Galileo and Bacon (and basically everyone else endorsing the theory of Nature as 'the other book of God') would say that science and religion can coexist easily. ;]

agreed, I never did figure out where people got the idea that science and religion were somehow mutually exclusive.

Angst: one of the reasons for that (as an example) is the difference in explaining things top-down or bottom-up, so to speak. Before darwinism (but in VERY mild forms in all but the most ancient atomist theories) there was only one way to explain phenomena: top-down. The cause of something ordered had to be ordered itself. Something with design needed a designer. Along came darwinism and with it a new way of explaining became apparent. When the old logical assumption that intelligence can only be caused by something equally or more intelligent falls away, so does the need for a perfect being as an intelligent first cause.
Since species are no longer theoretically, necessarily eternal and constant, the need for  god-based (ie. top-down) ideai is removed.

Another is the teleological approach. If one assumes there is a goal to nature, one needs a holistic frame for it; and thus, a god. That assumption is warranted only if one has no other 'rational' or 'logical' way of looking at nature. Spinoza (translated) writes this about the Aristotelian teleological view: "[..] this doctrine concerning the end turns Nature completely upside down. For what is really a cause, it considers as an effect, and conversley [NS: what is an effect it considers as a cause]." -- "Nature has no end set before it, and all final causes are nothing but human fictions." Although that (at the time relatively new) view does not ofcourse remove the possibility of choosing a top-down scheme, it removes the need for it.

If I were inclined to think religion and science could not coexist (which I am not), I would use this in my argumentation. Top-down (Dennett calls it 'skyhooking') and bottom-up explaining are mutually exclusive. One can in every specific case, or on the whole, pick one, but not both. Science has (for now) established itself as bottom-up, religion as top-down. Efficiency, efficacy and falsifiability as bottom-up, tradition and immunity to falsification as top-down.

You know how people are (I'll refer to my stance on US / world politics) if there are sides to be chosen, people are inclined to pick sides. Rarely do they think about the construct that makes the sides possible, or the plausibility of there being sides at all. People are sports fans: they don't care much about anything, as long as they can be supporters of their local or national team.

Now I did not mean to say you were personally threatened by the idea of ID.  I was speaking of those in the scientific community.  I also did not say that ID existed to halt scientific progress, though I would wonder who gets to decide what qualifies as a "real" or a "pseudo" science?  This is running dangerously close to elitism, where the thoughts of only a group of people with a similar line of thinking have weight, and the opinions of all others are to be excluded.  On what grounds, and by what authority?  Therein lies the danger of Groupthink, and when a community of people decide what is acceptible and what is not based on their opinions, then to me, THAT becomes the pseudo-science - not the challenging theory - because of people's unwillingness to deal with empiricle data in favor of the status quo.

To say that religion has no practical value is to ignore the centuries of art, architecture, and culture that has resulted from people wanting to connect with their gods.  Look at all the greatest architectural works in history.  Look at the great cathedrals, the pyramids and temples of Egypt, the temples in Greece, the Mayan pyramids.  Look at the paintings of the Renaissance by Raphael, or the Sistine Chapel, or Michaelangelo's Pieta.  I would think as an artist you could appreciate the drive, the impetus present in these great works.  They did not create these works as a monument to man, but as an expression of man's desire to connect to the divine.

Let us not forget also the humanitarian benefit of charity, of wanting to help others because it pleases God.  Many will be quick to point out how many wars are fought over religion, but those same critics never assign value to the lives saved or the poor helped through the charity of the faithful.  This is not to say that atheists must be uncharitable, but in dealing with practical application, I illustrate this to contradict your earlier statement.

Only in his mind.  This kind of thinking places man squarely on the throne of God, saying that man IS God, because the universe somehow depends on man.  Well, if there be no God, then man is as irrelevent as religion because the universe - existence, if you do not like the word Creation - did fine before man, and will do fine after man has long become extinct.  In this sense, man only fools himself yet again, as a being that cannot escape death is no god, and has no more power over existence than a flea.  Man becomes nothing, life is nothing, the universe is nothing, except existence for existence's sake.  That is the truth of a godless universe, where the only truth is that of entropy and inertia, so long as it lasts.

