Ten Commandments

[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.