Ten Commandments

[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.

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[leo9]

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.

If you check the credentials of the politicians and CEOs who took the decisions to use damaging rather than beneficial technologies, you will find, firstly, very few science graduates, and secondly, very very few atheists. (I may be wrong, but my impression is that it's not possible to get to high office in the US as a professing atheist.) So it's not exactly fair to blame godless scientists for the mess we are in. So far as I can see, it was the new god Mammon that did most of the harm.

In any case, this whole godless-scientist stereotype is about as far from the truth as most stereotypes. You will find as many believers in the average science faculty as in the arts departments next door; all Thorne was saying is that if you're a believer and a scientist (like me), you believe the facts first, and if the facts disagree with your religion, you accept that your religion needs to be adapted.

Richard Dawkins has attracted a fair amount of criticism from scientists for promoting the idea that atheism is the only "scientific" viewpoint. There are plenty of us who find the world all the more spiritually awe-inspiring because we believe in all the fabulous scientific story of its creation from nothing in a cloud of fire, and the growth of living things from primal molecules to glorious complexity by their own simple efforts to survive better than the next being. As far as I can see, most Pagans are scientifically educated: perhaps that's why we're drawn to creeds that value matter as well as spirit.

But like it or not, Thorne was right: one of the main strands of resistance to conservation comes from fundamentalists who say that (a) God made the world for Man (sic) to use, so nobody should tell us not to, and (b) the Rapture is due any time now, so there is no future to conserve resources for. You couldn't make these people up.

[Thorne]

You couldn't make these people up.

It's too bad you can't make them up, because then you could make up a way to give up their 2000 year old (or 6000 year old for the YEC's) nomadic religion and step up to the 21st century.

[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.

[denuseri]

And if you check the demographic religious afiliations of the people involved in taking good care of the planet you will also find the same people.

My only issue with Thone's aproach is his use of stereotypes and insults to attempt to make his point, my little godless pure science thing was manily to show him how it looks when the shoe is on the other foot, if he didnt use sophism in his argument...I wouldnt eaither.

In any case, this whole godless-scientist stereotype is about as far from the truth as most stereotypes. You will find as many believers in the average science faculty as in the arts departments next door; all Thorne was saying is that if you're a believer and a scientist (like me), you believe the facts first, and if the facts disagree with your religion, you accept that your religion needs to be adapted.

That is how it should be in my opinion as well. I think both types of stereotypes are bull. Not all "christians are fundamentaly fundamentalist in their fundamentals" as some people apear to liken them to.

Richard Dawkins has attracted a fair amount of criticism from scientists for promoting the idea that atheism is the only "scientific" viewpoint.

I can't help it if Mr. Dawkins is an asshole.

I wish him the best of luck, but I think he is missing a large part of the "human" equation by denial or by ignorance when he attempts to promote such viewpoints as vampantly as he does.

There are plenty of us who find the world all the more spiritually awe-inspiring because we believe in all the fabulous scientific story of its creation from nothing in a cloud of fire, and the growth of living things from primal molecules to glorious complexity by their own simple efforts to survive better than the next being. As far as I can see, most Pagans are scientifically educated: perhaps that's why we're drawn to creeds that value matter as well as spirit.

Yesh...we have achieved agreement of sorts (does a lil dance) As I pointed out previously in this very thread earlier and in every other thread started to bash on religion in the past that Ive seen. (except I dont believe the "pagans" have a monopoly on anything when it comes to scientificly orientated educations)

But like it or not, Thorne was right: one of the main strands of resistance to conservation comes from fundamentalists who say that (a) God made the world for Man (sic) to use, so nobody should tell us not to, and (b) the Rapture is due any time now, so there is no future to conserve resources for. You couldn't make these people up.

There is a big difference between the greedy scumbags in charge of multinational corperations and other "a" holes who twists the dogma of a religion or takes it out of context for the purpose of finacial gain and the common believer who was tuaght that God wants makind to not only hold dominion, but wise dominion and be good stewards of and live in fellowship with the earth.

[Thorne]

Not all "christians are fundamentaly fundamentalist in their fundamentals" as some people apear to liken them to.

I agree with you, and I've said so many times. Though there are times when I would like to give some of them a good swift kick in the 'fundament.'

I can't help it if Mr. Dawkins is an asshole.

I wish him the best of luck, but I think he is missing a large part of the "human" equation by denial or by ignorance when he attempts to promote such viewpoints as vampantly as he does.

It might surprise you to know that I feel the same way about him. I think what he's doing is important, but I'm not too fond of the way he goes about it.

There is a big difference between the greedy scumbags in charge of multinational corperations and other "a" holes who twists the dogma of a religion or takes it out of context for the purpose of finacial gain and the common believer who was tuaght that God wants makind to not only hold dominion, but wise dominion and be good stewards of and live in fellowship with the earth.

Once again I have to agree with you, to a point. But despite not having any financial interest, some of those "common believers" can be just as rabid and "a-hole-ish" as the religious leaders and corporate officers. (Interestingly, now that you've brought them together in this context, it's surprising how often religious leaders behave in exactly the same manner as the heads of multinational corporations!) Over the past few years there has been a campaign around the world to promote atheism by placing signs on buses and billboards. The same places you would see signs promoting Christianity. Guess which signs get defaced or destroyed? And by those same "common believers" who want to "live in fellowship with the earth."

[denuseri]

Yep! We have firmly established that both Christans and atheists are human beings now and being human are both quite capable of defing stereotypes and both quite capable of not living up to ethical standards they expouse, making both of them quite capable of hipocracy.

As for only aethiest propaganda being the target of vandelism...smh..nice try but you will have to take a look at how there were at least 1,237 crimes committed against Christian churches and ministries in the U.S. alone this past year ranging in severity from vandalism to violent crimes with 98 of the casesinvolving arson resulting in an estimated $24 million in property loss.

I think the whole ceo (tyrant what have you) mentality results within the phycology of any single person or small group of people who come to power in any large orginizational scocial construct or stand alone complex.

After all...doth not absolute power corrupt...absolutely.

[Thorne]

Yep! We have firmly established that both Christans and atheists are human beings now and being human are both quite capable of defing stereotypes and both quite capable of not living up to ethical standards they expouse, making both of them quite capable of hipocracy.

Agreed. As individuals we are all fallible human beings. The differing institutions, however, are quite different.

As for only aethiest propaganda being the target of vandelism...smh..nice try but you will have to take a look at how there were at least 1,237 crimes committed against Christian churches and ministries in the U.S. alone this past year ranging in severity from vandalism to violent crimes with 98 of the casesinvolving arson resulting in an estimated $24 million in property loss.

I'm not denying that churches and Christians themselves are attacked. But how many of the perpetrators were atheists attacking them because they were churches. Probably no way to know that, but in this case for example, it sounds like the vandals were probably kids who were trying to make themselves look like satanists, or a remote possibility that they were real satanists, but I wouldn't expect atheists to try to point the finger at a being they don't even believe in. Here's another case which was apparently caused by teenagers being teenagers. My feeling (yeah, I know, no evidence) is that the vast majority of these acts, especially here in the US, are done by kids or by common thieves. Vandalism like this on the other hand, while not nearly as vicious as that done to churches, was clearly done by someone with a religious motivation. One of the supposed "moral majority" in other words.

After all...doth not absolute power corrupt...absolutely.

And one more thing we can agree on.