# Science v. Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243 "2005-02-28T03:45:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/121 "2005-03-07T21:45:49Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Do we agree that the fact that a fileld of energy cannot be proved or disproved at this point means it may exist? Sure, it may exist. All kinds of things that can’t be proven or disproven may exist. As a result, your energy fields are exactly as deserving of study as dragons, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, demons, vampires, Vulcans, trolls and halflings. > [@](#): > > The problem I see is that spiritual healing requires faith on the part of those being healed as well. In some cases there is no healer except the person healed and the spirit. That would complicate your proposal. Well, my proposal to test a pheonomenon is only as complicated as your description of the phenomenon. Can you give a clear example of what the energy fields _could_ do, given certain conditions? For that matter, can you give some examples of ailments that can be improved or cured through spiritual healing? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/122 "2005-03-08T02:39:30Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Sure, it may exist. All kinds of things that can’t be proven or disproven may exist. As a result, your energy fields are exactly as deserving of study as dragons, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, demons, vampires, Vulcans, trolls and halflings. I’m okay with that. I’m sure the same was said a hundred years ago about things we now recognize. I wonder where science would be if people gave up every time someone said “what a waste of time” > [@](#): > > Well, my proposal to test a pheonomenon is only as complicated as your description of the phenomenon. Can you give a clear example of what the energy fields _could_ do, given certain conditions? For that matter, can you give some examples of ailments that can be improved or cured through spiritual healing? MAt 17:20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” MAt 15:30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. Can I prove to you that these things are possible. Nope. Thats okay with me too. As I said. Those who have connected to the field of energy and those who have been healed, can enjoy the results without scientific acceptance. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/123 "2005-03-08T16:59:51Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m okay with that. I’m sure the same was said a hundred years ago about things we now recognize. I wonder where science would be if people gave up every time someone said “what a waste of time” That’s a poor comparison. Science is a process that leads to gradual expansion of knowledge, while believing in vaguely-defined energy fields with no expectation of _ever_ seeing hard evidence is static. Such a belief could easily remain unchanged for hundreds of years, if it is never subject to review, analysis and modification, as science is, > [@](#): > > MAt 17:20 > He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” > MAt 15:30 > Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. > > Can I prove to you that these things are possible. Nope. You can _easily_ prove these things are possible, if you can move a mountain or cure blindness. In fact, if you can move a pebble, or cure a relatively minor ailment, I’ll gladly admit such things are possible. Incidentally, your quotes are from the New International edition, which was first published in 1973. Thus, you’re arguing from a standard unchanged in 32 years, and which has a root going back several hundred years (to the King James version, at least). You’re claiming _science_ is resistant to change? > [@](#): > > Those who have connected to the field of energy and those who have been healed, can enjoy the results without scientific acceptance. And I wish nothing upon them but continued good health, but there are explanations for their improvement other than undetectable energy fields. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/124 "2005-03-08T17:23:30Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You can _easily_ prove these things are possible, if you can move a mountain or cure blindness. In fact, if you can move a pebble, or cure a relatively minor ailment, I’ll gladly admit such things are possible. There is a simple way to test this out, albeit it horribly cruel. Simply raise up a child, teaching them that the bible was literly true. When they get old enough, simply show them proof of miracles, through the use of special effects. The end result would be a child with perfect faith. So what if the method was horrible. god never said that he would faith would not move a mountain, if in the presence of a wicked person, just due to perfect faith. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/125 "2005-03-08T20:49:49Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > The end result would be a child with perfect faith. Except that’s a standard not required by the cited passage, unless I’ve misunderstood “as small as a mustard seed”. What I’m attempting to solicit from cosmodan (cute name, by the way) is a definitive statement of something the energy fields can do, which I’ll then use to describe a test which could prove (or at least strongly indicate) the existence of said fields. I understand the JREF challenge, much discussed of late, operates along siimlar lines. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/126 "2005-03-08T21:03:17Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > unless I’ve misunderstood “as small as a mustard seed”. Yes, but 1.I am a mad scientist, as seen on another thread. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304591](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304591) 1. I do not know if faith as small as a mustard seed refers to an everlasting faith, or to simply moments of perfect believe that I have only had momentarily, till proven wrong, i.e. I believe this tree branch will hold me. 2. A world wide energy field is such an ephemeral thing, that it is no more possible to disprove than the dragon in Carl Sagan’s garage. