RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

[Guest guest]

" I'm sort of surprised that someone favoring directness such as yourself

would favor the gnostic interpolations that are typical of

after-the-fact " mystical " reinterpretations of any other religious

documents, over the more straightforward reading in , where there is

quite straightforward language that I would interpret as his intended

meaning. "

None of that stuff is " straightforward " ...you start getting into

straightforward interpretations of the bible, and you just ultimately

get into really basic, born again, 7 day creationism. The really

interesting interpretations are the more mystical ones, and they are the

ones that I found more attractive and plausible. Sorry if this

interferes with your conception of my " directness " . Perhaps a literal

interpretation of the Bible is interesting as a story, but I don't think

that it's very interesting as a spiritual philosophy. Such

interpretations leads to the crap that has been surfacing on this list

about people going to hell.

I do wish I had some pot.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Maybe one example of this is behaviorism, or

>the notion that the Turing Test can actually be a test of intelligence.

>In the case of faith, what do we really take as a marker of it? Can

>there really be one? Or would such a scientific experiment, by

>definition, need to constrain it into something that's meaningless.

I don't see why you couldn't test for a wide variety of markers and

see what patterns developed.

>I'm

>sure that Bush would define himself as having deep faith, and I'm

>sure that he has many mutated genes. However, the notion that someone

>like him has faith is quite abhorrent, really.

It may be abhorrent, but his behaviour notwithstanding, it might still be true.

>So, I would imagine that

>if this scientist has come up with some correlation, it really isn't to

>religious faith, but to some kind of gullibility to irrational concepts

>in general. This just doesn't sound very interesting to me.

I doubt we're talking about mere gullibility, but about a

predisposition to believe in higher powers and perhaps even creation myths.

> " One possible interesting outcome would be for people to start

>screening each other for the gene or genes before deciding whether to

>have kids together. "

>

>I think that the notion of society coming up with tests to screen for

>potential belief systems is tremendously scary. I can't believe that you

>would suggest this, though, certainly 'interesting' would be applicable.

I don't think I suggested it, I just said that the possibility is

interesting. The subject interests me, so it's neither a moral

statement nor in any way incorrect.

And as with all possible genetic screenings, the possibility has more

than one side. The prospect of a society screening out unbelievers:

horrendous. The prospect, if I were to have children, of avoiding

mates carrying the religion gene: not completely without appeal.

To take a larger perspective, genetic screening is coming, like it or

not, and like it or not, people are going to make mating and

reproductive decisions based on genetic information. Many of those

decisions will be stupid, many will be incorrect, but there's no

avoiding it. We can get all high and mighty and try to ban it, or we

can try to implement the most fair and enlightened social policy

possible, complete with the greatest possible degree of education and

accuracy. Admittedly that's a loaded way of putting it, but I prefer

the latter.

-

[Guest guest]

RE: RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

Gene-

>Maybe one example of this is behaviorism, or

>the notion that the Turing Test can actually be a test of intelligence.

>In the case of faith, what do we really take as a marker of it? Can

>there really be one? Or would such a scientific experiment, by

>definition, need to constrain it into something that's meaningless.

" I don't see why you couldn't test for a wide variety of markers and

see what patterns developed. "

Well, you could, but I don't understand how any measureable set of

markers could test for faith.

>I'm

>sure that Bush would define himself as having deep faith, and

>I'm sure that he has many mutated genes. However, the notion that

>someone like him has faith is quite abhorrent, really.

" It may be abhorrent, but his behaviour notwithstanding, it might still

be true. "

I guess what I'm saying is that 'true' faith, as I understand it would

not be accompanied by contradictory deeds. But his is the kind of faith

that is accompanied by sanctimonious statements, church going, etc, and

is most likely what is being tested for. Perhaps this test really tested

people's potential for being war criminals...

>So, I would imagine that

>if this scientist has come up with some correlation, it really isn't to

>religious faith, but to some kind of gullibility to irrational concepts

>in general. This just doesn't sound very interesting to me.

" I doubt we're talking about mere gullibility, but about a

predisposition to believe in higher powers and perhaps even creation

myths. "

Well, again - because I'm sure that the test didn't measure whether the

person's faith was actualized in his actions (you couldn't really test

for that), it must be propositional. Yes, I believe in god, with maybe a

yes I go to church, and yes I give money to charity, or something thrown

in for good measure. I suppose what you have to start exploring is what

is really meant by 'belief'. Now, if there somehow really were a gene

that predisposed one narrowly to believe in a higher power, I'd say that

this was probably one of the best bits of evidence for such a higher

yet.

