(ctd)
pelican,
>> I cannot accept your analogy with photons. <<
Well, all I wanted to say was that by the very nature of what one calls photons, you cannot touch them. And by the very nature of what we call God (or the Divine), you cannot observe Him (It) in the sense of sensual or scientific observation.

Of course, you can consider superfluous the assumption about His (Its) existence, and indeed the Occam‘s razor argument is the hardest for a believer to deal with: one has to factor in subjective experience.

Your following paragraphs say that one cannot arrive at the acceptance of a a Divine existence (God) from within science. Of course, I agree.

You jump from metaphysics to ethics, but your quote of Schweitzer is indeed relevant, showing a common ground where theists and atheist can meet. Something similar to Schweitzer’s universal concept of ethics expressed in his “Reverence for Life” is Hans Kueng’s “World Ethos”, favourably referred to even by the present Pope.

When talking about religion one often operates with evidence, although it is a subjective criterion and depends on many psychological and cultural factors. It is not the same thing as “scientific evidence” which is not - should not be - subjective (though even here there are some ambiguities - see e.g. Thomas Kuhn or social constructivists of science).

Now you jump again. I agree the Catholic Church used to be secretive about many things but I think by now they have learned their lesson, e.g. they are gradually opening the Vatican archives to anybody with scholarly credentials. I do not know how they could “keep secret the details of the investigation” into the Dead Sea Scrolls since they are not the only ones with access to them.

Oliver,
I know, my interpretation of hell has its faults: it would assign to Hitler the same “punishment” as to, say, Dawkins. However, I do not know how else to understand the meaning of “eternal damnation”. I could speculate on some passages from the Scripture, however that is rather your domain.

Pericles,
>> the reason so many people trust science, is that at its most basic level, it is perfectly understandable<<
So are the tenets of e.g. Christianity trusted by Christians, and most of them are also satisfied with a “basic (uncritical) level” of understanding (of the narratives and concepts involved).

>>I can repeat the latter experiment ... many times ..., and still reach the same conclusion.<<
However, you cannot experiment with events from past history by repeating them, be they epoch-shattering, “miraculous” or just ordinary.

>>The suggestion here is that it is just as impossible for a non-theologian to believe in God, as it is for a non-scientist to believe in photons. ...<<
Not to “believe in“, but to “have a critical understanding of“ the concept, though in the former case I would add to theology also some insight into philosophies of religion and science<<

>> Which I guess must be why I need a degree in theology, to believe in God?<<
You need a degree in maths to understand what differential geometry is all about, but you do not need it to understand euclidean geometry as taught at school. The same about the concept of God: you need to know something about philosophy of religion and of science to appreciate e.g. the reasoning of theology-qualified scientists like Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne etc.

Belief in God, or more precisely religious faith, is a state of mind for which you do not need philosophical, scientific or theological qualifications. Only if you start attacking it on the rational level, you need to be thus informed to understand the defense that you force Christian intellectuals to carry out on the same level. You cannot attack a naive understanding of God, and then complain when your objections are also seen as naive.

>> it is highly likely that non-scientific evidence will in every instance be less reliable than the scientific<<
That is true, provided (a) it is unequivocally clear what they are evidences of, and (b) they are, or purport to be, the same kind of knowing, able to contradict each other.

george, you're putting the academic cart before the horse.

before suggesting someone needs a critical understanding in something, it would be good to give them a reason to believe in any of it. i can do that for differential geometry: i can explain a hell of a lot of the meaning and the purpose to a layperson. i'm sure you can too. but i don't see you or your scholarly heroes doing the same for "god".

the question is whether "theology qualified" means anything. the answer may come from listening to the "theology-qualified", but the onus is upon them to demonstrate that they are worth listening to. and "you need a degree" doesn't cut it, neither for differential geometry nor for god.

bushbasher>>before suggesting/give them a reason.>>any reason would be my opinion,...what the use giving driving/tips to one not wanting to drive?

<<..scholarly/heroes doing the same for"god"..>>..[god needs us to do nothing...[he does it all for us,..jesus revealed..who will lead you will serve you..[because you cannot know the/server of life..but by serving the'life']..as he serves ALL life,..by giving and sustaining that'life'..to its higher-realisation..[acording to our level of''WANTING''to know]..thirst..to..know.

