Sum of the first two numbers multiplied by the first.

Thank you, Jesus, for a high IQ.

…cont’d
Rusty,
In short, I’ve not tried to dodge anything but have been willing to accept greater minds than mine are likely have a more precise grasp on history and its perception than mine. Suffice to say, the founder of Quantum Physics certainly strikes almost sufficient resonance for me: “Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.” (Planck )

Consequently, I have no need to “try again.” Scientific enquiry requires there be no bias in our method and I believe Sells has correctly pointed to the prejudicial view of slamming, per se, anything or everything religious. Ignore Planck if you will, or as bushbasher may say of Shroedinger, “that he is simply in fact wrong” – I’ll put my money on a ‘tacit’ understanding of a reality that is transcendent as it is subjective in its experience.

Never mind the “elephant” bushbasher, in this discussion we have all we require as you are in no need of an authority. Make up your own mind – which I’m sure you have.

Squeers,
One can’t deny the oppression occurring in the name of religion because it has always included the poorest of its practitioners. Even its best are fallible… but as Don G would suggest, it’s best not to give the religious secular authority for power inherently corrupts (Shakespeare).

I'm sure I already pointed this, but I'll point this out again- in the ENTIRE arguments essentially boiling down to the Catholic authority's/practices in regards to science, the best arguments the opposition has to come up with have to be based on 'spirituality'- which may well have zilch to do with Catholocism- and this has been going on for about 10 pages seemingly overlooked/forgotten.

If anything, it just strengthens the point that the Catholic church IS a pointless waste of space that has been more a detriment upon humanity (especially Europe) than a positive.

Bushbasher, King Hazza et al...

So what are your thoughts on Jurgen Habermas's proposition that the Secular Theory is dead, but not quite buried. That post-secular thought sees the value in both the secular and the religious informing each other and recognising their own particular limitations. A proposition supported by then Cardinal Ratzinger - now Pope Benedict XVI

There is a touch of the dinosaur in much the rants of the anti-religious in these forums.

Arguably it depends on the 'religion' too- you could ask that question to a secular person and get a different answer when the religion 'offering' something is Christianity, Budhhism, scientology, Islam and perhaps a pagan religion.

On one hand, the religious have taken full advances of scientific improvements (one example being, the computer), but I'd like to ask what the religious- particularly the catholics- have to offer science, other than something for scientists to study like any other topic. Or even to those of us in the secular world who do are presently doing quite fine without them and quite capable of performing good deeds without them.

It's easy to say "something's missing" without actually having to tell us what that "something" is- or why we need the Christians to provide it, instead of just say, the Buddhists- who I might add, fit much more neater into the secular world without compromising themselves than the Catholic faith and institutions have.

relda, your posts have progressed from strained to farcical. as keating would say, you're all tip, no iceberg.

boxgum, give me a single example of religious thought "informing" in any sensible manner and i'll consider the rest of your posts.