Kimi's Potty Mouth

[cavallino 2]

There are some aspects of science that cannot possibly be proven, yet the perception is that science is correct...even without adequate proofs. Scientists are a bit heady these days; they explain parts of the universe correctly a few times, then claim that all their views are correct. Not so. Many aspects of science require the same amount of 'faith' as a religion does.

It's not always correct, it represents the sum total of our best understanding at a point of time, it is open to question by everyone and it is self correcting because of that.

More than we can say about religion..

PS: Talking mainly of the physical sciences here, others follow the same principles, but are far more difficult to set in absolutes.

[Max Mosley 2]

Agreed Cav.

[Autumnpuma 0]

It's not always correct, it represents the sum total of our best understanding at a point of time, it is open to question by everyone and it is self correcting because of that.

More than we can say about religion..

PS: Talking mainly of the physical sciences here, others follow the same principles, but are far more difficult to set in absolutes.

Nonetheless, my statement still seems true (and you haven't countered it) that some science requires as much faith as religion.

More than you can say about religion. Others say considerably more.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

[quote name='Autumnpuma' post='150519' date='Oct 30 2006, 03:34 AM'][b]Nonetheless, my statement still seems true (and you haven't countered it) that some science requires as much faith as religion.[/b]

More than [b]you[/b] can say about religion. Others say considerably more.[/quote]
Good one Mike,


Here's a little story to illustrate....I hope I'm not spamming....

INTERESTING CONVERSATION


An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new students to stand and.....


Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.


Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.


Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.


Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
Student: (Student is silent.)


Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.


Prof: Is Satan good?
Student: No.


Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God...


Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.


Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.


Prof: So who created evil?
Student: (Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.


Prof: So, who created them?
Student: (Student has no answer.)


Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son....Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.


Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No , sir.


Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.


Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.


Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.


Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?


Prof: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?


Prof: Yes.
Student: No sir. There isn't.


Prof: (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it.


Prof: (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?


Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?


Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.


Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?


Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?


Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?


Prof: (The class is in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?


Prof: (The class breaks out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?


Prof: (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

[cavallino 2]

Nonetheless, my statement still seems true (and you haven't countered it) that some science requires as much faith as religion.

No it doesn't, you were free to question the views that you did, more than you can say about any religion. If our knowledge of certain things in Science is incomplete, it is hardly ground to give credence to fantasy.

Brad I was hoping for a joke, the punchline never came, how entirely lame

[pabloh20 1]

No it doesn't, you were free to question the views that you did, more than you can say about any religion. If our knowledge of certain things in Science is incomplete, it is hardly ground to give credence to fantasy.

Well, I must say that I encountered the limits of our current Scientific understanding when doing Physics in school - the doppler affect. The universe is expanding, apparently - the class questioned it, we were told in no inceretain terms that we had to accept it because it just is. So you may question it, but at the end of the day you can still end up taking things on faith, or even, as in our case, lack of alternative choices.

I'm curious as to why you can't question religion, Cav ?

[cavallino 2]

Well, I must say that I encountered the limits of our current Scientific understanding when doing Physics in school - the doppler affect. The universe is expanding, apparently - the class questioned it, we were told in no inceretain terms that we had to accept it because it just is. So you may question it, but at the end of the day you can still end up taking things on faith, or even, as in our case, lack of alternative choices.

No offence intended, but that signifies a poor education and a poor teacher, quite frankly. The current acceptance of the expanding universe theory is the result of over half a century of debate, where alternative models have been proposed, and for the most part rejected. A staunch bunch of scientists have held on to the belief that the big bang model is incorrect, and many other theories, like the quasi steady state or the chaotic inflationary universe theories have been proposed. The general consensus among most cosmologists is to accept the big bang throty, not through any 'faith', but simply because it is the hypothesis that best fits the facts, and no other credible alternative has really been proposed. In sharp contrast to the creationists and ther ilk who between the lot of them could not put together a single sicentific article that would be acepted in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You may question it, you can of course begin with the work of Fred Hoyle, Bondi, Narlikar etc., but you will face the overwhelming body of evidence that favours the big bang model. If you do manage to make your point, and propose a different theory that fit facts as well or better, you would probably be given the nobel prize.