<<..whether.."theology qualified"means''anything>>..depends who is capable of framing the question,..then wether able to follow the reply.

<<..demon-strate...worth listening to.>>>the skill is to know the listener is ready to listen..[ready to ask;the questions]..god replies directly,..his-still/quiet voice..[god has no need to yell..[a listener is capable of hearing his wisper]..the trouble comes when we dont recognise that of god[good]..and..that of ego..[not good,..not/god]

<<"you need a degree"doesn't cut it..>>correct,..see that your correctness comes via...knowing what you allready know..lol..like an ear for music..many good and true really dont know music..lol

..till you can throw out all vile[and retain only the good..[thus good from god,..FROM ANY SOURCE,..YEARN to know the ALL GOOD,..all living,all loving..all mercyfull god

even a beast[in a stable],knows the voice of his master,but that the knowing comes only by hearing the good his master..god..[alone]doth give...

>>god is one...unique,..knowable by reading the good of the teachings[who managed to know god..then by hearing..him one to one..[the personal good]

see that many are called but few were chosen,they recieved true belief,that made them our many messengers..[till ego presumed them to realise the anti/god..[anti-good].. of self/ego,..where we go too far..and humanise the supreem/good into the faulse/wrathful/judgmental..god..that even our best god/messengers helped to realise into the holy texts.

all are human..[even the many messengers]..being human we make simple human[ego based]lapses that break us sepperate from the living love,..

god is ALLWAY's good loving etc..[never any exception]..any vile can-NOT come from god,...till we get that...we cannot ever seek to know him,..and the best messenger's..[being human]..can and will have lapses

[BUT NEVER will GOD DEVIATE ONE IOTA from his eternal living/good,grace/mercy].

its a good thing he dosnt demand,..because..our faith is so weak,
atonement..[at one meant]...[at one..with living/love]

NOTE..children love unbiasedly,like god,

George,

Thank for your perspectives.

Older Catholic doctrine aside, the Christian Church's apparent position of "one size fits all" punishment is curious to me. It would seem to me odd to treat Dawkins, Sagan and Hilter the same. Dawkins attacks religion, Sagan said the universe is wonderful and science can provide tangible answers, Hitler, the only theist, was a mass murder. The kind and the magnitude of their sins (from a theist's perspective)is differenent.

My take based on a limited knowledge of the scripture would be, Dawkins & Sagan have not sinned against the Holy Spirit, because they do not believe in God. They are not in his Christian house to split it. Hitler, on the other hand, believed in God. Had he not asked for forgiveness in the Bunker, he died with sin. This raises the theological question was say an unrepentent Hitler condemned, because of his state of sin or, because he was Christian, was he saved, owing to Christ's substitutionary ransom on behalf of believers?

Aside: Of the three mentioned I prefer Sagan. Obviously not Hitler. Dawkins is missionary, like sells for the other team.

Hope it is okay to test these ideas with you. I find yourself and Philo, more willing to discuss matters than say Sells.

Oliver

OUG,

The following might prove informative.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~cosmology/Cosmo5.pdf

Note, we cannot see back into before about 300,000* years after the Big Bang, because the early universe is invisible. [URL author suggests 380,000 years]. The author tests both quantum mechanics and relativity. The author’s particle energy E, includes Mass having chemical potential. Entropy -as the logarithm of the different ways particles are distributed- is implicit in these equations.

Thermodynamics are relevant to the Big Bang. I beg to differ with you.

[To my naïve eye the author doesn’t include (particle) spin in order to address symmetry violation.

Also, acceleration to light speed of unreal vacuum fluctuations, leads to amplification of said unreal vacuum state to create a real waveform. Vacuum fluctuations relate to electromagnetic and gravitational waveforms in a way similar electrons do, when confronted with claustrophobic degeneracy.There is a heap of energy in a small (phase) space and one can't pin it down!]

I am fairly busy with cleaning data for my own equations at the moment, to fully address thermodynamics in metabolism:

For now, I am with Schrodinger: Metabolism involves thermodynamics. The position remains, I feel organic molecules are made up of elements.We are fuelled by energy from external systems. Earthly life is based on the element, Carbon. Carbon is in the Periodic Table.