I hope I'm not jumping too far ahead. But since the month is almost over I thought I would go ahead and post on this chapter. This has been my favorite so far. There were so many good points made, some things I hadn't thought about.

Humans have limitations, and no one knows this better than scientists. But a multitude of aspects of the natural world that were considered miraculous only a few generations ago are now thoroughly understood in terms of physics and chemistry. At least some of the mysteries of today will be comprehensively solved by our descendants. The fact that we cannot produce a detailed understanding of, say, altered states of consciousness in terms of brain chemistry no more implies the existence of a "spirit world" than a sunflower following the Sun in its course across the sky was evidence of a literal miracle before we knew about phototropism and plant hormones.

And if the world does not in all respects correspond to our wishes, is this the fault of science, or of those who would impose their wishes on the world?

Interesting point.

By making pronouncements that are, even if only in principle, testable, religions, however unwillingly, enter the arena of science. Religions can no longer make unchallenged assertions about reality - so long as they do not seize secular power, provided they cannot coerce belief.

That's really interesting. In the past, religions were the experts, the authorities. Truth was determined by the religion and in many cases not questioned. But now religion has someone to answer to and if the "truth" of a particular religion can be disproven it greatly undermines the credibility of that religion.

That's the case with creationism. A few hundred years ago it couldn't really be challenged. Now it can be proven that the earth and universe have been in existence much longer than 6,000 years. So much of religion has changed it's view regarding the age of the earth. It's interesting that there are still those who cling to their beliefs even though they've been proven wrong scientifically.

What would happen if science demonstrated an infinitely old Universe? Then theology would have to be seriously revamped. Indeed, this is the one conceivable finding of science that could disprove a Creator - because an infinitely old universe would never have been created. It would have always been here.

I had never thought about that. If science could demonstrate an infinitely old universe do you think that people would eventually accept that and theism would dwindle out or do you think that people would find other reasons to believe in god?

Cheryl

An interesting question. I think the more rational of the religious might reconsider some things, but I would imagine the bulk would simply redefine what God is. Perhaps God wanted the universe to seem infinite to test our faith. Perhaps God and the universe are one. I can imagine an infinite number of rationalizations that would accompany a finding such as this. I can't conceive of any amount of proof swaying some of the more fanatically religious.

They just have too much emotional stock in their religious beliefs. They won't listen to logic, rationality or science.

LanDroid

It looks like you have to have a membership to the NY Times to access that article. Can you copy and paste the article here in this thread?

Chris

Chris, I don't know if you mind registering for things online, but the NYTimes registration is free, and I don't seem to have gotten any spam from them. Due to the number of articles people link to from them, I consider it a worthwhile risk, especially considering the lack of negative results from doing so thus far (I've been registered for about a year now).

Zach:

I didn't realize registration was free so I'll go ahead and do so tonight.

Chris