Sloppy thinking, conflating 'religion' and 'faith' (or even conflating 'faith' and 'dogma', which I believe are quite different, though that may be my own sloppiness).

Claiming there's a zero-sum conflict between science and religion is as intelligible as claiming there's a zero-sum conflict between science and ethnicity. This is a complex enough discussion without pretending that words like 'religion' and 'faith' are synonymous.

I don't agree that faith and reason are necessarily at odds. I think faith can often become a blind crutch that is "nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail", but faith can be the moral and spiritual guide to reason.

One example is the notion of torture. The torture post referenced a Jason Vest article that gave one account of Frank Snepp's experience in CIA interrogation in Saigon. Snepp wanted the South Vietnamese station chief to tell his men to stop beating up and torturing his North Vietnamese subjects. When asked why, Snepp said 'Because it's wrong, it's just wrong.' When the station chief laughed at this answer and asked for a pragmatic reason, it was then that Snepp pointed to his inability to interrogate such badly beaten subjects.

The end would have been the same whether Snepp used reason or faith as the basis for not torturing, but the end must be in concord with a combination of sound reasoning to reach that end, and 'sound' ethics and morality that must ultimately come down to some form of faith. Burton L. Gerber, a CIA veteran from the same Jason Vest article, says, "But one of my arguments with the agency about ethics, particularly in this case, is that it's not about case studies, but philosophy. Aristotle says the ends and means must be in concert; if the ends and means are not in concert, good ends will be corrupted by bad means." Faith is crucial for guiding the process of deciphering the 'good means'. It is as much a battle between different strains of valid reasoning as it is between adequate and inadequate reasoning. Machiavellian strategies seem like effective ways to rule, but I have the gut feeling that I'd rather have a less competant but benevolent, humanistic leader than one who wishes to control me and exploit me for the purposes of order and greatness. Faith, before any form of institutionalization and that resonates from the individual, can guide our line of reasoning to ensure that it is the most humanistic and creates the most value in the world.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18

But by the logic of the above anon, if one accepts that mathematics (and logic for that matter) are based upon an intuitionistic framework, the same as ethics then mathematical propositions and all talk of fact are inevitable 'faith'. You have got your head mixed up between a priori presuppositions such as 'if if A then B and not B then not A' and UNGROUNDED synthetic propositions such as 'the moon is made of green cheese' 'an invisible, intangible rabbit controls George Bush' or 'there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving mind which created the world and judges you'.

These, by your analysis would both come under the umbrella of 'faith' but it would appear are of different types; one is true if truth is to have any meaning and just is so because it is (it is, if you will, hardwired into us) and the other by virtue of its (cognitive modality!) contingent nature is either true or false and we should only believe it depending on evidence.

Unless you can show that a 'faith based' proposition is genuinely a priori then it must be subjected to probabilistic reasoning and, let's face it, re:beardie in the sky - it ain't bloody likely!

Ethical intuitions are not only really, but a fascinating topic for further study. They have bugger all to do with religion (necessarily) and are about as 'faith based' as 2+2=4. They appear to denote rules of a particular frame of discourse (game?) and as such are not subject to posterior analysis.

Perhaps.

The concept of faith that you describe here is not the faith that many Christians ascribe to. At least in the Catholic philosophical tradition, faith is not some kind of "field ambulance" used to bail one out of gaps in reasoning. Instead, faith and reason work in tandem with each other, not in a zero-sum relation. As the last pope described, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth" (Fides et Ratio). Now you might disagree on whether this view is correct or possible, but you create a "straw-man" by attributing a zero-sum account to the Christian view. In the Catholic Church at least, there are two thousand years of rational philosophy from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman consistent with the tenets of faith.

Norm, we get it. You don't like religion. Talk about beating a dead horse. This blog used to be interesting. Smeesh.

Using science to discredit religion is about as useful as using religion to discredit science.

Science deals in matters of facts that can be verifeid and quantified. Religion does not. When religion claims it can do the former, there is a problem. This is why plenty of intelligent people can find ID a joke and still maintain their religion.

Norn isnt beating a dead horse, he is only doing what religions have done for centuries, making his points , over and over and over, and I thank him for it. Worldwide, we are slowly awakening to a new level of thinking, time to put Fact foremost above fairy tales and legends.

Nicely said, Because!

There are two definitions of faith, I assume we are talking about the one relating to God, which is "a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather then proof."

