Once again, to compare Religion and Science is to compare apples and oranges. So it is those who engage in this comparison (or a debate between the two) who have the big problem - and not Religion nor Science. Would one compare (debate) which is better biology or mathematics? Or the sense of smell and the sense of hearing? Are not both invisible stimuli needed for one's total well being?
One scientific basic is: One cannot prove negative facts. In this case, "No soul" .... "No After-Life" ... "Absence of God" .... etc. And the positive / opposite can only be proven by circumstantial evidence. The worst that atheist say about God is, the abuses in organized religions (during some ancient period of their long history). They say little about the above three, which is really where true atheists (like true believers) should concentrate. Or else both groups are just "petoita murre" with some on their silly, "who is better?" discussion. When I visited California, among many, I met an immigrant Croatian physician who is retired. Croatians (unlike Serbians) are Roman Catholic. Among other social things we talked about, was his past time. It was his atheism! The doctor daily spent an hour in atheistic meditation, and a few more hours reading on the subject, e-mailing other like minded individuals, etc. I told him my limited contact with atheists. I asked him why atheists hate their former religion? He responded that these individuals were just confused and not true atheists. He did get his sons (non-practicing Catholics) recently married in the Catholic Church. Who am I question him about this? Perhaps he and his sons may find his Croatian roots, after their walk in the wilderness, while enjoying and thanking God for all the wonderful things around. So my conversation with this doctor was fruitful, because he told me what he DID. And I respected him for his ACTIONS. He did not demagogue what others did or are doing. Kind Regards, GL PS: Let me take this opportunity to return the compliment to Marlon on his statement (which Cornel selected below), "Obvious that scientists as individuals will make errors based on their incorrect interpretation of the facts or simply because of the lack of a complete set of data." This is just brilliant. It should make all true / honest scientists bend on their knees and say, "Bogos Saiba". I do not know what the pseudo-scientist would do. Perhaps blame God for their human shortcomings.:=)) ------------ cornel one key difference between scientific theorizing and religion is that all science is open to falsification. Religious belief by its nature is not, as it is based on faith and not amenable to empirical testing. By way of interest, my students generally had no trouble debating whether there was empirical evidence for the existence of God Science can never be a religion nor does it aspire towards such an end. ----------- Marlon Menezes > For once, Gilbert is making some sense. It is obvious > that scientists as individuals will make errors based > on their incorrect interpretation of the facts or > simply because of the lack of a complete set of data. _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