> " One possible interesting outcome would be for people to start

>screening each other for the gene or genes before deciding whether to

>have kids together. "

>

>I think that the notion of society coming up with tests to screen for

>potential belief systems is tremendously scary. I can't believe that

>you would suggest this, though, certainly 'interesting' would be

>applicable.

" I don't think I suggested it, I just said that the possibility is

interesting. The subject interests me, so it's neither a moral

statement nor in any way incorrect. "

Well, it's indeed an interesting subject. I certainly wasn't commenting

on its 'correctness' - I'm not sure what that would mean in this

context.

" And as with all possible genetic screenings, the possibility has more

than one side. The prospect of a society screening out unbelievers:

horrendous. The prospect, if I were to have children, of avoiding

mates carrying the religion gene: not completely without appeal. "

There are potential benefits to many technologies, which in fact, given

human nature, and the nature of our current societies, actually cause

tremendous harm. I simply cannot fathom that a technology like this

would not be misused. And personally, I am somewhat horrified that

people would be doing genetic tests on mates to help determine the

belief systems of their children. That does not seem like a good outcome

to me.

" To take a larger perspective, genetic screening is coming, like it or

not, and like it or not, people are going to make mating and

reproductive decisions based on genetic information. Many of those

decisions will be stupid, many will be incorrect, but there's no

avoiding it. We can get all high and mighty and try to ban it, or we

can try to implement the most fair and enlightened social policy

possible, complete with the greatest possible degree of education and

accuracy. Admittedly that's a loaded way of putting it, but I prefer

the latter. "

Well, sure - given that a particular technology exists, then it makes

sense to channel it into constructive uses. If it doesn't exist, and the

potential is very great for harm, then it makes sense to limit it in

some fashion. It is one thing to screen people for markers for this

particular disease or that, but I think that this is very different than

screening them for the belief systems, or politics of their children,

and I simply cannot imagine that the latter will be abused with terrible

results.

[Guest guest]

Please, please, please stop talking about religion. This is a food

group and my email is getting filled up with more than it can handle.

Group leader - aren't you supposed to monitor this sort of thing?

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Well, you could, but I don't understand how any measureable set of

>markers could test for faith.

Except for the prospect of people lying, I don't see why not, and

brain scans may well completely bypass that problem before long anyway.

>I guess what I'm saying is that 'true' faith, as I understand it would

>not be accompanied by contradictory deeds.

Are you suggesting that 'true' religious people wouldn't do bad

things? I don't mean to imply that you've said so, but I get the

feeling that you might be coming from that direction.

>I simply cannot fathom that a technology like this

>would not be misused.

Oh, it surely would (will).

> And personally, I am somewhat horrified that

>people would be doing genetic tests on mates to help determine the

>belief systems of their children. That does not seem like a good outcome

>to me.

It certainly carries the potential for disaster, but what's the

alternative? Outlaw testing for diseases and other such

problems? What about intelligence and talent? I guarantee you that

parents will want to give their children any available advantages --

and yes, a lot of it will be superficial physical crap. And if it

turns out, as I believe it will, that much of our personalities and

political inclinations are genetically determined or at least

influenced, then there's not really any way around the development of

tests for the genes or gene complexes that predispose kids to be

liberal or conservative, libertarian or authoritarian, etc. etc.

etc., or whatever root characteristics underlie the development of

those personality traits.

In a sense, such a system would be something of a restoration of the

natural order of things. In the past, tribes tended to be isolated

and homogenous. Now we're a giant jumble of genes and cultures, and

people are " surprised " , so to speak, by how their children turn out

much more often. Regardless of whether it will be a good thing or a

bad thing on balance (or whether you can even talk about net effects

when considering something with such vast ramifications) the basic

impulse of parents to want kids like themselves will express itself

when genetic testing and modification along the lines we're talking

about becomes widely available.

Of course it will have tremendous potential for misuse, but the freer

the society, the more trivial the misuse will tend to be. And surely

you're not going to argue that it's wrong for someone to want

healthy, intelligent, rational, and talented children... are you?

>If it doesn't exist, and the

>potential is very great for harm, then it makes sense to limit it in

>some fashion.

Maybe, but that assumes that it's possible. If we ban it here, it'll

just develop somewhere else.