If you consider this definition when talking about faith, it becomes clear that faith is most certainly at odds with science. Think about what it actaully means to say "It's a matter of faith." It's self evident that the only time you need faith is when there is not enough proof; that is what faith is.

Anon,

I'm not sure where you ever got the idea that this blog was anything different. Don't like it - there's millions of other blogs out there. It's his blog, he can post whatever he wants.

I don't agree with all of Norm's posts but most of what he posts are interesting subjects and provokes alot of thought and debate. I don't know about you but I enjoy stretching my mind outside it's comfort zone. Beats peering into your own navel your whole life.

Science and religion seek to answer two different questions- science is concerned with "how" and religion is concerned with "why". The very nature of science is deontological - things do not happen as means to an end (a rock doesnt fall because it has a desire to fall). The nature of religion is teleological - we conduct our lives as means to an end (saving our souls as the end). I know that is a big generalization for religion, as not ALL religions focus their lives on saving their souls, but whether its in pursuit of good karma, or reaching enlightenment, or going to heaven, or what have you, it is all about means to and end. This is why science and religion are fundamentally DIFFERENT but NOT necessarily mutually exclusive. They are only opposing to those who take human-written scriptures totally literally. The religious extremists are disproving their own religion just fine without science's help by bombing cities, burning buildings, shootings, and hatred towards those who believe in a different color deity. Appearantly they think more you preach about Jesus, the less you need to actually act like him.

I would say that religion and science ARE mutually exclusive, and that faith and reason are most certainly at odds...

You make a good point Scientist, about how science is concerned with the 'how' and religion is concerned with the 'why'... but why 'why' anyway? Have you ever thought about the concept of 'why'?

... I have. I've been wondering if us asking of the universe "why?" might not be similar to a bird asking of the universe "but where are the wings?".

'Why' is a tool that was developed to maintain our social structures. Actions require reason and justification within our spheres of existence. I don't think there's any reason to assume the universe behaves this way as well though.

It is only when the evidence for a religious doctrine is thin or nonexistent, or there is compelling evidence against it, that its adherents invoke “faith.”--norm

This doesn't conflate faith and religion.

The debate between science and religion has two places. One, is at the lazy and fuzzy extremes. The other is in the critical present. The debate in the present is over matters which affect the world. The other can be safely ignored. The debate rages when ignorance threatens to outpace enlightenment. Then, it is not zero-sum to put your faith in reason rather than faith in faith. Faith in argumentation. Faith in common sense. If it fails, we fail as a species or an individual. I don't think we have to discount connectivity between the galaxies or discount the relevance of dreams unless we are waiting for intervention or ignoring matters--I got to work.

The Humanist must have faith in rhetoric--the winning argument teaches.

"...this lazy partitioning of our discourse into matters of reason and matters of faith is now unconscionable."

Exactly. The false dichotomy that is being insisted on is simply ego massaging for those who see the world as either secular or religous. This habit of grouping religious thought into one homogenous mass of ignorance is not only foolish but intellectually 'lazy'. On one side, we are presented with the choice of theocracy and blind dogma. On the other side, we are presented with faith in man's ability to reason. Apparently it is impossible to support secular government and still nurture a private faith. It's amazing that some would so wantonly toss aside the ideal of the First Ammendment and then decry it's destruction by the fanatics on the other side. That's irony ladies and gentleman.

It is lazy to lump all religions into once catagory, but it is also lazy to ignore the unifying factor. The books Ishmael and The Story of B by Daniel Quinn give one of the best analyses for the human need for religion that I have ever read, and personally agree with. The stem of all religion is the human need to be told how to live - what is right and wrong, how to behave, what to believe in to govern these beliefs. This is something that is not seen in any other animals, and no it is NOT a product of "human nature", as it is not seen in aboriginal human tribes either. Those tribes believe in a god or gods, but for totally different reasons than we do. They leave the "ruling of the world" in the hands of their gods, where as we "take the world into our own hands" (in Ishmael the two distinctive types of humans are called Leavers and Takers) The birth of modern culture occured when this separation between Takers and Leavers was defined; most believe at the birth of totalitarian agriculture (which differs from Leaver agriculture in that totalitarian agriculture doesnt just mean growing food to harvest, but rather "I can have all the food I want if I grow it in mass AND keep it for myself and my family") There are all kinds of theories on why and how this happened, but what it boils down to is the Takers deciding that they are meant to rule the world, are special from other animals, and somehow inherently flawed so that they need to be told how to live. And of course, different groups of Takers developed their own definitions of how to live, and killed off those who believed differently. We, as Takers, have been living this out for thousands of years, with the belief in our heads that we are meant to control the world. It's hard for me to articulate all the thoughts and ideas about it, so I highly reccommend reading Ishmael and The Story of B for a fascinating analysis of human culture :)

Excellent article.

