>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?