I might also add that accepting the possibility of God does not equate to assuming the existence of God.  You know the difference between possibility and reality, though I do wonder why someone would be unwilling to deal with the universe from either position.[/color]

Well, for most faithful, of any religion, pleasing their god(s) and being rewarded is the "big payoff".  For a Christian, it's probably easiest in the sense that we really don't have to do anything besides accept a gift from God, that is, a pardon for all that we do wrong.  It's hardest in the sense that we must do this entirely on faith, and that we must also undergo a never ceasing self-examination, and see everything about ourselves that we don't like, and confront that in order to repent.  The big payoff?  Getting to spend the rest of eternity with our Creator, without pain, sorrow, fear, or any form of torment present in earthly life, our souls perfected, and our physical form without flaw and at our complete command as to what we wish to be.  I can't speak of the big payoff for other religions, except they are documented so anyone who wishes to explore comparative theology can learn this.  

However, speaking of payoffs, and speaking from a Christian perspective, charity is not a payoff, it is a virtue, and the greatest virtue according to Paul.  The fruits of charity are considered a labor, what we do in our earthly life that reflects upon our faith and devotion to God.  These are not done to earn any favor with God, as to the Christian, faith is the only means of pleasing God, but rather, charitible works are seen as a duty for the faithful, how we may serve mankind and demonstrate our character, and through such example of character, those who receive charity may understand God's mercy, for as man gives mercy to man, so God gave mercy to all through the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ.  Thus, work for a Christian is to be done in humility, in obedience to God, not for ourselves or in expectence of any reward, but so that we may serve others, even as Christ lived as a servent.  The idea is that we don't do works to please God, but rather, we first put our hearts in the right place, and the works then follow as a natural result of this, charlatans not withstanding (but God knows who they are).  Again, I cannot speak for other religions on this matter, so I illustrate what I can.


I see your point.  From man's point of view, man is certainly the measure of all things for he knows no other frame of reference.  That is a point of view I am not accustomed to as I know several frames of reference besides that of man, and besides my own.  The limitations of language, as you stated, and that of loyalty and duty on my part, unfortunately give me no means to convey what I know.  Even if limitations of duty and loyalty were not withstanding, I could say, "I know this", but if it is not congruent to the accepted norm, what I attempt to convey would be dismissed as either incomprehensible, impossible, or the ramblings of a lunatic.  I accept this limitation, difficult as it is at times, but I am certainly not ignorant to it.


Many things exist that cannot be described with language, or rather, without comparison on equal terms.  The taste of a food, for example, is always described with a relative term, with the exception of the state of desirability of a particular food.  Anyone can understand if something tastes foul, but how does one explain the taste of fowl?  Or that of fish?  One can say something tastes "fishy", but if you try to explain this taste to a desert bedouin who has never tasted fish, you cannot explain how fish tastes.  One must taste for themselves.  The same is true of color.  One cannot explain color to the blind, nor sound to the deaf.  As it is, one cannot explain a universe beyond this one unless it be similar.  I can vouch for the existence of such, but it is well beyond my capacity to prove, even if I desired to.  Of the spirit, anecdotal accounts exist, but are again subject to the disbelief of those who are unwilling to accept anectodal accounts as reliable.  In that situation, death will provide the ultimate decision gate as to the truth of the existence of a realm beyond this one.  Every living creature will know this truth at their appointed time.  I suppose you could say knowledge of the afterlife is the only thing that is 100% certain, but only as an eventuality so long as one is alive, since one can only know for certain after one permanently departs from this plane.  And they say God has no sense of humor.


This would be akin to trying to explain infinity with finite terms.  Infinity is a concept that can be conveyed, but cannot be explained.  The same holds true with paradox, the same holds true with God.  We can only attempt to grasp the immensity of God's power by viewing the universe, and marveling at it as a child would marvel at seeing a grand cathedral for the first time.  I can understand why this could be difficult and even intimidating for some - how could one being possess such might as to forge something as immense and intricate as the universe?  What of other universes that may exist?  Such a being is beyond comprehension, and beyond description, to mortal and immortal alike.


