Shimrod says: religious faith is the fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence - the very antithesis of science.

Well then, that's settled. I guess I don't have faith.

Either that, or perhaps I'd be a fool to accept a definition of faith from somebody intent on refuting it.

I also don't accept definitions of faith from extremist religious people who are cocksure that they're the only ones who possess the truth.

There are so many similarities between them and those I call "born-again atheists," who are also cocksure that they're right and others are wrong. Both are quick to condemn; and it almost seems that their primary focus in life is condemn others.

I guess I just don't understand what's behind those who are so driven to ridicule, redefine, and condemn any way of thinking that is not their own. It's dangerous to think in absolutes, no matter what school of thought one espouses - even science. Believe it or no, science has failed us before - remember eugenics? I think it's far better to consider things from a variety of perspectives, even from various religious perspectives. If we look at things from various directions, we're far more likely to come up with a valid approximation of reality.

For years, I've called myself a "radical moderate." I try to consider all perspectives respectfully - and that means that NOBODY ever sees things my way. I find that both atheist and religious extremists constantly redefine and ridicule what I have to say. Musket calls me a "boutique Christian," and neoconservative Catholics call me a "Cafeteria Catholic." Note the similarity - both sides can see only absolutes.

But back to the first post - I had a little trouble figuring out which podcast Donuel was referring to, since there are several on the link - http://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444899/pri-studio-360. I guess it's the Studio 360 podcast titled "Do Animals Have Culture?" The program explores the question whether animals make aesthetic judgments and do things for purely aesthetic reasons. Some, no doubt, will ridicule those who would pose this question, saying that to do so is to anthropomorphize animals.

I think some of our Mudcat absolutists are afraid to anthropomorphize humans, denying the value of any human endeavor that cannot be defined in their pseudo-scientific terms.

I think we're far better off to consider all things, not closing ourselves off to any attempt to pursue any question. Of course it's important to consider aesthetics from a scientific perspective, but let's remember that science is only one of many valid perspectives.

-Joe-