-

[Guest guest]

--- kristinmoke <kmoke@...> wrote:

> >None of the groups had biblical belief. How can

> their

> >truth ring true then?

> >Wanita

> There are things besides the Bible that resonate

> with God's truth.

> Romans 1:20 says " For since the creation of the

> world God's

> invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine

> nature- have been

> clearly seen, being understood from what has been

> made, so that men

> are without excuse. "

You're not the first to interpret and liken reverence

to nature's power, free of entity, to an entity.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Well, you could, but I don't understand how any measureable set of

>markers could test for faith.

" Except for the prospect of people lying, I don't see why not, and

brain scans may well completely bypass that problem before long anyway. "

Well, it isn't a question of people lying. However, often people have a

vested interest in believing themselves to have faith. And, I'm sure

there is also some disagreement as to what faith actually is. What does

it mean to believe something like this?

I have no idea what a brain scan would do, but a brain scan could not

possibly determine if someone had faith, unless you constrained the

definition of faith to = certain outcomes of the brain scan. Again, with

the analogy to the Turing test - to think is not only to have certain

demonstrable outcomes, it is also to have the subjective experience of

thinking. However, the Turing test, conveniently does away with the

subjective part, as does behaviorism, because it can't be measured.

Please - give an example of how one could possibly test for faith. Make

it plausible to me.

>I guess what I'm saying is that 'true' faith, as I understand it would

>not be accompanied by contradictory deeds.

" Are you suggesting that 'true' religious people wouldn't do bad

things? I don't mean to imply that you've said so, but I get the

feeling that you might be coming from that direction. "

Sure - I'm coming from that direction. And, of course, it is quite

overly simplistic to say that a person who had faith would never do a

bad deed. But, I think that when you see a person, say, like

Bush, who lies, and is a war criminal, citing notions like freedom and

democracy to further evil ends, you can safely say that he does not have

faith in any meaningful sense. Whether there is a personal god or not

isn't the issue. I think that faith in something other than a good,

loving god, or 'the good' isn't really what we're talking about. To have

an abiding faith in this good is not compatible with living a life where

one repeatedly does evil. This has more to do with the notion of what

belief is, rather than a statement that this god actually exists. But,

having a verbal test for faith is a convenience for bad science - it

cannot possibly be an indicator of true faith.

>I simply cannot fathom that a technology like this

>would not be misused.

" Oh, it surely would (will). "

And the harm that it would do would greatly exceed the good that it

would do.

> And personally, I am somewhat horrified that

>people would be doing genetic tests on mates to help determine the

>belief systems of their children. That does not seem like a good

>outcome to me.

" It certainly carries the potential for disaster, but what's the

alternative? Outlaw testing for diseases and other such

problems? "

Why even consider outlawing testing for diseases. If one wanted to

outlaw something one could try to outlaw this kind of ideological

testing. There is no need to ban every conceivable related technology.

One draws lines as to what is inappropriate and a danger to society, and

carefully considers whether one is curtailing valuable freedoms when

doing so. I don't consider it an important freedom for corporations to

sell technology that allows people/governments to do biological tests

for ideology. One doesn't necessarily have to limit all research into

nuclear energy - but most people agree that some limitation of nuclear

weaponry is necessary.

" What about intelligence and talent? I guarantee you that

parents will want to give their children any available advantages --

and yes, a lot of it will be superficial physical crap. And if it

turns out, as I believe it will, that much of our personalities and

political inclinations are genetically determined or at least

influenced, then there's not really any way around the development of

tests for the genes or gene complexes that predispose kids to be

liberal or conservative, libertarian or authoritarian, etc. etc.

etc., or whatever root characteristics underlie the development of

those personality traits. "

Well, personally I think that IQ tests should be banned, at least as far

as any official usage. I don't believe that there is such a thing as IQ.

It's a scam. There are really 2 issues - whether it is inevitable that

people will try to come up with tests that predict people's ideology,

and whether technologies that are inevitable should be allowed without

constraints simply because of that inevitability. This is not a

technology that is in the best interest of people - it is yet another

technology that the corporations who stand to gain from it will convince

people is necessary.

" In a sense, such a system would be something of a restoration of the

natural order of things. In the past, tribes tended to be isolated

and homogenous. Now we're a giant jumble of genes and cultures, and

people are " surprised " , so to speak, by how their children turn out

much more often. "

Well, I don't think that it's true that people are surprised by the

ideologies of the kids more than in the past for any other reason than,

with this global society, there is more exposure to different

viewpoints. I guess that's what you mean. But I just can't see how this

restoration of the 'natural order of things' is anything other than a

mere semantic point. I think that it is a fallacy to say that only the

primitive is natural.