Those of you complaining that Sam Harris's definitions of "faith", "religion" and "god" are wrong because they don't match yours miss the point.

In particular, Kevin C. wrote: "faith is not some kind of 'field ambulance' used to bail one out of gaps in reasoning". It could very well be that for Kevin faith means something else, but for the vast majority of those who invoke the term in a debate, that's exactly what it is: a field ambulance. (I prefer the metaphor of "Poly-Filla", in that it's meant to fill the gaping holes in one's reasoning, but "field ambulance" is ok.)

I like how these folks pretend they've never fallen back on that tired old standby: "Look, it's just a matter of faith." I.e., "Uncle!"

"Faith" in your friends/family is one thing; faith in a bearded bogey man is quite another. As long as priests/mullahs can confuse the two into one, its popularity will continue. But for those who care to look a bit closer, the lexical legerdemain is obvious. And it's also obvious which memes benefit from this bit of obfuscation.

"This habit of grouping religious thought into one homogenous mass of ignorance is not only foolish but intellectually 'lazy'." writes Distaste. Intellectually lazy, conflating the terms religion and faith, is what is intellectually lazy. If a religion has practices that are supported by reason then to that extent they are something to admire not criticize. If based on faith alone they are problematic. Most religions do use reason most of the time it is when they stray from that into the realm of faith only that they make asses of themselves. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells etc.

Thanks Hannah. I appreciate the vote of confidence, and your thoughtful participation in the discussions.

Richard-All I can speak for is the Catholic philosophical tradition which holds that faith and reason are compatible. Catholic teaching doesn't side with the Pat Robertsonesque "field ambulance" view of faith, as evidenced recently in the Intelligent Design debate. Norm-I agree with what you've recently posted. I think that the Robertson/Falwell type of faith ought to be attacked not only from your direction but also by anyone who thinks that faith and reason can be consistent. That is, it's a straw-man that reflects poorly on all religions.

Thanks Hannah. I appreciate the vote of confidence, and your thoughtful participation in the discussions. Posted by Norm at November 28, 2005 07:26 PM

Nope, sorry. This blog used to be mostly Daily Show clips. Now it's all Quicktime 7 crap, and less Daily Show clips. Looks like the numbers of comments are trailing off as well. Looks like I'm not the only one.

that boy wants a war ..

He made a valid observation. I tend to suspect that constant religion bashing has disuaded otherwise stalwart liberals from bothering to comment or visit. I don't particularly blame them.

In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Ung, ouch, don't, stop, that hurts, hey! I am bleeding now!" er I mean "Can't we all get along?"

Religion can be defined as a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance - like shoppng or Late Night Television.

But I feel here we are ascribing it to the attempt of a few to control the masses through spiritual (read: unseen fanciful hypothetical attributes of people who cannot explain certain experiences or thoughts or events by rational analysis as being natural, so it is attributed to the super-natural) intimidation, bribery or blackmail. I think those last three cover all of the commandments/spiritual edicts of the various dogmas/religions/faiths,etc.

I believe that people follow religion for one of three reasons: fear, duty or mutual payoff.

Fear of reprisal from an unseen supernatural being or beings or beingnesses. Fear of lack of acceptance in a person community or family. Fear of exclusion of a supportive society or family.

Duty - a sense of responsibility because certain family members have followed a tradition, therefore they need to follow it also. A sense of duty to a society or community to live as the whole, to maintain harmony within the societal unit.

Mutual payoff - you will feel good about me and I will feel good about you because we are in this together. And I will like you more and you will like me more - most especially if I believe the same story as you believe.

In the world (actually in the Universe) of clear rational thinking without the need to adhere to mutaully acceptable belief patterns or systems, I am supported in my disagreements with you and for some strange reason, I am not condemned to some sort of eternal damnation if I do not agree with your hypothesis or postulates.

I can live a guilt free life because I am not lead to believe that if I do not belive the theory of special relativity, as an example, I will not be condmened to the centre of a dark hole for the rest of now non-existence.

I can be 100% accountable for my actions and not hope that some hypothetical being has suffered for my errors and so I can go about doing what I please because sobody - Dyonisis or Jesus or Arjuna died for me and I am safe now from the judgement boogie-man.

