The real question is whether either science or religion has any relationship to the workings of the universe. If they don’t, why should be we concerned about either of them?
I would think the results indicate that science does indeed have some relationship to the “For Real” workings of the universe. And, as religion tends to deal primarily with the “afterlife”, we won’t know whether religion has any relationship until death.
Finch
The teachings of Jesus are about an eternal life that exists for you right now as well as in the “afterlife”.
But having said that, I just want to say that your explanations about scientific things are exemplary. They are technically correct while not losing the general audience. Your words are carefully measured. You are not derisive about your opposition. Instead, you speak strictly about the positions they hold and patiently explain their problems. Anytime I see “Darwin’s Finch” in that left margin, I stop and read. Thanks for all your contributions. 
If the afterlife can be detected and interacted with, then isn’t part of this life too? Why shouldn’t science be able to say anything about it?
If the afterlife can’t be detected or interacted with, then how can anyone say anything about it? What justifies religion’s claims?
—Do any of you think theistic evolution is possible?—
It isn’t just possible, it is ALWAYS possible, no matter what we ever discover about evolution. Nothing we discover, or could possibly discover even in our most speculative imaginings, could rule out the possibility that a being who can act (especially without leaving definitive evidence of the intervention itself, not just the result) manipulated evolution to do this or that, go in this direction or that direction. We CANNOT rule it out empirically, because it doesn’t commit itself to predicting any particular empirically observable state of the world other than “whatever we observe in this one.”
This is exactly what is meant by it not being falsifiable.
Actually, amusingly, the above isn’t entirely true, because msot forms of theistic evolution DO commit themselves to an empirical falsifiable claim. If it were to somehow turn out that evolution never happened (which CAN be determined empirically), this would falsify “theistic evolution,” at least as a historical event on our planet. Creationism would still be a live possibility though.
As Dawkins has pointed out, the farthest one can go is simply to say that it is no longer neccessary for us to appeal to a designer when explaining evolution. One can, just as one can appeal to an extra unseen force at work behind ANYTHING, even those things for which we already have a perfectly good explanation for.
Indeed. But, I daresay, I don’t think Christianity would have anywhere near the appeal it has if its message were limited to “love thy neighbor” (the “right now” part of the message). The whole heaven thing plays a major part in lending comfort to those in spiritual distress, as well as giving one a greater sense of purpose.
**
Garsh! You’re making me blush! Thanks for the compliment. I am by no means the most knowledgeable on this (or any) subject, but I try. I also think you’ve had a hand in helping me to formalize my arguments, particularly as a result of our discussion over at the Pizza Parlor a while back. For what it’s worth, you are among my “must read” posters as well.
Show me a better 'ole, duckie.
Trinopus
If the afterlife can be interacted with… That sounds like a John Constantine plotline…
We’ve got a lens that lets you look across the paranormal barrier. It shows that there is a specific layer of cells in the cortex of the human brain that serves as the body/soul interface. We can take those cells and distill the chemicals that exist partly in the material world and partly in the spirit world.
Then we can amplify the effect.
-
You could give a person an injection of such chemicals, thus giving him the temporary “spirit” of a great saint. Such a person could perform miracles.
-
You could negate those chemicals in a person, thus “damning” him while he’s still alive.
-
You could make a gun that fired that effect, thus “damning” groups of people.
-
You could aim that gun at heaven, and pot the very angels from the sky. Eat flaming death, God!
-
You could be turned into a pillar of salt early in the experimental stages of this undertaking…
Trinopus
Could you be more specific? What evidence would you say is credible, yet not scientific?
To this question I would hear - The Transcendental Argument
I’m not sure, but I think I’m the first to say this:
Welcome to the boards RonM9!