If you question religion, well nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

I'm curious as to why you can't question religion, Cav ?

Because there is nothing to it. Because it cannot survive questioning, because it has no answers, because you have to believe something because someone told you so, and noone can question it, because it has been written in some book over a thousand years old for example.

[pabloh20 1]

No offence intended, but that signifies a poor education and a poor teacher, quite frankly. The current acceptance of the expanding universe theory is the result of over half a century of debate, where alternative models have been proposed, and for the most part rejected. A staunch bunch of scientists have held on to the belief that the big bang model is incorrect, and many other theories, like the quasi steady state or the chaotic inflationary universe theories have been proposed. The general consensus among most cosmologists is to accept the big bang throty, not through any 'faith', but simply because it is the hypothesis that best fits the facts, and no other credible alternative has really been proposed. In sharp contrast to the creationists and ther ilk who between the lot of them could not put together a single sicentific article that would be acepted in a peer reviewed scientific journal. You may question it, you can of course begin with the work of Fred Hoyle, Bondi, Narlikar etc., but you will face the overwhelming body of evidence that favours the big bang model. If you do manage to make your point, and propose a different theory that fit facts as well or better, you would probably be given the nobel prize.

If you question religion, well nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Because there is nothing to it. Because it cannot survive questioning, because it has no answers, because you have to believe something because someone told you so, and noone can question it, because it has been written in some book over a thousand years old for example.

Poor teaching maybe. I suggest you think back to your school life, if it was anything like mine, and just try to remember what the time constraints/limitations were.

Therein lies the problem - using a hypothesis that fits the facts. Just because we haven't found another creditable alternative doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If you go through history, there are countless examples of scientists adamant that such a thing happens, only to be disproved at a later date. It's the way of the world.

Why should the creationists, as you call them, put together an article that would be accepted in a scientific journal? It's only the same as scientists trying to put together an argument that would be accepted in a religious envrionment - it ain't going to happen, so it's a pretty pointless argument if you don't mind me saying.

I don't see what you're trying to get at. How is questioning the exanding universe, for example, any different to questioning religion, by your reckoning? There are no answers, only a hypothesis that fits the facts. There is no evidence, nothing to believe in, nothing tangible to prove it. Only the words of people more intelligent, supposedly. I think you can see what I am getting at.

So the exanding universe has been debated for 50yrs - how long has religion & faith been debated for ?

[Player(1) 0]

Faith for science = "a theory" which scientists probe until it can be proven fact.

Faith for religion = having unquestionable belief in something no one can prove. Proving it would remove faith and the point of the religion.

Where did you get that from Brad? your weekly evangelist propiganda email newsletter?

[pabloh20 1]

Faith for science = "a theory" which scientists probe until it can be proven fact.

Faith for religion = having unquestionable belief in something no one can prove. Proving it would remove faith and the point of the religion.

Where did you get that from Brad? your weekly evangelist propiganda email newsletter?

I quite like that description, apart from the point of religion bit - can't quite decide whether it's right or not, really. I think somebody who had unquestionable faith and that faith was proven, would see it as confirmation of what they knew to be true to them - I am not sure it removes the point of their religion. If that sort of makes sense!!

However, I am not going to get into any arguments over it!!

[Player(1) 0]

I quite like that description, apart from the point of religion bit - can't quite decide whether it's right or not, really. I think somebody who had unquestionable faith and that faith was proven, would see it as confirmation of what they knew to be true to them - I am not sure it removes the point of their religion. If that sort of makes sense!!

However, I am not going to get into any arguments over it!!

I didnt give it alot of thought tbh

[cavallino 2]

Poor teaching maybe. I suggest you think back to your school life, if it was anything like mine, and just try to remember what the time constraints/limitations were.

