Joined: June 2006
“hmm, if god is not needed to explain something, and god is in everything or he is in nothing....you've given us only one choice.he's in nothing”
God is certainly is not needed for a SCIENTIFIC explanation, but god can provide an explanation, sure. An ULTIMATE, "total wrap" kind of explanation.
“'xian' or 'muslim' who apparently have no faith, and feel they must find god revealed in nature, or accept that he IS nothing. With such a strawman for a worldview, it's no surprise to see apologists like Dembski invent a ass-backwards idea like NFL, or Behe create the idea of "irreducible complexity".
No. The answer for them should be “god is in everything”. The guys you say don’t do that, they want to be scientific about god, “scientifically prove the supernatural”. Which makes no sense
“Yes, these folks in not accepting the tenants of their very own faith, do damage not only to science and education, but to the larger religions they claim to belong to as well.”
I agree, but that’s because they are trying to come off as scientists. They’ve got it all wrong about science and about faith.
“At some point, one does have to ask the question:
are these IDiots going to be reigned in by those of the religions they claim? or not?”
Depends in part if people like PZ and Dawkins end up trying to ban all religion lumping them with those who do understand both faith and science
“perhaps the overaching failure is with religion itself”
It’s a social thing at large. It is also a failure of science. Human historical, economical and social reality comes first, everything else, including the science-religion equilibrium, stems from that.