>The November 2006 post, “Beyond Belief: the Institutional Delusion of Scientism” commenting on the Belief net symposium on science and religion has a new life – with comments.
Paul Booth has left a new comment on your post “Beyond Belief: the Institutional Delusion of Scien…”:
“If you ask me (or read this far in the blog), a rational universe that is subject to measurements and study that yield consistant and ever sharper, more focused results in different labs and at different times does not preclude a Creator”
I dont think a single participant in the beyond belief conference would claim otherwise. Science does not claim disprove the existence of God. It does however demonstrate that ‘God’ as ‘he / she / it’ is conventionally conceived and depicted is incredibly unlikely. Science also is making inroads into understanding why we are likely to be susceptible to a belief in God.
Of course none of this affects me as a Jedi.
While “science” doesn’t claim anything, the practitioners of science may, given a forum.
However, if they have no more proof – and don’t expect to – if the who belief that there is nothing to believe in is a matter of faith, what’s the difference between religion with a Creator and religion of science?
>The religion of science has far fewer arbitary 'shalt' and 'shalt not's
>Watching the "Beyond Belief" videos and reading the continued conversation at the website and at the Edge, I see some pretty dogmatic people.The funniest thing is that Sam Harris comes in on the first day and sucks all the joy out of the room. It's like watching an old preacher giving a fire and brimstone sermon, without the promise of heaven. Before Harris appears, Weinberg has begun debating Krauss, but there's humor and a normal amount of back and forth. Harris gets up there and reads his version of the gospel to them, and the fun level goes down to nothing.