Stu sez (24 Mar 14 - 08:37 AM ):

I would also suggest religious folk don't aren't exclusively the ones contemplating the numinous and mysteries of existence; as a scientist I also seek the fundamental truths addressed in the visual arts, poetry, culture and importantly music.

And I would agree with that completely. Therefore, I think there is good reason for mutual respect and tolerance.

---

Musket sez (24 Mar 14 - 10:56 AM):

Joe. Who are the doctrine filled people who claim science as a certainty?

and (23 Mar 14 - 03:44 AM):

So the problem is, if you can't accept subtle forms of God, you are a fundamentalist and have no place in debate.
If someone is countering claims that faith contradicting scientific evidence is a conundrum, they aren't disrespecting faith, they are pointing out that the stories faith is built on shouldn't be confused with reality, yet intelligent people allow this to happen.
I can't understand it either. Superstition is so deeply ingrained it clouds reason. For that alone, it should be treated with caution.
I would remind Joe of the story of the King's new clothes.

---

I was responding to this rather doctrinaire post from Steve Shaw (22 Mar 14 - 10:09 PM), which proves my point:

Kevin McGrath: it (most religious faith) isn't in any way in conflict with scientific beliefs about biological or stellar evolution
Steve Shaw: Au contraire. It is absolutely in conflict with science (er, not "scientific beliefs", which don't exist). That is the argument of the pusillanimous religionist who knows at the bottom of his heart that "there must be something in this science malarkey". But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you think that "God" created everything, whether in 4004 BC or billions of years ago, you are insulting the scientific process, which must be predicated on evidence alpone, which is what as a God-squadder you have not got. Simple as that.

It's time you people figure out that fundamentalism is NOT the core of Christian religious belief. It is the creed of a relatively small, narrow-minded, and very vocal minority that spends a lot of money on media. Most religious believers feel far more at home with most atheists and agnostics, than they feel with the simple-minded born-again set (the one exception being the narrow-minded fundamentalist atheists, who are of the same ilk as their narrow-minded religious kin).

Since Musket has rephrased my statements so extensively, allow me to rephrase one of his restatements of what I said:

So the problem is, if you can't accept and respect those who pursue the idea of more subtle forms of God, you are a fundamentalist and have no place in debate.

I would ask a fundamentalist Christian to accept more subtle forms of God, but it would be disrespectful for me to ask an atheist or agnostic to accept any notion of God at all. All I ask is that they respect the people who seek meaning through a variety of belief systems and their thinking and beliefs. I think this is a reasonable request - to respect people and their beliefs, even though you may not agree with them.

-Joe-