Ten Commandments

[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.