it is really good to hear from you progressive Pat in contrast to the regressive new athiest whose faith thankfully is being rejected by a great number. They now need to produce instead of pretending it is only the íntellectual elite'who really understand that something come from nothing. The fruit of their godliness is on display for all to see except of course those who fail to examine themselves.

Whilst I agree with your general argument, Brian, as a dyed-in-the-wool pedant, I must point out the glaring factual error in your opening statement. Natural nuclear fission has occurred at least once in the Earth's history, 1.7bn years ago, in Africa.

I also must take issue with your statement that, 'the holistic perspective that New Agers have is a good thing for the world'. Firstly, is it really 'holistic'? In general, the Newage (rhymes with sewage) idea of 'holism' means, in practice, little more than espousing woolly spiritualist bunkum *instead of* evidence or logic-based thinking.

And that is most definitely *not* 'a good thing for the world'.

Here Here ! Clownfish very nicely put.
But I fear results missing , perhaps Electro Therapy...........?

You're grabbing at the wrong straw, progressive pat.

>>I can't understand why the new atheists see science as some modern invention that will lead us to utopia and tell us how to behave and think, as if science will ever have the capability to answer moral questions.<<

I'm not sure anyone here is suggesting that science is a modern invention, nor that it can answer moral questions.

Mr Holden is simply pointing out the predilection of some humans to reject scientific explanations in favour of magic, the supernatural, shamanism and New Age antics. Now, it is possible for you to feel that he is subtly classifying your religion in the latter categories, but that is only an interpretation.

Religion is a purely emotional response to life, since it has absolutely no basis in observable fact. That is its entire purpose, after all, to fill in the gaps between the realities of which we are aware, with fables. Some of these fables are soothing and comforting - "God is looking after you", that sort of thing. And some of them are morally educational - "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's".

In the same way that science is completely silent on the topic of moral behaviours, religion is totally lacking in any guidance towards the factual composition of our universe.

And that's exactly the way it should be. One is not a substitute for the other. They have entirely different purposes.

By the way, Brian, are you based around Launceston, may I ask? I believe I've recognised you, from your photo, in the street once or twice. I thought of introducing myself and saying hello, but I thought you might be cross at me for disagreeing with you so often ;)

Clownfish,

Hear, hear: it's really nice to know I'm not the only man alive familiar with the realities of the Oklo reactor. And it's even nicer to know that there are other folk in the world who prize empirical information above woolly spiritualist bunk.

What a shame you're a Southern Nancy (Tasmanian) - if you were closer to home I'd invite you out for a drink.