Yes, I was speaking in terms of hard reality, not perception.  When I speak of "what is" I never mean the measure by which it is described.  If this is "realism", as you say, I do not consider myself a realist, only that I deal with reality as pragmatically as I can.


This is where I differ with you, because I do connect things with certainty.  I am more sure of the existence of God than I am of my own existence in this life.  Why?  It is something that, again, language limits, or rather, the containment of my being limits.  It is understanding and knowledge, experience that I cannot impart to another being through any practical means.  I may have such certainty, but since I cannot convey it, it then becomes useful only to me.  This I accept, since as I accept with certainty the existence of God, I also accept this limitation as having purpose, which leads me to the second part of what you expressed.  Faith is what is required where evidence is lacking.  If one has not sufficient proof of convincing, then one has room for faith.  One also has equal room for doubt.  The difference between the two is in what one seeks.  If a person seeks God, he has faith that God is real.  If one does not seek God, then he has doubt that God is real.  The two war with each other, faith and doubt, until one ultimately wins out and tips the balance one way or the other.  This can always change, but it depends on the person.  What can change the balance is evidence.  For every bit of evidence one may promote saying there is no proof of God, I could cite prophecy after fulfilled prophecy as proof of the contrary, and there are others who are greater students than I (since my primary concern is spiritual warfare, prophecy being secondary) that can cite prophecy in its entirety.  While there is no burden of proof, since if there be God, then He be sovereign, there is burden of choice.  A person can choose to accept prophecy as evidence of the divine, or a person can choose to dismiss it.

The one thing that has not been brought forward in all of this is, if there be a God, what would this God's intentions be toward His creation?  If I invoke logic, as best as logic can be invoked, one could argue that understanding the intention of God would be as impossible as understanding the nature of God.  However, logic can be applied since the universe is observed to function logically according to specific principles.  We can surmise through perception and logic that this God created an ordered universe, for a purely chaotic one would not be goverened by rules.  It can then be surmised that God would also create this universe for a specific purpose, and that life also exists with purpose, for it is an observable fact that created things require intent on the part of the creator.  If you strip language from man, indeed all that is left is intent, for even a child has intent, as do animals who do not communicate with the language of man.  Intent exists without language, though the opposite cannot be said.  Now if this God wanted any form of this purpose to be known to its creation, then one may also surmise that this God could and would (being God, nothing is entirely impossible) find a way to convey at least some aspect of this purpose.  If one accepts the premise of the existence of God, then one must also accept the possibility that this God can and does communicate with its creation.  In fact, it must, for being the Creator, it would have already "communicated" with it through the very act of creation itself - establishing a pattern that permeates all of reality, much in the same way that as a potter forms a lump of clay into a pitcher or jar, he or she communicates his or her intent with a lump of clay through touch, thus giving it form, the final form being the result of this communication.  This communication takes place in a more visceral form than say, a person holding a conversation with another person, but it takes place none the less.  While man may not be able to comprehend God, God could certainly comprehend man, and thus, while man cannot approach God on God's terms, God could approach man on man's terms.  This is the bridge between the infinite and the finite.  This is the foundation of Christian belief, and why for a Christian with understanding, the possibility of Jesus being both God and man is not paradox nor impossibility.  To us, God's intention is known, and we know it through the bible, from beginning to end, what God's plan is, and why the universe exists.  I can even cite it if one wishes to know.

Now the debate and question has always been, can any of this be explained scientifically? That would depend on what terms were imposed as conditions of acceptence according to science.  This in turn depends entirely on where someone sets the goal posts, and how often one wants to move them.  After all, man is the measure of all things, at least to mankind.  That is, until man's time on this world comes to an end.[/color]  

I'm glad you enjoy it, but I do not think we're arguing or debating really - I'd sooner call it a discussion. And one that isn't meant to keep anyone out or silent either.. ;]

religion = why
science=how.