When I phuque up - I am responsible for making amends - no one to pawn off my errors. I can sleep at night - easily.

I don't have ot hope I will make it to heaven because I know I am creating my "heaven" in this life and enjoying the "hell" out of it.

No fear of dying. No fear of living. No spiritual intimidation or mental masturbation about did I follows someone else's laws - when I know I can live a moral life without prodding. I can live a life of decency becaus eI choose to do so, not because I am afraid or feel I have to or because it ill make me look better in my neighbour's eyes. It is a want to not a have to.

Science is a religion based upon my earlier definition of religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

My scientific work is very - maybe even supremely - important to me and I don't have to pray to anyone ot make sure my theories are right - tests will always prove them out - eventually.

Time travel is possible - we just haven't figured it out yet. We are getting closer. Longevity of life to the ages of 200 will be commonplace in a few years or not... but we will know. People do not have ot have faith in an event - they can have an attitude of wait and see and it is perfectly acceptable.

So I will wait and see.

my 20p

Time travel is possible - we just haven't figured it out yet. We are getting closer. - Posted by YankInOz

Here's a paradox for you. Time travel is impossible, because if it was possible, we would be inundated with visitors from the future, right here in our present.

Bring back more Daily Show clips! The religion discussion is booorrrrrinnngggg! I GET IT ALREADY! Religious people are stupid. Everyone on this blog is a genius. Whatever.

Boring, boring, really f--king boring! Feels like I'm at the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

"The religion discussion is booorrrrrinnngggg! I GET IT ALREADY! Religious people are stupid. Everyone on this blog is a genius. Whatever."

I could not agree more. Norm, it is obvious that you are an atheist and believe that religion is lame and its followers are idiots. This blog used to be interesting and different, yet it is more of the same over and over and over. A ship sinking in its own smugness. Every time we see the word religion attached to a link or an editorial, we can just assume that it is something negative, hard-headed, or backwards. Every time we see the word science, it is something incredibly positive and exciting. And the claim that faith and reason are incompatible is incorrect. Perhaps in some religions, but not in others. http://www.livingislam.org/k/ki_e.html There is a lot of specialized vocab (arabic), but for those interested, it is there for you.

Kevin, may I ask how Catholic faith differs from that of the Pat Robertsons? You describe it as being compatible with reason, but I tend to agree with Sam Harris when he says that faith is what one invokes when one has no "reason to believe". Sort of a crutch to use when you're absent a reasonable leg to stand on.

Seems to me that if Jesus descended on a cloud tomorrow and with the snap of his fingers gave new limbs to all the world's amputees (and bionic limbs to me!), faith would vanish, to be replaced by the much more natural "reason to believe".

(Of course, if it turns out to be Krishna with a fake beard and robes, I'll have divine egg on my face.)

"Here's a paradox for you. Time travel is impossible, because if it was possible, we would be inundated with visitors from the future, right here in our present."

Very clever, indeed.

Personally, I like the atheism posts.

Here's a link for another.

It deals with why "God did it" is so satisfying an answer to unknowable things, even though it's not really an explanation.

Turns out, psych studies show the form of questions and answers, despite the answers having any explanatory content, is in itself satisfying or tension-relieving.

Check out the studies of people budging in line at the copier, and the dollar coins taped to the cards.

We are such manipulable creatures. I'm sure I would've reacted in just the same way as their subjects.

Pardon. Make that

"...despite the answers not having any explanatory content..."

I get it. Some don't like posts about religion, and I really don't care. If you don't like the site don't visit. There are millions of other sites that don't discuss religion, visit those. I'm sick and tired of all the whining about what you don't like about what I post. Nobody forces you to come here. There are several who have left basically this same comment over and over again. They will soon find they wont be able to comment on anything. Consider that a fair warning, you know who you are.

Should read: "Rules: Criticize ideas? Yes. Criticize Norm's ideas: Get the boot."

I'm just messing around. We can have a sense of humor, right?

You're not criticizing the ideas you're criticizing me for posting those ideas more often than you like.

touché

Here's a paradox for you. Time travel is impossible, because if it was possible, we would be inundated with visitors from the future, right here in our present.

Time travel is impossible only in degree. It's theoretically impossible to travel back in time past when the time machine was created. So, if your time machine is made on Tuesday, Nov. 29th, 2005 at 7:04 am, you can't travel 1 minute into the past. However, at 7:05 am, you could travel back to 7:04 am. At 7:06 am, you could travel back to 7:05 and 7:04 am. And so on from then on.