Well all I am saying is it shows the limits of your teacher rather than the limit of our scientific understanding.

Therein lies the problem - using a hypothesis that fits the facts. Just because we haven't found another creditable alternative doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If you go through history, there are countless examples of scientists adamant that such a thing happens, only to be disproved at a later date. It's the way of the world.

Noone ever suggested that one doesn't exist. We can however say with the facts that we do have that any hypothesis that does not fit those facts, is wrong.

Why should the creationists, as you call them, put together an article that would be accepted in a scientific journal?

Because they are making scientific claims.

It's only the same as scientists trying to put together an argument that would be accepted in a religious envrionment - it ain't going to happen, so it's a pretty pointless argument if you don't mind me saying.

A religious environment? That is a rather vague term, in any case science excludes religion by definition, people are free to have their delusions asl ong as they don't pretend that they are based on any rational scientific ground.

How is questioning the exanding universe, for example, any different to questioning religion, by your reckoning? There are no answers, only a hypothesis that fits the facts. There is no evidence, nothing to believe in, nothing tangible to prove it.

The facts are the proof.

Only the words of people more intelligent, supposedly. I think you can see what I am getting at.

No. You can find out for yourself, ignorance is not an excuse.

So the exanding universe has been debated for 50yrs - how long has religion & faith been debated for ?

On rational grounds, by people who follow it? Never, or never enough, people who do so lose their faith.

[Max Mosley 2]

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.

Prof: (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the

absence of it.

Prof: (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

Prof: (The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

Prof: (The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Prof: (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir.. The link between man & God is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

Interesting post Brad! I assume its a made up story because most professors would probably know the definition of "coldness" and "darkness"! In any case thats pure semantics. If we define cold as "the relative absence of heat" then cold can exist. I would say it exists in the UK in winter most years.

I don't see what you're trying to get at. How is questioning the exanding universe, for example, any different to questioning religion, by your reckoning? There are no answers, only a hypothesis that fits the facts. There is no evidence, nothing to believe in, nothing tangible to prove it. Only the words of people more intelligent, supposedly. I think you can see what I am getting at.

The difference is that there are good arguments and evidence in favour of the big bang or any other scientific theory, whereas imho there is no equivalent in favour of religion. Brad's post illustrates this perfectly: the student only has faith, not reason, on his side by his own admission! Brad suggests there is an equal degree of faith in science but this is wrong. Science is based on experiments to discover how the world actually is. For instance we have good reason to believe the professor has a brain because every single person who we have ever checked for a brain has been found to have one. The rational conclusion is that everybody has a brain.

Anyone can question science, but don't just say scientists have been wrong in the past because thats missing the point. To have good reason to believe something requires that it is the most rational thing to believe, ie that it's the hypothesis that best fits the facts. If you wish to disagree with scientific experts you must either have strong scientific grounds to doubt them (highly unlikely for most of us) or some other good reasons. The student in Brad's example had neither. He simply hoped they were wrong. Hence he is profoundly irrational.

[pabloh20 1]

Well all I am saying is it shows the limits of your teacher rather than the limit of our scientific understanding.

Noone ever suggested that one doesn't exist. We can however say with the facts that we do have that any hypothesis that does not fit those facts, is wrong.

Because they are making scientific claims.

A religious environment? That is a rather vague term, in any case science excludes religion by definition, people are free to have their delusions asl ong as they don't pretend that they are based on any rational scientific ground.

The facts are the proof.

No. You can find out for yourself, ignorance is not an excuse.

On rational grounds, by people who follow it? Never, or never enough, people who do so lose their faith.

There is no scientific fact that the universe is expanding - all there is is an effect which scientists believe to be caused by the universe expanding. At least for now, tomorrow or in the future they might have a different theory

Well I don't know any religious journals/papers/etc, but it was as vague as scientific journal.

