Guest PMB: "when I kicked off this discussion was to talk about, not the details of different people's beliefs, but the problems brought about by non- reciprocated tolerance- the feeling that some groups are exploiting this without attempting to do their part in return"

There is a Fench wtiter whose name is Jean Vien (I think, or something like that). He wrote a book called "The Temptations of Totalitarianism" in which he argued that pluralism in any society is a transient phase and will always be so. It is preceeded by one kind of totalitarianism or another and followed by the same. This happens because at any point in history where you have different cultures etc., living alongside one another, sooner or later these clash over differences in meaning, way of life etc.,

Thes clashes are not always over religion, though Europe was plagued by religious wars since the First Crusades in particular. Bu then so was ancient Rome, when pagan Romans persecuted Christians as a dangerous undergorund sect until that religion "took over" (for want of a better word).

Fear is another factor, one group fears the other (or is egged on to fear them) and the result is violent clashes as the fearful group attempt to dominate the other group as a way of controlling their own fears.

In short, Jean was saying enjoy pluralist society because history shows it won't last. One group will always assert itself and dominate over others around it eventually, and the cycle will start all over again.

" Religion is one way of framing thought, and has offered and delivered much over the years (as well as the opposite). But it can not replace rationality"

As John Hardly has pointed out religion is not necessarily irrational depending on a) which religion you are talking about and b) your world / paradigm view.

I think you may be confusing 'rational' with 'empirical' since faith-based beliefs do not yield the kind of hard data demanded by empirical science. It is quiet rational to pray and fast and do all the other stuff if you believe you will be answerable to God after you die. It is irrational not to do so.

The empirical sciences are good at what they do - explaining the physical world. They are not good at dealing with the metaphysical since that is outside science's terms of reference. Even attempts to record data on ghosts / the afterlife etc., though of interest, shows science's paucity in this field. Scientists do not find any evidence of ghosts with all their instruments and formulae. Their training and bias as scientists then leads them to conclude, ergo, there are no such thing as ghosts or the afterlife.

But it is outside their scope of imagination to suggest to themselves they may be using the wrong tools, the wrong methodology, even the wrong conceptual approach. Biologists are particularly susceptible to this for some reason, and I have had biologists expound to me various theories to explain human behaviour and needs that bordered on what the biologists themselves would have described as faith-based ideas.

Remember how early 'scientists' - alchemists (who laid the foundation for science with their experiments etc.,) chased after something in the wrong way: trying to turn base metal into gold. They used all the wrong tools, approach concepts etc., A sceptic of the time would have described it as faith and superstition. But dream became reality when Lord Rutherford performed the first sucessful transmutation into gold in 1919. Just a couple of atoms, not going to make anyone rich, but a transmutation all the same. Science may achieve similar feats regarding the afterlife etc., one day with an approach currently outside our imagination to grasp. Then again they may not, and such knowledge may remian forever elusive. This cannot be taken as proof of the non-existence of these thinsg however, or we would be making the same mistake as the sceptics of alchemists back in the 16, 17 and 1800s.

Religion / spirituality addresses a different part of human experience, one either outside or overlapping with the physical and seemingly beyond teh description of the sciences that deal with the physical. Scientists (and I suppose I'm thinking of those like Richard Dawkins here) need to come to terms with that. Some already have and accept science for what it can do and also accept its current limits.