I'm very short of time these days, but I try my best to follow this fascinating thread and sadly I cannot find the time to contribute more.

One point that strikes me is the view expressed by several members here as if:

"science and religion derive from a common human impulse... It is only very recently that science and religion have diverged sufficiently to be identified as separate pursuits"

I totally disagree.

Religion and science are near opposites - religion takes one away from this world, towards God, while science is curiosity-driven in relation to this world, thus Genesis refers to it as the forbidden "tree of knowledge", the major sin of being interested in the world instead.

It is true that the medieval Christian church for example was interested in science, but that is not BECAUSE of its religion but DESPITE it, it is because curiosity has overcome the clergy just like any other human weakness, hence to the extant that this science is presented as a religious feature, it represents the deterioration and corruption of the church rather than its religion (whatever was left of it).

Dear david f,

>> I was representing vectors as numbers<<

That is an unusual terminology; one distinguishes between numbers (scalars) and vectors, but never mind.

As I understand your post, most of it does not contradict what I wrote here about Christianity/religion, except for - as you know - my objection to the “kidnapping” of terms likle rational, reasonable (or moral) to support a theist or atheist basic worldview assumption: I believe there are reasonable and unreasonable, rational and irrational theists as well as atheists and the same for moral and immoral.

>>Your belief in God and my atheism are not products of reason and cannot be defended by reason.<<

I agree. In the same sense that one cannot use reason to derive an axiom from something else. That is, except for the word “defend” if that means providing arguments that are convincing for some, not convincing for others.

For instance, in philosophy of science one speaks of scientific realism and constructive empiricism (both having nothing to do with theism or atheism) and philosophers argue - defend their view, if you like - which one is more insightful, (“truthful” in common, everyday language). I personally like both the approaches, that give me a “stereo vision” of philosophy of science (having implications also for my vision of the philosophy of religion), and I think our insights into reality would be impoverished if one ignored one of these perspectives.

>>humans have believed in many gods. I believe in one less than you believe in<<

This is a standard misunderstanding (confusing representation with what is being represented), that I can try to explain only through a metaphor:

I have many photos of my father, some taken by a professional, some of poor quality, etc. But I am still aware I had only one father, and cherish one photo of him that is my favourite. Somebody else who never knew my father, especially if he has no information about him except some technically very poor photos, might conclude that they are not of the same person, or that such a person never existed.

(ctd)

(ctd)

>>They leave me with the insulting, "I'll pray for you.”<<

I know the experience (Jehovah’s Witnesses?) but I fail to understand what is insulting in somebody wishing for me something he/she finds good, even if I do not find it good and do not wish for it. This is different from wishing something that the wisher would not want to happen to himself/herself.

Yuyutsu,

>>It is true that the medieval Christian church for example was interested in science, but that is not BECAUSE of its religion but DESPITE it, it is because curiosity has overcome the clergy just like any other human weakness,<<

Do you mean to say that the pursuit of science, with the ensuing technological achievements, is - or resulted from - a human weakness that we should rather not succumb to?

Davidf, I don't read Peter's articles the same way, although I must admit to having been a little taken aback at times. I'm sure he can speak for himself, but it seems to me that he, like the rest of us, is struggling honestly to make sense of his world and his articles are to some extent a part of that.

On the other hand, there are several atheists who post here and elsewhere who quite explicitly state that their intent is to "change minds", which they seek to do by trying to show that religion is foolish. This is proselytising of the least commendable sort, based not on seeking mutuality, but on sneering faux-superiority designed to destroy a working belief structure, but offering nothing workable at the personal level to replace it.

Might I suggest that if you feel threatened by missionaries then you have a simple solution available to you? Post a polite sign at your gate stating they are not welcome.

I don't bother, since it seems to me that they are mostly sincere people who get little reward for their efforts so if I take the time to wish them well, accept their literature even if I just bin it when they leave, offer them a cool drink and thank them for their interest it is a decent thing to do that costs me little. I've always found that if I tell them up front that I have incompatible views we can have a friendly chat and part amicably.

If a person is well linked within a community then they will hardly be susceptible to "breaking bonds" by the appearance of a missionary. On the other hand, if a person lacks such links, then perhaps they may be more open to the possibility and still no bonds are broken.

How many people around the world do you think might be estranged in the way you suggest? Even if it is as high as 1 million, which seems extremely unlikely, that is about 7/1000 of 1%.

Davidf, Steelie and co have to be all part of the ploy to destroy Western Civilisation. I do know that David Fisher's most favourite religion he hates is Christianity. He is all for the NEW WORLD ORDER.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/09/14/illuminati-origins-of-secret-government-the-mental-fatal-disease-of-militant-narcissists-stop-them-cold-protect-the-constitution/

The Zionists using their control of Freemasonary thus creating the PROTESTant reformations and so called Enlightenment in order to divide the Church.

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2015/02/09/another-jpmorgan-banker-murder-suicide-added-to-the-list-of-71-dead-nwo-bankers-by-un-natural-causes/

Illuminati: Origins of Secret Government
http://youtu.be/LHi3xeTTHP4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

SCIENCE FLOURISHED UNDER CHRISTIANITY. FACT! There were so many clergy who were also scientists, inventors etc.

There has been nothing but Communist propaganda since the Reformation against the Catholic Church. Incredible devious LIES.

The Jew: Commissary to the Gentiles
The First to See the Possibilities of War by Propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Eli_Ravage
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/commissary.html&date=2009-10-25+12:14:32

http://www.darkmoon.me/2014/key-quotations-from-you-gentiles-by-maurice-samuel/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Levy
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/levy.htm
Dr. LEVY, A JEW, ADMITS HIS PEOPLE'S ERROR

“As a learned Jew, Moses Mendelssohn, said: "Judaism is not a religion, but a Law religionised".

So there you have it. Think Communism, think Jew. Think Marxism, think Jew. Think Trotskyism, think Jew.

And how many people have they killed throughout history, all the wars and revolutions. 60 million DEAD in Russia, all the intelligentsia and elites and Christians in the Katyn Massacre in Poland - both Christian nations. Killing off the monarchies. COLD BLOODEDNESS. Unbelievable.

Yet why are we only constantly reminded of the Holocaust? Tell me?

Because the media and Hollywood is controlled by Jews. And so are the banks. Think Rothchilds who have caused just about all the wars in our history.

Think NEW WORLD ORDER. We have to stop this Commie nightmare becoming a reality.