Graham Y,
I think the posts by yorkshire_pudding and Desmond should sufficiently illustrate why you cannot expect here a serious discussion of the questions you (and pelican) pose. There are books written to deal with your questions, nevertheless let me try some brief (hence superficial) answers.

God “lighting the fuse and walking away” is a God of deism, that many - including some non-Christian scientists - subscribe to. For me it is even less convincing than the position of outright atheists. The concept of God - like any other concept - evolves: Within Christianity the biblical concept of God was enriched by Hellenistic insights, and it is probably going to be enriched again in view of the emerging insights from physics (that would unite quantum theory and relativity theory), evolutionary psychology and neuroscience. An enrichment that must remain compatible with (though not reducible to) the biblical concept, however, on a higher level.

God - at least as I understand Him - cannot be a “science project” since by His very nature he is not reducible - only “projected” - to the physical world. God in this sense belongs to a realm where the objective and subjective are intertwined, unlike the realm investigated by science (despite the Copenhagen School). He is the answer to the question of purpose, for those for whom the question makes sense, and who cannot accept the belief that the physical world - us within it - is its own purpose, or that its existence has no purpose at all. Philosophers (not scientists) can investigate God only in the sense you investigate the shadows of an object that you cannot see (nor the light source) directly. For Christians the Bible is a guideline, not a replacement, for critical (metaphysical, ethical) thinking. Like observation and experiments are important for a scientist, but cannot replace critical thinking and theory-building.

Also, evolution - like Quantum Mechanics, Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc - is not a “core belief of Catholicism”, but simply a scientific insight compatible with what the Church stands for (although there were some irritations until mid 20th century).

Well thanks George - but my post isn't the problem. The problem with this topic is its premise - that religion or the religious make any sense. In reality, religion is a bad joke and a sad indictment on the failure of the human race to make real intellectual progress. Unfortunately, the joke, bad or otherwise, just isn't funny. Religion is and has been too destructive and only when the human race wakes up and rids itself of churches and their priests will we have any real chance of achieving our potential for a just and peaceful world.

And to answer another contributor, religion has nothing to do with spirituality - for which I have every respect. Religion is about ignorance, superstition and power and, by definition, those that practice it are either foolish or self serving. Of course they want to have it both ways - to pretend to scientific objectivity whilst worshipping fairies at the bottom of the garden - but it doesn't wash. 'Christian' has its origin in the swiss 'Cretin' which is fairly apt.

George, thanks for your contribution. I might have over-stated the Catholic Church's position on evolution, although given its general position on science, perhaps not. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but they have a very interesting entry on this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

And I think something comes out of this on the issue of whether God can be a "science project". Catholics, and I think mainstream Christian churches are similar, see reason as being one way of approaching God. Science is really just reason applied to the world. So I can't see how we can say that science can't be used to understand God.

There are some things that you must accept because reason says they are true, and these must feed back into our understanding of God. For example, we know that in the world pain and suffering happen. This then gives rise to a theological debate about the problem of pain and how to reconcile this with the idea of a good god. Although one shouldn't kid oneself that this is a new debate - it is essentially what the book of Job is about.

There are probably a lot of text books I could look these things up in, but I prefer to argue them out with others. There is nothing to say the text books are right, and even if they are, where's the fun in just reading them?

These conversations do veer around, but I think one of the useful "veerings" is a challenge to say exactly what we mean when we talk about "God". I suspect I use the term in ways that most would find very uncoventional.

"Catholics, and I think mainstream Christian churches are similar, see reason as being one way of approaching God. Science is really just reason applied to the world. So I can't see how we can say that science can't be used to understand"

By definition, belief in fairies is neither rational nor reasonable and if science equates with reason then it would be pointless applying it to gain some understanding of them - a fiction. The same applies in relation to 'god' or 'gods' because, by christ, there have been an awful lot of them and all with as much claim as one another to rule.

As Herodotus said - and I paraphase: If there is a god, either god is not omnipotent or god is malevolent, for a good god who was omnipotent would prevent the horrors of the world.

In fact, we know, as Herodotus did, 2000 years ago, that the whole god thing is a farce perpetuated on the masses by those who would control them for their own ends. Priests have always been in league with rulers and their authority as stupidly bizarre as is the notion of a hereditary monarchy ... funny that!

Yorkshire pudding
I do not believe in any God.
And yes some miss used God, any of them to control others.
But as Gods evolved ,and they mostly do, different hands at at the controls.
You can find much more than control in the Christian Bible.
Look and you will see that road map for life I see, not control but a clear direction for a better life.
GY your contributions confirm my view, even religion is evolving.
It must, as we gain understanding we move on bringing our toys with us.
We each know, at some level how great it would be, if we could place our problems in the hands of a higher being.
Or that a funeral was just a gateway, in the strangest way we need something to believe in.
I believe in humanity, we wrote every book of every God.
And we continue to evolve.

Hey Graham, I agree with your views on the 'science project'. I would suggest if a God exists, and he did have a hand in creating, or 'evolving' Humanity, it must logically be so his creation would one day understand Him/Her/It, since that appears to be what we do best.
As I mentioned in another post, it is impossible to deny at least the possibility of a 'God of the Gaps', at least until we have perfect knowledge of the 'why' of the Cosmos, as well as the 'how'.
At which time, we will have effectively become God, since mere mortals can always hope to learn more.
George, you have provided an interesting echo to the Platonic ideal, but I feel you have not addressed the paradigm that humans have laboured under since the very first 'scientists'; the shamans who first came up with convincing explanations for the why of thunder and lightning, sunny days, the beauty and the callousness of nature; and what impels humans to do the wrong things, even when they know them to be wrong.
This is the paradigm the vast majority of us have grown up with, and find almost impossible to shake, no how much reason we apply.
I believe it subconsciously defines not only our philosophy, but also to some degree, our science; although this is perhaps finally changing.
We are all prisoners of our own preconceptions.