My point is that "science vs. religion" is a false dichotomy to begin with. They are not commensurate. And you've been reading my posts long enough by now, Coyoteman, to know that I'm aware of the differences between them, and usually stress these differences.
Which is why I worry when they are being "blended": when scientific observations are endued with metaphysical elements so to produce a "world picture" or cosmology which is utterly materialistic, positivistic, deterministic, anti-God — and anti-Man — which is then embraced with full religious fervor by those who espouse this creed, or doctrine. And then clearly, it is literally "evangelized to the masses."
If you doubt that's true, then how do you account for Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' recent best-selling books?
If you doubt that’s true, then how do you account for Richard Dawkins’ and Sam Harris’ recent best-selling books?
***I agree with what you say, BB. However, it does seem a little bit unfair to ask a question of Coyoteman when he’s been told by the religion mod to leave the thread. My suggestion is that he can post & answer the same question on the parallel open thread.
Sigh. I thought things were going well, and I did not even perceive C-man’s pointed remarks as antagonism, probably because the level of vitriol on crevo threads is so high that such low-level snipes go unnoticed. I hope that C-man continues to log onto any ecumenical threads that deal with crevo, because he is a valuable asset to the discussion, even though I disagree with him. The rules are the rules, and I would much rather see an energetic enforcement of them than a lackadaisical let-them-fight-it-out approach because such an approach leads to endless flamewars. We already have that on crevo threads.