While it may be true to say that any god that has been defined can't take place scientifically (although I rather doubt that anyone has taken all of the ways that god or divinity has been defined and shown that they can't take place scientifically - I suspect that they just used the definitions from the more well known religions, if, in fact anyone has actually conducted such an examination, and I also would be interested in seeing the scientific studies that have established that even they cold not take place scientifically if they do exist). If someone were to define divinity or god as being the life force that exists in all of life and all of creation (all there is), it would not be possible to say that this can't take place scientifically. At least not with the science we have now. Especially with some of the new theories that are coming out of the realm of quantum physics which hold that all matter is made up of energy. It would not be possible to demonstrate scientifically that such energy could not have consciousness. There are many ways of thinking of a god that would not be inconsistent with what can take place scientifically.


On the subject of culpability of others besides the extremists themselves in not holding The Family to the legal standards we say we embrace in this country, it's not only Republicans who are culpable. There are Democrats who are involved, in one way or another, in the Family as well. Quite a few Democrats attend their prayer breakfasts, and this may account for their turning a blind eye to what The Family is doing.


I agree. I think what Blumenthal has done is very important. I am hoping to eventually be able to get the book that the talk in the opening post is based on.