But, that's just what I've heard, and I don't have a link off hand to give proof if you ask for it ;) All I know is, with our current understanding of physics, time travel is completely possible. An effective way to do it, is what is lacking.

Talib said,"Criticize Norms's ideas:Get the boot" Wrong. He is just tired of the same posters complaining about the site again and again, yet they keep returning. If they hate it so much, why not just go to another site? Why keep returning here and complaining about this blog when they could just go elsewhere? Anyway, Norm is not running for Prom King. He has said many times that this blog is just a hobby. He posts what he finds interesting and that is it. He is not forcing anyone to come here and he is not forcing anyone to read what he posts. He has never banned anyone for a dissenting opinion. On the contrary, he has the most liberal posting rules of any site that I have ever visited.

I love this site just the way it is.

Hannah is an incredible woman. That she can come here to onegoodmove and not get offended speaks volumes for her intellect and self confidence.

Like I noted above: it was a joke. Indeed, I don't agree with everything that Norm posts. I don't think that anyone does. In fact, we have had some sharp disagreements. However, that is the beauty of all of this; we don't have to agree. Why do I continue to visit the blog? It is quite thought provoking and literate, and I believe that this is Norm's intention. I don't think that he wants everyone to agree, but to think and question. His site does just that. And yes, there are thousands of other blogs out there. Do I visit them also? You bet.

Norm,

There are some of us who visit your site because they are interested in what you are interested in. Put whatever feels right up.

Talib, when I responded, I hadn't noticed your second post about just messing around. However, there is one person who has made this complaint many times and it does get tiresome.

"Here's a paradox for you. Time travel is impossible, because if it was possible, we would be inundated with visitors from the future, right here in our present." posted by yet another anon.

Have a read: Breaking The Time Barrier by Jenny Randles and then present your snide snippet of attempted witticism.

And the thought for you - anon - is how do you know they (yime travellers) are not here.

Read the book - if you have a library card - you may even be able to check it out and not buy it.

What we do know for certain is that we do not know for certain about much in the space - time continuum. We do know that what we thought even two years ago is not what is even close to what is out there or even here.

Callandor: here is the reference for you - read the above book. No I don't get any kickback. :)

Adn part of the theory is that you can travel back but not forward and there is more but we are getting closer.

Cheers

"Here's a paradox for you. Time travel is impossible, because if it was possible, we would be inundated with visitors from the future, right here in our present." posted by yet another anon.

Have a read: Breaking The Time Barrier by Jenny Randles and then present your snide snippet of attempted witticism.

And the thought for you - anon - is how do you know they (time travellers) are not here.

Read the book - if you have a library card - you may even be able to check it out and not buy it.

What we do know for certain is that we do not know for certain about much in the space - time continuum. We do know that what we thought even two years ago is not what is even close to what is out there or even here.

Callandor: here is the reference for you - read the above book. No I don't get any kickback. :)

And part of the theory is that you can travel back but not forward and there is more but we are getting closer.

Cheers

Bring back more Daily Show clips! The religion discussion is booorrrrrinnngggg! I GET IT ALREADY! Religious people are stupid. Everyone on this blog is a genius. Whatever.

Boring, boring, really f--king boring! Feels like I'm at the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Oh my. This "anon" is an enigma wrapped in a vagina. How clever.

Since the dawn of blogging and the use of public comments, there's always--always--some useless cunt like this who gets his jollies acting like such a dipshit. I guess that's the life of a fat, useless, angry, stupid, and booger-eating wanker living in mommie's basement.

"anon," genius, can't even leave his real name. Such courage! Such vim! You just wanna smack his clever little face!

"The appropriate response of scientists to the deplorable ascendancy of religion in the United States is to criticize it, not conform to it. Yes, there is more to life than simply understanding the structure and contents of the universe. But this does not make egregiously unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about its structure and contents any more respectable. There are good reasons to believe that people like Jesus and Buddha weren’t talking nonsense when they spoke about our capacity as human beings to transform our lives in rare and beautiful ways. But any genuine exploration of ethics or the contemplative life demands the same standards of reasonableness and self-criticism that animates all real science. What we need is a science that incorporates first-person experience (emotions, ethical intuitions, contemplative insights, etc.) into the charmed circle of rigorous theory and experiment. What we need—desperately—is a public discourse that systematically encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. What we do not need are more scientists who are willing to demonstrate that even well-educated people can swallow the false certainties and abject consolations of religion without gagging."

Absolutely amazing, complete agreement here.