" Regardless of whether it will be a good thing or a

bad thing on balance (or whether you can even talk about net effects

when considering something with such vast ramifications) "

Well, certainly there are unpredictable outcomes, but why can't you have

insight as to whether the outcomes will be primarily good or bad?

" the basic

impulse of parents to want kids like themselves will express itself

when genetic testing and modification along the lines we're talking

about becomes widely available. "

Well, I hope it doesn't. And I do think that such technology would be

used by government and corporations well before it comes into the hands

of parents. Thank god there are parents who have the basic sense not to

do stuff like this.

" Of course it will have tremendous potential for misuse, but the freer

the society, the more trivial the misuse will tend to be. "

First - the tests don't make sense, but corporations will convince us

that it does. If you mean a free society, say, like the U.S. then it

WILL be misused. And by definition, to test someone for a 'faith gene'

IS misuse.

" And surely

you're not going to argue that it's wrong for someone to want

healthy, intelligent, rational, and talented children... are you? "

LOL - , that is analogous to saying that 'surely you're not going to

argue that the people in Iraq don't want freedom'. This has nothing at

all to do with the technology, and the science, motives, and concepts

involved with it.

>If it doesn't exist, and the

>potential is very great for harm, then it makes sense to limit it in

>some fashion.

" Maybe, but that assumes that it's possible. If we ban it here, it'll

just develop somewhere else. "

If it is not conceptually possible, then it cannot develop anywhere

else. But if the scam of testing whether someone has this 'faith gene'

develops somewhere else, then I'd say thank god that it hasn't developed

here. I don't buy your arguments at all, and find what you're saying to

be supremely scary.

[Guest guest]

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I guess what I'm saying is that 'true' faith, as I

> understand it would,

> not be accompanied by contradictory deeds.

>But his

> is the kind of faith

> that is accompanied by sanctimonious statements,

> church going, etc, and

> is most likely what is being tested for

As I understand it, its walking your talk. Being an

example of your moral philosophy. Talking it and not

walking it is hypocrisy.

Need to find that gene,if there's a higher power gene.

Call it the " bs " ,hypocrisy meter,common sense,

foresight to result of actions,not fooling yourself

gene.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>That is not my position. What I *do* understand that is that

>something cannot come from nothing any way you slice it. I don't

>believe any human by means of any science can or ever will be able

>to explain the origin of the universe unless a supernatural cause is

>entertained.

>

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the oscillating universe theory. It

is a big assumption that the universe 1) was created out of nothing, and

2) did not collapse and subsequently explode in this (possibly) most

recent big bang. Of course, physicists generally find a flat or open

universe model to be most consistent with known mass and gravity, which

does not favor oscillation. Where is the evidence that there was

nothing before the big bang? If the universe is infinite, is the

universe God?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-

> > You're begging the question by using the word " created " .

>

>Correction: everything that exists has a cause

So what caused God?

And anyway, the more quantum mechanics and theoretical physics

develops, the more unclear this actually becomes.

>First, there could be a > non-God cause for the universe.

>

>Such as?

Non-divine beings creating a universe for purposes unknown.

> Second, there could be no cause for

> > the universe.

>Under what logical framework? There is nothing that behaves this

>way.

First, by positing a creator, you're just removing the problem by one

degree. What you're really saying is " there is nothing except god

which behaves this way " , if I understand you correctly. And second,

you should look into the current state of physics before confidently

making incorrect assertions.

>Third, if the universe requires a cause, God must

> > require a cause too -- except for the usual tautological

>insistence

> > that God uniquely is eternal and uncreated.

>

>Well, if the evidence points that direction, that is a reasonable

>conclusion.

There is evidence that there's an eternal and uncreated god without

any kind of cause even though you insist that nothing exists without a cause?

> Furthermore, there is abounding scientific evidence that

>points to a Creator. I am quoting Meyer, an intelligent

>design proponent that " maybe the world looks designed because it

>really *is* designed. "

The problem is that ALL so-called intelligent design evidence is

garbage. You believe it says what you want it to say because you

want it to say that. Nothing more. If someone comes up with some ID

evidence or arguments that can actually withstand attack, fine, we'll

have grounds for a conversation, but it hasn't happened yet.

