Moses and the Burning Bush

You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith? Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."

Try a little harder.

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.

Actually, according to the story, the bush was unharmed, so they would not be able to say why the bush burned at all. Likewise, scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?


Is Not Believing Something the Same as Believing Something is Not?

An interesting question, and I'm not sure I know. My instinct tells me it's a distinction without a difference.

If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?

What I think you are trying to suggest is a difference between someone who has an opinion, and someone who has not formulated one. That is an easy distinction to make, however. The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."


Evolving Science: Evolving Religion

You say scientists invent explanations to describe how things work. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations.

I don't believe that is quite accurate. Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one. How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception. Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.