Richard-I can't argue here that all the tenets of the Catholic faith are compatible with reason. It would just be too long of a story. What I can argue is that the Catholicism has the attitude that faith and reason are consistent. The upshot of this is a different take on philosophy and on science than the Evangelicals. Now granted, there are blemishes in Catholicism's history, such as its confrontation with Galileo, where faith and reason are at tension. But it has a longer history of embracing philosophy rather than shunning it. Basically the Catholic philosophical tradition runs on Aristotelianism, though it's not adverse to other systems (the last pope was a Phenomenologist). I don't see the same embrace from Evangelicals, though there have been other attempted Protestant embraces (eg. Alvin Plantinga). With recent science, especially evolution, Catholicism has been more accepting than most Protestant groups. For example, JPII called evolution "more than a theory," and just recently the Vatican claimed that Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes.

Callandor wrote: It's theoretically impossible to travel back in time past when the time machine was created.

Yeah, that's what I gather from it as well. Also it seems it's only information that can travel back in time (not people), so that would explain the lack of time-tourism. So it's kind of like a time traveling stenograph machine... still pretty damn cool though. Maybe some day we can download movies and music from people who haven't even been born yet! Yay time-pirating!

1. Is the scientific method the only way to knowledge about humanity or the world in general?

2. Doesn't 'science' accept unsolved problems in current theories if the fundamentals of the theory are sound? Why is this acceptable for 'science' but not for 'religion'?

The glaring problems with both science and religion are in the applied contemporary versions of both. Science and religion as practiced aren't the same as science and religion as ideas of how to approach life and living, the essence and context of where and what we are. The application, the real-world effects of adherence to partial truths as whole and the use of immediate power conferred by that adherence, is where the danger is - whether it's GM foods set loose on a vulnerable human agriculture already under siege from other nasty products of scientific research ungoverned by any morality whatsoever, or the intolerant bigotry and selfishness of delusional zealots whose morality is shaped to fit their desires. As ideas they're not incompatible at all, science starts from the zero of the unknowing self and attempts to prove its way forward, religion starts from within the zero of the unknown and attempts to converse with what's already out there. Both of these ways of learning and becoming are unfortunately vulnerable to manipulation and deception, and both are currently so perverted and profaned they're essentially worthless. Most of the conflict raging between them is a desperate attempt by both sides to use the other's failings as support for their own sinking ships. The fact of anthropogenic climate forcing is bomb-proof validation for the rapturous fundamentalists whose scriptures prophesy a world destroyed by fire, and that easily becomes validation for everything else the institutions of Christianity have adopted as dogma. If we didn't have irrefutable telescopic evidence to the contrary they'd still be insisting the sun went around the earth. But that same climate change was caused by the products of science being delivered to people incapable of adequately evaluating their suitability beyond the short-term benefits they brought. There's a hidden corollary in the zero-sum schema - that one or the other must be right, since they can't both be. That isn't so. They can both be partially correct, and regrettably, they can both be wrong about very important things.

I want to take exception to the claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive.

Without giving a long discourse with lengthy Biblical references, allow me to say that I recognize a pattern in which Jesus shows the importance of wisdom through parables, frequently by hypothesizing and testing. Further, when Solomon selects wisdom as a gift from God, God responds in some specific superlatives rarely matched elsewhere in the Bible. Of course, there is a relationship between wisdom and the scientific method, so...

...good faith depends on the practice of science.

...and, the problem scientists have is interference from those who claim to practice faith, but fail.

Hi theDirtMan, you hit the nail on the head. If religious devouts see religion as a collection of moral fables, they will not impose literalist readings of the bible in the reality of the world. The Gospel of Thomas expressed a very humastic form of Christianity that does not try to equate stories like the Apple and the snake as past. Thomas see these stories as merely lessons to teach values.

Hi Potshot, this is related to your statement : "There are good reasons to believe that people like Jesus and Buddha weren’t talking nonsense when they spoke about our capacity as human beings to transform our lives in rare and beautiful ways. But any genuine exploration of ethics or the contemplative life demands the same standards of reasonableness and self-criticism that animates all real science."

The Dalai Lama states the same thing recently. He says that Science and Buddhism share a quest of open investigation into the nature of reality, and science can be a pathway to discovering well-being and happiness. He gives proof that both enhances each other:

Short article:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/12/AR2005111201080.html

His speech:

www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=11211&article=Science+at+the+Crossroads%2C+By+Dalai+Lama

Perhaps the issue is more between Christianity and Science, rather than religion verses science.