishful thinking. And when someone comes along and states, "I don't like your interpretations of dogma, so I'm going to create my own interpretations," that new religion has no more firm foundation than the previous one.

I guess you can compare the religious fundamentalists you deride with the scientists who denied Copernicus's theories, for example, because they preferred the idea that Earth was the centre of the Universe, which they had held, not for a few thousand years, but since time out of mind

Yes, the comparison is quite appropriate. (You're getting woozy again, aren't you?) There were (and are) scientific fundamentalists who scoffed at Copernicus. After all, simple naked-eye observation says that the sky revolves around the Earth. There is also the problem of the Church declaring scientific "truth" based upon revelation rather than facts. And those who disagreed with the Church risked excommunication or even execution. But the real question is, how many scientists still believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe? In science the truth eventually wins out. In religion the truth is whatever the priests say it is.

or with the bigots who claimed "God does not play dice" when rejecting the idea of quantum mechanics.

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

Einstein was commenting on the "new" idea of quantum mechanics, which he felt was not yet shown to be valid. There have been changes in the theory since then, of course, as new data emerged. I have little doubt that, were he alive today, he would be among the first to laugh at his own quote. Probably on a computer which relies on quantum theory to operate.

But being a scientist does not require someone to be an atheist. There have been, and are, many scientists who are believers. But they choose to separate their beliefs from their science. And there's nothing wrong with that
as long as they don't allow their religious beliefs to dictate their scientific work.

[denuseri]

That was pure poetry MMI...sighs wistfully and fans myself.

[Thorne]

That was pure poetry MMI...sighs wistfully and fans myself.

But... but... Aw, shucks. It's always the kooks that get the girls.

[leo9]

Sorry about the repeat, I thought the system had eaten it so I rewrote it. Then it popped up. Computers are a mystery.

[denuseri]

As if the only good or pure scientist was the ungodly one?

Attention! All scientists out there turn off all your own spirituality and moral compassess they are interfearing with "production" like it's no bodies business.

Oh thats right, quite a few allready did.

In reality those same scientists who shut out their spritualism allow their non-religion orientated beliefs, their political dogmas, their financial intrests, their need for posterity, their greed, ambition etc to dominante such endeavors instead, filling the hole of the phyche.

Is that really such a good thing?

Spiritualy detached is what is good for us?

News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.

Is that the kool-aide you are sugesting we keep drinking?

[Thorne]

As if the only good or pure scientist was the ungodly one?

Attention! All scientists out there turn off all your own spirituality and moral compassess they are interfearing with "production" like it's no bodies business.

That's not at all what I said. I said they can't let it interfere with their science. If the evidence points to something which contradicts their religious beliefs it would be absolutely wrong of them to toss aside the evidence in favor of those beliefs. On the other hand, if the evidence points to confirmation of those beliefs, it would be just as wrong for an atheist to throw out the evidence because of it.

In reality those same scientists who shut out their spritualism allow their non-religion orientated beliefs, their political dogmas, their financial intrests, their need for posterity, their greed, ambition etc to dominante such endeavors instead, filling the hole of the phyche.

So basically you're saying that scientists are human. And I agree. There are some who let their greed and ambition sway their judgment. That's why science requires peer review to verify results and not just take one person's word on things. It's a self correcting mechanism. Not always fast and mistakes can be made, but eventually the science wins out.

Spiritualy detached is what is good for us?

I can't see where spirituality, as practiced by religions, has done us a hell of a lot of good.

News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.

I suggest you take a look at the people who deny the fact that we are killing ourselves and our ecosystem. They tend to be the same people who promote fundamentalist beliefs. Their god gave them the world and everything in it, and their god will save them if something goes wrong.

[denuseri]

I suggest you take a look at the people who deny the fact that we are killing ourselves and our ecosystem. They tend to be the same people who promote fundamentalist beliefs. Their god gave them the world and everything in it, and their god will save them if something goes wrong.

Perhaps I/m not the only one who needs to take that closer look, becuase the people conserned with the planet and being good stewards of it are most certianly also and primaraly composed of spiritual people, (the "pure scientiests are in no way the majority) some of them are even what you try to dimminish as "fudamentalists" who believe that if we dont change what we are doing God is going to hammer us with a natural catastorphe of some kind or a war etc or simpley sit and watch us mess it up and start over when we are done.