Exactly how do you find out for yourself if the universe is expanding or not ? What sort of statment is that ? And I say you cannot find out for yourself as we have already acknowledged that scientists can't do it, so how is your average person supposed to do it? Seems like a ridiculous statement to make, if you don't mind me saying.

You can try to argue all you want, Cav, but the simple truth is that there is as much evidence that supports the big bang theory as there does the biblical theory. Each theory can also be pulled to peaces if one so desires and you know it.

If you don't believe then fine, but don't call other people delusional because they do. And to suggest that anyone who questions religion loses their faith just shows your ignorance.

There are scientists who believe in God......

[Max Mosley 2]

There is no scientific fact that the universe is expanding - all there is is an effect which scientists believe to be caused by the universe expanding. At least for now, tomorrow or in the future they might have a different theory

It is the most rational explanation. It fits the facts better than any other view right now. If the facts change, then so will scientists' views. Anyone who disagrees with them is irrational unless they provide very good reasons.

Exactly how do you find out for yourself if the universe is expanding or not ? What sort of statment is that ? And I say you cannot find out for yourself as we have already acknowledged that scientists can't do it, so how is your average person supposed to do it? Seems like a ridiculous statement to make, if you don't mind me saying.

You look at scientific textbooks then journals. Even better go find an astronomer and get him to explain. If you're really lucky he might take you to an open day sometime and show you the evidence but that really shouldn't be necessary: you simply have to accept that he won't deliberately lie to you about it.

You can try to argue all you want, Cav, but the simple truth is that there is as much evidence that supports the big bang theory as there does the biblical theory. Each theory can also be pulled to peaces if one so desires and you know it.

There is very little evidence to support the biblical "theory". I can't think of any in fact but I'm open to suggestions.

There are scientists who believe in God......

Of course, but relatively few. More important however is the fact that extremely few of the religious scientists will believe anything that contradicts science as generally accepted. The fraction of such scientists must be lower than one in a thousand.

[cavallino 2]

I'll give the explanation and presentation of evidence a shot, but I really should get some work done, check back in a few hours

[monza gorilla 1]

Errr. We've been here before, I think, and it caused a very violent argument with, of course, no resolution and no converts. As I said somewhere or other today: whatever floats your boat, everyone has a choice. I'm an atheist, and in this instance I side with Cav. People want to believe? That's fine too. Creationist? Let's just say that I like a good story as much as the next guy.

[pabloh20 1]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest if people believe in religion or a God or not, it's up to people to choose what they want to believe in. Just because scientists believe one thing doesn't make it right, just the same as because people choose to believe in a certain religion or God doesn't make it right either. However, you can't go around calling people delusional just because they don't believe in what you believe in, that's just quite frankly rude!!

Errr. We've been here before, I think, and it caused a very violent argument with, of course, no resolution and no converts. As I said somewhere or other today: whatever floats your boat, everyone has a choice. I'm an atheist, and in this instance I side with Cav. People want to believe? That's fine too. Creationist? Let's just say that I like a good story as much as the next guy.

I completely agree MG, it only started with me wondering why Cav couldn't question religion and it's ended up at this point, somehow!!

I am not going to post anymore on this as I am not going to be the cause of violent arguments!!

Each to their own and let peace reign, so please ignore my previous comments - in fact it's ok I am going to erase them. Done!!

[Autumnpuma 0]

If our knowledge of certain things in Science is incomplete, it is hardly ground to give credence to fantasy.

The description 'fantasy' can be used for a great many unprovable notions; some called science and some called religion. It's all about the methodology of defining our universe; labeling and understanding it. To follow either science or religion completely, to the exclusion of the other, will only take you so far and you will be left with questions that remain unanswered except by guesswork.

I don't see science and religion as mutually exclusive.

[bajo39 0]

I don't see science and religion as mutually exclusive.

