Joined: Jan. 2006
Yeah, but Scary, with all respect, is "validity" the proper word for distinguishing FSMism from major-world-religion of your choice? I'll give you that FSMism hasn't got the track record to put its benefits (or detriments, but let's not go there, quite yet) up against Christianity's. But that's not in issue, is it?
You seem to be still looking for "value" or "benefit," but that's not "validity" in my dictionary...
If the question of the thread so far (and, again, I'm fine with adding questions) is compatability of religion with science, and science would question the validity of (some exemplar) religion's beliefs or postulates, then how does social or personal value help Christianity out?
Isn't a vague enough, absent enough, "all-powerful" but do-nothing-much-that-can-be-demonstrated (or differentiated from people acting from other good or charitable motives) god about the same, from science's standpoint, as an undemonstrable, undifferentiatable FSM?
Or, if one starts claiming that one's God does do things--outside one's own head and heart--in the real world, doesn't one quickly--or at least eventually--risk running up against science?