"For religion, after all, is the serious business of the human race." Toynbee, Civilization on Trial, 89.
---------

I'm delighted with your debates: such indicate the power of a "gene for" religion and the evolutionary value of swarms. People who want to get rid of religion will sooner or later be immersed in one. I also think Dawkins urges suicide when he calls religion a madness. Meanwhile, I tripped over the following.

JimB
---------

"When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn't an Atheist
By Gordy Slack November/December 1997 Mother Jones"

"How has religion held up under the scrutiny of modern science? Not well, according to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who believes the only reason religion is still with us at all is not because it has inherent worth but because it's as catching and incurable as any virus (see "Religion Is a Virus"). Others beg to differ.

"In his day, Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." More recently, a Nature survey of American scientists found about 40 percent of them to be religious. How do these scientists reconcile their understanding of the physical world -- of evolution, for example -- with their religious beliefs? To explore these and other questions, the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences sponsored interviews with more than 30 top scientists from a variety of fields. Here are a few of their responses..."

Lots more at http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat.../11/slack.html

Thank you brother Jim, but I think the only reason I continue to argue/debate so-called atheists is for sport. However, their typical lack intellectual honesty and rigor does grow tiresome.

Fred’s axiom: Atheism is a vacuum, ergo, atheism sucks.

If indeed there is a gene for religion, I’d say it’s probably the same gene(s) required to discover the truth of mathematics and the realities of the hard physical sciences; and not whatever it is that drives zoologist blowhards like Dawkins to blindly believe/accept and preach that a circular notion like “natural selection” is science or truly explains or predicts much of anything.

Asked by a reporter whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied: "Then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity."

Only because Newton wouldn't have bothered to investigate. He would have said "it's god'swill" and taken a longer nap.

Jim, if you like his arguments so much that you're willing to allow him to write crap like "I think the only reason I continue to argue/debate so-called atheists is for sport. However, their typical lack intellectual honesty and rigor does grow tiresome. ... Fred’s axiom: Atheism is a vacuum, ergo, atheism sucks" then count me out. Unbelievable.

Many a bridge has been spoiled by the troll beneath.

I like what Max Planck had to say, from a speech that he gave in Florence, Italy in 1944, entitled “Das Wesen der Materie” (The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter) (Quelle: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797.):