> Let's

> > suppose the universe was created by a God, just for the sake of

> > argument. Why assume God would have a human-like desire to reveal

> > himself to his creation?

>

>Because He did in the Bible. This of course begs the question of

>biblical reliability which again can be researched in the apologetic

>literature.

OK, so we're back to " because someone said so " .

I guess there's little point in continuing this discussion, because

we have no common rhetorical or factual ground on which to found

meaningful debate.

>If one believes the Bible is

>reliable, one trusts it is God's revelation to his creation.

Yes, it all comes down to faith.

The problem in this discussion is that you're stating that it doesn't.

> > >No other religious work satisfies this.

> >

> > No other religion satisfies your Christian and anthropomorphic and

> > self-fulfilling characterization of God?

>

>I'm afraid I don't really know enough about other world religions to

>really answer your question.

So you retract your statement?

> > Sorry, but people have come up with all sorts of " unbelievable "

>stories.

>

>Yes, but what in the world would be the motivation? Early Christians

>had no earthly payoff for preaching the Gospel or living by the

>teachings of Jesus. In fact, their life of service, death to self

>and ultimate martyrdom for many of them was not and still isn't an

>attractive choice to our human nature.

I'm not sure I know how to address this question without being

insulting. There are so many possible and probable motivations that

it's almost impossible for me to imagine anyone seriously asking that question.

What do you suppose the motivation was for people coming up with the

Atlas myth? Perhaps to explain earthquakes -- as Atlas shrugging?

And do you honestly think that power has never been a motivator for

messianics and evangelicals?

For that matter, are you not familiar with the actual history of

Jesus, the Jews and the Romans, at least to the degree it's

knowable? Jesus was a reform Jew. He wanted the Jews to get their

act together. The Romans weren't interesting in having to deal with

a Jewish rebellion. And it was , not Jesus, who began spreading

the word to non-Jews after the crucifixion. Jesus wanted to keep it

for Jews only. Remember the bit about spreading pearls before swine?

Also, of course, there's the little matter of faith. If people

believe, they'll do all sorts of risky and dangerous things.

BTW, are you familiar with the original gnostic prophets? And the

later purging of the gnostics?

>I don't recall the source, but I think the gist of it was the fact

>that the disciples of Christ were willingly persecuted and/or put to

>death for proclaiming the Gospel supports the veracity of the Gospel

>accounts because if they knew it was false they would have never put

>themselves on the line like that. It is just one piece of logic-

>based evidence for the Gospel story related to our knowledge of

>normal human behavior.

So because they were tortured they must have believed, and because

they believed what they believed must have been true? That's not

logic-based or evidential at all.

-

[Guest guest]

> >

> Obviously you are unfamiliar with the oscillating universe

theory. It

> is a big assumption that the universe 1) was created out of

nothing, and

> 2) did not collapse and subsequently explode in this (possibly)

most

> recent big bang. Of course, physicists generally find a flat or

open

> universe model to be most consistent with known mass and gravity,

which

> does not favor oscillation. Where is the evidence that there was

> nothing before the big bang? If the universe is infinite, is the

> universe God?

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

Ergh...I think I feel my brain exploding! I truly have no idea, and

frankly I'm not terribly interested. I'm quite satisfied with my

below average command of astrophysics and cosmology and recognize

when I am in over my head!

That said, what I would like to address is the underlying

assumptions that (1) people who believe in God just don't understand

or know enough about science, (2) we just haven't *yet* made the

discovery that will conclusively disprove God and (3)that science

bears full rights to truth. It is ridiculous that some believe they

must subscribe to God/religion *or* science. Those who hold that

truth is the domain of science alone have a true bias and need to be

aware of how this framework from which they are operating from is

limited.

Those who hold they won't/don't believe in God until science proves

it otherwise put themselves in a pretty hopeless postition because

this will never happen. You can say the opposite is true for

believers- that they believe in God until someone proves otherwise.

I think in the absence of absolute proof either way, this view is

just plain more believable, not to mention hopeful and optimistic. I

believe the heavens *do* declare the glory of God, and that the

complexity of life and matter- really science itself- just

reverberates with intelligence. God uses science and countless other

ways to reveal himself if we are willing to listen.

Seriously- consider sincerely asking God to reveal himself to you

(or even challenge Him if that's more your style:) for this is what

He promises.