It's interesting that many of the men we now see as great scientists were in fact quite religious... Here's a quote from Isaac Newton, the greatest IMO:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done

Seems like you're in good company, Mike

[Autumnpuma 0]

It's interesting that many of the men we now see as great scientists were in fact quite religious... Here's a quote from Isaac Newton, the greatest IMO:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done

Seems like you're in good company, Mike

Thanks for that, Dan. You don't know how many arguments I get into with people who believe the 6-day creation bit

[bajo39 0]

Thanks for that, Dan. You don't know how many arguments I get into with people who believe the 6-day creation bit

I try not to get into those arguments

Anyway, my personal belief is that science's current failure to explain some things is not proof that it will never be able to and, by extension, that only religion can explain these things... That just doesn't follow in my mind.

[Max Mosley 2]

I don't see science and religion as mutually exclusive.

Of course. They're not. As long as one believes in a religious system that "fills the gaps" in between scientific knowledge or complements it, rather than a religion that contradicts science - when of course they are mutually exclusive.

It's interesting that many of the men we now see as great scientists were in fact quite religious... Here's a quote from Isaac Newton, the greatest IMO:

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done

Seems like you're in good company, Mike

Yes it is interesting but remember Newton would probably have been tortured and killed for atheism. Galileo was imprisoned for life, after publicly renouncing(!), a comparatively minor disagreement with the Church about 50 years earlier. That said, he probably did genuinely believe in it. I suspect that was because atheism was a much less attractive view back then: modern science didn't even exist for a start, especially importantly evolution was unknown, and atheism wasn't a practical alternative in any case so few people would think hard about it, and no one would publish their thoughts.

Nowadays the situation is somewhat different. Below's a study published in Nature, a very famous journal, in 1998, which shows that only 40% of american scientists are religious. This is much lower than the general US population. More interestingly when only the members of the National Academy of Sciences, ie the most eminent scientists in the US, are considered, the figure drops to a mere 7%!

Thanks for that, Dan. You don't know how many arguments I get into with people who believe the 6-day creation bit

Yes, they give other religious believers a bad name. Here's a link showing how bad the problem is: "A Gallup Poll reveals that 46 percent [of Americans] think God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years", although there is some consolation: "About three-quarters of those with a postgraduate degree say humans developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, while 22 percent chose the 'created in present form' option".

Anyway, my personal belief is that science's current failure to explain some things is not proof that it will never be able to and, by extension, that only religion can explain these things... That just doesn't follow in my mind.

Indeed. I think that argument is extremely poor but religious people use it all the time. I'm yet to hear a good example of something religion can answer. As you can tell its not for lack of trying.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Of course. They're not. As long as one believes in a religious system that "fills the gaps" in between scientific knowledge or complements it, rather than a religion that contradicts science - when of course they are mutually exclusive.

Exactly.

Yes it is interesting but remember Newton would probably have been tortured and killed for atheism. Galileo was imprisoned for life, after publicly renouncing(!), a comparatively minor disagreement with the Church about 50 years earlier. That said, he probably did genuinely believe in it. I suspect that was because atheism was a much less attractive view back then: modern science didn't even exist for a start, especially importantly evolution was unknown, and atheism wasn't a practical alternative in any case so few people would think hard about it, and no one would publish their thoughts.

You must consider that the Catholic dogma is easy to shoot holes into using their own bible, correctly translated. What those early scientists were running up against was not a religion being practiced in a way that was consistant with it's own strictures. Greed and power were at the heart of those trials; not Divine Influence (or wisdom, for that matter).

I'm yet to hear a good example of something religion can answer. As you can tell its not for lack of trying.

There are a few items that I could think of, but I'll ponder the best way to present them.

[Max Mosley 2]

You must consider that the Catholic dogma is easy to shoot holes into using their own bible, correctly translated. What those early scientists were running up against was not a religion being practiced in a way that was consistant with it's own strictures. Greed and power were at the heart of those trials; not Divine Influence (or wisdom, for that matter).

Agreed. The Catholic church was amazingly successful in seizing power. Hats off to them.

There are a few items that I could think of, but I'll ponder the best way to present them.

Cheers Mike.