The irony here is that the axiom of our existence is even more essential to religion--or at least Judeo-Christianity--than to science.

For if we don't exist, then all J-C's underpinnings are completely destroyed.

As for science, well, non-existence would just be another game with rules to be discovered.

On the other hand, if existence be true, than science is crowding religion into an ever smaller corner.

Mr. Shermer is correct in stating that God's existence, like all existence, is insoluble.

But you seem to ignore that lack of existence is fatal to your religion, and is irrelevant to science.

Don't ignore it at all--I accept existence on faith and call it such. You accept it on faith and call your faith "science", then proclaim that science can do away with faith. It's why we find y'all so amusing rather than merely annoying.

Jeff:

Are you working yourself up to a scientific proof that you don't exist? Please don't. We'd miss you.

Peter:

The opposite. He thinks science proves he does exist.

Mr. Shermer needs a new calculator. His inputs don't give an answer of 2%, they give approximately .025%. (Not that it matters, because the formula is meaningless.)

The only thing I doubt the existence of is fact-checkers. They've apparently become extinct in recent years.

It's a meaningless question. If we act, that's sufficient existence for science to begin work.

If we only imagine we act, the same.

If we do not act, then no science, but, as Jeff says, no religion, no nothing.

The idea that the proof of existence is such an important deal is a mere assertion. There's no necessity to it; whatever is (or is not) is unaffected by the answer, if there were an answer.

Harry:

Now you're just reiterating the basic point. All intelligent people agree that science has no foundation but faith.

Observation.

I know you get all bent out of shape worrying about whether if your observations are real, but as long as they are stable, it does not matter whether they are real or not.

If you believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, ever so firmly, it wouldn't change whatever it is that passes for reality.

Even fake reality is real, see?

It's only an issue if you have a non-evidence a priori position that you are committed to. It's called 'saving the appearances.'

No, I don't care whether they're real. we have no choice in the matter. We all accept existence on faith and move on. Adults acknowledge that their beliefs are faith-based, children insist they're "real".

OJ:

You miss the point entire. Proof positive you missed it is your assertion that I think science proves I exist.

I happen to accept the notion of existence axiomatically, because it seems to coincide with observation pretty darn well. Yes, I know that is a perfect example of circular logic.

So what you missed is that, to science, the question of existence is utterly irrelevant. But it is far from irrelevant to Christianity.

The other point you missed, or misunderstood, is my assertion science crowds religion into an ever smaller corner. The truth of that statement should be obvious. At one time, people propitiated gods for favorable weather.

Not a lot of that anymore, is there?

Perhaps it would have helped if you would have correctly noted my assertion had everything to do with the explanatory space for religion, and nothing to do with faith.

Bingo! There's where you go off the rails. An axion is a "self-evident or universally recognized truth." Reason dsemonstrates that existence far from being a truth is a belief. If beliefs are scientific then there's no such thing as a divergence between science and faith. Which is the case--they are identical

You're just being cute.

You don't really believe what you say. If you did, you'd feel free to behave differently than you do.

Faith is a very thin reed to lean on. Science works a whole lot better.

Science teaches us nothing important about behavior and many heinous untruths. All Darwinism and materialism are one long lie encouraging us to degrade ourselves.

I'm not aware that materialistic science even attempts to teach us anything about behavior. Certainly Darwinism does not.

If there is anything more degrading that killing a man for what he thinks, I cannot think what it would be. It denies the only thing that separates us from the monkeys.

If Darwinism is right nothing separates us from the monkeys--we're just material too.

OJ:

Good try. You selected the third meaning of the word, when the first two clearly fit better with my argument.

Axiom. 1. a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit; 2. a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference.

The axiom of existence itself is not scientific, any more than the axiom that in plane geometry the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

In any event, the divergence is that if the belief we exist turns out wrong, religion collapses. As for materialism, that would just be more fill for the clue bag. Religionists should be desperately concerned about the truth of that axiom; as a materialist, I could scarcely care less.

Additionally, "If Darwinism is right nothing separates us from the monkeys--we're just material too."

That is an excellent example of the fallacy of consequences. That you don't like the consequence of the assertion has nothing to do with the assertion's truth value.

Religion teaches us nothing important about behavior that isn't available to simple observation, and has been responsible for many heinous untruths. All religion is one long lie encouraging the degradation of unbelievers.

Jeff:

Why? If you're just a thought in someone's head you can know nothing of what their reality is like. Maybe it's even God's head?

Your skepticism as always falters at the water's edge. That you may not exist suggests exactly nothing about what may.

Orrin's position reminds of the old farmer who finally got an electric line to his house way out in the country. A reporter came out to do the story.

"How do you like electric light?" he asked.

"Don't know," said the farmer. "Never ran out of kerosene yet."

OJ:

Let me make this clear: whether I am a thought in someone's head simply does not matter to a materialist.

But to you, it matters supremely. But what is even more ironic is that you claim materialism--which only claims provisional truth about small portions of reality--can't know anything because it can't even prove its own existence, yet religion, burdened even more about that very same thing, can somehow claim absolute truth.

That is beyond rich.

No, religion can claim nothing. It is by definition faith. Materialism is a faith too but must define itself otherwise.

I wish it would start claiming nothing, then.

It's claims of somethings have caused a lot of misery.

Yes, but folks have stopped listening, as witness how few Americans believe in evolution anymore.