Sincerely,

[Guest guest]

> >

> Ergh...I think I feel my brain exploding! I truly have no idea, and

> frankly I'm not terribly interested. I'm quite satisfied with my

> below average command of astrophysics and cosmology and recognize

> when I am in over my head!

>

> That said, what I would like to address is the underlying

> assumptions that (1) people who believe in God just don't understand

> or know enough about science, (2) we just haven't *yet* made the

> discovery that will conclusively disprove God and (3)that science

> bears full rights to truth. It is ridiculous that some believe they

> must subscribe to God/religion *or* science. Those who hold that

> truth is the domain of science alone have a true bias and need to be

> aware of how this framework from which they are operating from is

> limited.

Why are you addressing these, when as far as I can tell, no one here has claimed

these things? What I would like to address is that the 'pro-God' side seems to

repeatedly argue against positions that no one is taking.

<snip>.

>

> Seriously- consider sincerely asking God to reveal himself to you

> (or even challenge Him if that's more your style:) for this is what

> He promises.

>

> Sincerely,

>

LOL. Hail SATAN!

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> > > Hate to break it to you, but Jesus was a mere mortal man just all of

> > > us (men) here.

> >

> >I take it he must have told you this, . ;-)

> >

> >Ah, how ironic the identity of the new bearer of specicialized

> >Christological knowledge!

>

> No, but I subscribe to the scientific method, I believe in the

> utility of Occam's Razor, and I require some kind of real evidence

> for claims. " Because I said so " , " Because someone else said so " , and

> " Because God told me so " don't qualify in my book.

Oh wow this is just toooooooo funny. I don't have time to take this up

at the moment but I will be back in a week and I am desperately

fighting the temptation to read ahead. I see little has changed since

the days when debating atheists and other assorted anti-christians was

something I did as a hobby for fun.

--

I first met her...in the Student Union at the University...sitting

across and down the table from each other. Our eyes met and that was

it. I was lost immediately in her soulful gaze (which I remember

vividly and tearfully even now) and was drawn inexorably from that

very moment into a love so certain that I never doubted anything about

it, other than the improbability that she would put up with me.

Things worked out. Glory to God!

-Mark Gilstrap

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the late reply.

>Ergh...I think I feel my brain exploding! I truly have no idea, and

>frankly I'm not terribly interested. I'm quite satisfied with my

>below average command of astrophysics and cosmology and recognize

>when I am in over my head!

>

>That said, what I would like to address is the underlying

>assumptions that (1) people who believe in God just don't understand

>or know enough about science, (2) we just haven't *yet* made the

>discovery that will conclusively disprove God and (3)that science

>bears full rights to truth. It is ridiculous that some believe they

>must subscribe to God/religion *or* science. Those who hold that

>truth is the domain of science alone have a true bias and need to be

>aware of how this framework from which they are operating from is

>limited.

>

>

1. Many people believe in God and have a good knowledge of science.

For example, my physics professor was an ordained Methodist minister.

But then look at the first paragraph you wrote and compare it to

statement 1 in the second paragraph. If you don't know about cosmology,

how can you argue any position on it?

2. Science has, over the centuries, relegated much of the once assumed

" work of God " or supernatural to very natural causes. This has often

caused violent reactions by the Church. (Interestingly many other

religions besides Christianity don't come into conflict with science).

We now know for instance that demons don't cause disease, that the earth

is not the center of the universe, the universe is billions of years

old, and so on.

3. Science deals in data. Philosophy deals with truth. Proving things

can be done in mathematics and logic, not science.

>Those who hold they won't/don't believe in God until science proves

>it otherwise put themselves in a pretty hopeless postition because

>this will never happen. You can say the opposite is true for

>believers- that they believe in God until someone proves otherwise.

>I think in the absence of absolute proof either way, this view is

>just plain more believable, not to mention hopeful and optimistic. I

>believe the heavens *do* declare the glory of God, and that the

>complexity of life and matter- really science itself- just

>reverberates with intelligence. God uses science and countless other

>ways to reveal himself if we are willing to listen.

>

>

Who says I won't or don't believe in God until science proves it?

>Seriously- consider sincerely asking God to reveal himself to you

>(or even challenge Him if that's more your style:) for this is what

>He promises.

>

>

I have asked. Isn't it rather presumptuous of you to assume that I

haven't? Are you assuming that I am atheist? I am not. God has

revealed to me very much to me. That is why I am not a Christian anymore.

Deanna