Dear Banjo,
>>as you and Laplace seem to agree<<
>>I just gave my granddaughter a lesson in “methodological atheism”<<
>>one should not ignore one's religious prejudices<<

I think I got the message.

Nevertheless, provided I am wrong and you are stilll seriously interested in a debate about the interface between the philosophies of science and religion:

Science, like many other things, is not only not “specifically religious”, but religion has nothing to do with its findings and theories. This today rather obvious fact - opposed e.g. by supporters of Intelligent Design, and many pre-Enlightenment scientists - is sometimes called “methodological atheism” that you ridicule, although I agree that it is not a term as commonly accepted as I thought it was.

“Immaterial” in my dictionary means “spiritual, rather than physical” so I thought it was rather obvious that it was related to religion. Maybe you meant something else by it when you wrote “not just the material but also the immaterial, and not only within the realm of nature, but perhaps, also, beyond.” (See also e.g. http://bigthink.com/ideas/20718.)

I also agree that the term “world-view presuppositions” - meaning the often tacit basic assumptions, axioms or beliefs on which one builds one’s view of the world - is not that common. I was just trying to avoid the word “beliefs” because some atheists do not like it. Not so e.g. Richard Dawkins: “An atheist ... is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence ... no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles...” (The God Delusion). If you labelled these beliefs with a pejorative term prejudices, he probably would not see any point in continuing with a serious debate.

The same with me should you thus label all beliefs that are compatible with some religious model of reality.

OUG,

The creation of amino acids is not an issue, rather it is the assembly of amino acids into proteins, where we need to look at self-assembly or quantum effects. Assuming an open system, lighning is more likely to disturb the assembly process than to aid contruction.

Alernatively, perhaps, multiple short peptides joined. Combinations of 3-4 amino acid chains. This would still keep us in the macroscopic world.

If we do need to retreat from the macroscopic, given today's knowledge, I posit our first point of call is QM, before the supernatural. Here, I think George would accept a better developed interpretation of QM and macro interconnectiveness, to explain the first cell, if God is allowed to overarch the entire process.If I recall correctly, George once made a similar remark regarding Strings. I would differ with ur friend in than I would look towards natural systems, even, if said realms are different to those commonly experienced (macro)are invovled in the macroscopic world.

oliver/quote..<<perhaps,multiple short peptides joined.>>perhaps they did/but science being science/it needs evidence...if you have it present it

<<..Combinations of 3-4 amino acid chains.>>im not sure this is the area of the quantum[i thought quantum was at the molecular level;atoms/electons/protrons neutrons etc

<<This would still keep us/in the macroscopic world>>....meaning its dependant on the observer?...which observer is affecting the level below the quantum?

i have read in the next realms[for im sure multi-universes is the reality]..that all/is of the mind...this reality is made by us..interacting in its infinatly vairiable states...shaped by our loves and other passions[such as hate]

where like agrigates together...love with love..faith with faith..tryth with its self supporting/self confirming sameness creating its unique oneness[within its realm..for as jesus said..our fathers house has many rooms/realms

..<<where we need to look at self-assembly or quantum effects.>.within the bounds of similtude of our spirit essence's..united into oneness with others/

till we unite into the oneness..of all our others...beyond time and space[lets call its totality...the oneness of the one?]...which is reflected at the non quantum level...into these realities..

[liken the big bang/as our diveregence apart..that in time reverses back to the oneness..till in time/bang...we begin again...as some satanesque..rejects the all one and...falls[with a big bang

<<Assuming an open system,..lighning is more likely to disturb the assembly process than to aid contruction.>>.but its our differences that make us unique...even from the danger of lightening..we grow in our possable learnings

<<Alernatively>>.its all a fluke...chance...and behind it all is nothing..so why bother looking?

im sure neither of us will stop searching...if only for the want of knowing..as a sure=ity towards a logic beyond speculation..in the end its our diverence that is gods greatest gift to us all...[we each have our own face...our OWN mind..our OWN reasons[wow...thanks god

Dear OUG,

Assembly of groups of short-peptides would be still be in our realm. Where QM is said to perhaps play a role is where somehing very tiny becomes oberved and slips from superposition into our reality. Conventional chemistry and biology are not concerned about QM.

I agree its humanity's nature to search.

.

Dear George,

.

" ... the interface between the philosophies of science and religion".

Quite frankly, I am not convinced there is an interface between the philposophies of science and religion.

I see them as evolving in different spheres, in the same manner as the "philosophies" of science and theism, science and atheism, theism and religion, theism and atheism, or atheism and religion.

When one is, the other is not and vice versa. There is no common ground, no common boundary, no interaction.

Some of us are allowed to choose our sphere, most of us are not. Among those who are offered the choice, many are unable to choose.

May I suggest, without any ill intent, that the "interfacial philosophers" have yet to make their personal decision.

.

... "“methodological atheism” that you ridicule ..."

I thoroughly deserve your admonition, George. "Friendly mockery" is what I call it. It is directed, in this case, towards those (of my friends, usually) who employ what I consider unnecessarily pompous expressions in order to describe somethong quite simple.

Honesty compells me to plead guilty to the charges of "friendly mockery" and misplaced familiarity.

To my discharge, I beg the court to take into account the fact that, as my track record bears witness, I have never indulged in "friendly mockery" of anybody whom I have not held in the highest esteem.

I also wish to draw the attention of the jury to the sifnificance of my pseudonym on this forum. Was it not the bard who wrote:

http://www.wallisandmatilda.com.au/man-from-ironbark.shtml

.

“Immaterial” in my dictionary means “spiritual, rather than physical” so I thought it was rather obvious that it was related to religion. Maybe you meant something else by it ..."

I meant anything which is not "material": thought, ideas, qualia etc.

.

" ... If you labelled these beliefs with a pejorative term prejudices ..."

Not just these, but all beliefs.

Beliefs are veils through which we observe reality. The less the beliefs, the better we see. I consider them prejudicial.

Perhaps you may find "bias" more acceptable.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>When one is, the other is not and vice versa. There is no common ground, no common boundary, no interaction. <<

Of course, you have the right to thus dismiss any field of enquiry, but then there is indeed no point for me to continue, as I suspected in my previous post. Others think otherwise, but we were there already: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#174670.