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/127 "2005-03-08T21:39:29Z")
A dear, dear friend of mine worked as a nurse for many years, then as a healthcare administrator. She’s a smart, clever lady. Witty as all get out. Couple of years ago she decided to get her Master’s in Divinity (I think that’s how it’s described; I’m not talking about the fudge) from Earlham College. She’s now a hospital Chaplain who spends a lot of her time working with disturbed teenagers on the psych ward. Couple of months ago she was diagnosed with lung cancer (she’s never smoked). When she went for her first chemo, she blessed the IV bag before treatment began. Nobody in the clinic had ever done that before. She’s done a lot of energy work as part of her treatment. Here’s a recent email from her: > [@](#): > > Today was my graduation. My 35th radiation treatment!! And they said I wouldn’t be standing. The doctors (both radiation oncologist and hemo. oncologist) are amazed about how much I am still able to eat. They both promise me that my esophogus looks just like the burns on my chest and back (pretty nasty). They just shake their heads. I told the radiation doc. about the energy healing work that I have been so fortunate to receive - both hands-on and distance. He is positive but hesitant about energy work. However he said every patient he has had who was doing energy works does better than his other patients!! Might be something there - whaddya think? Helloooo. > > Now the big news - They did a CT scan to see if they should bother to do 5 additional radiation treatments (they don’t do them if you’re not getting a good responds from the radiation or if you can’t stand the side effects). My tumor is in the right lower lung and I was told by the surgeon the when he did the biopsy that I had “a lotta nodes- mediastinal and hilar - involved and they were big.” > > Some memorable quotes from my scan: > > “No mediastinal, axillary, or hilar lymph node enlargement.” > > “…marked interval improvement of mediastinal lymph node enlargement, which has completely resolved.” > > “No pleural effusions.” > > “No liver lesions.” > > Tumor itself has shrunk from 2.2 cm to 1.9 > > I am so grateful to all of you for your part in this. We are blowing them away. Your prayers, affirmation, healing, flute playing, prayer shawls, jokes, cards etc. etc. etc. are changing the reality of cancer. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/128 "2005-03-08T22:17:52Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > Here’s a recent email from her: > > > [@](#): > > > > I am so grateful to all of you for your part in this. We are blowing them away. Your prayers, affirmation, healing, flute playing, prayer shawls, jokes, cards etc. etc. etc. are changing the reality of cancer. No doubt about it. Radiation treatment and modern medical science is no match for flute playing and cards. Personally, I’m convinced the prayer shawl is what cured her. And it’s a lot cheaper than most hospital equipment. Wonder why hospitals don’t buy those instead? ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/129 "2005-03-08T22:37:07Z")
\ You’re not getting it. This woman isn’t a moron. In fact, her ex-husband was the Mayor of Green Bay during their marriage some years ago. She didn’t substitute faith for medicine, she augmented medicine with prayer. And she’s doing much better than anyone expected. You bozos asked for an example. I gave you one. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/130 "2005-03-08T22:49:07Z")
Indubitably god chose to heal her. And not anyone of the other terminal patients. Indubitably. I am convinced that I am vary wrong on another post I made earlier on this thread. And I am sorry I did it. Very sorry. Early in this conversation (post 6) I said “Science vs. Religion. Fight!” I then posted the “words” to the techno remake of The Mortal Kombat theme song. However, I failed to post a link to the midi. For that I can not apologize enough. [**Mortaaaaal Kooooombat!**](http://home.att.net/~kidradd/mortalcomb.mid) P.S. Fessie, I am not saying she is a “moron”. I am just saying that I have not seen a rigorus scientific investigation into her cure, proving that it is unexplained, and that even if it is, than the fact that god failed to save many other lives is suspicous. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/131 "2005-03-08T22:50:23Z")
[**Mortaaaaal Kooooombat!**](http://home.att.net/~kidradd/mortalcomb.mid) P.S. Don not click the link, instead, save to disk. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/132 "2005-03-08T22:51:27Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > You’re not getting it. This woman isn’t a moron. In fact, her ex-husband was the Mayor of Green Bay during their marriage some years ago. She didn’t substitute faith for medicine, she augmented medicine with prayer. And she’s doing much better than anyone expected. If we’re not “getting it,” pray tell what is your point? If your quote was not intended to be an example of abysmal ignorance or a whoosh, what else does it mean than she attributed some, if not all, of her recovery to prayers and such? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/133 "2005-03-08T23:15:08Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > \ > > … > > She didn’t substitute faith for medicine, she augmented medicine with prayer. And she’s doing much better than anyone expected. Well, there are alternate explanations, one of which is that the mechanism of cancer is not completely understood and what may _look_ devastating to a doctor might not be quite that bad. As an experiment, I’d like to see her bless the IV bags of half the cancer patients, with the other half getting a convincing “blessing” by an actor who has no religious authority or strong belief. If the patients in your friend’s group display significant higher rates of improvement, you might have something worth formal study. I personally don’t doubt that positive thinking can have an effect. Given the massive complexity of biochemistry, I’m more willing to attribute any effect to mundane hormones and enzymes than the ethereal. > [@](#): > > You bozos asked for an example. I gave you one. I should remind you that we’re not (yet) in the Pit, and insults, including self-censored “profane” ones, are frowned upon. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/134 "2005-03-09T01:57:13Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > That’s a poor comparison. Science is a process that leads to gradual expansion of knowledge, while believing in vaguely-defined energy fields with no expectation of _ever_ seeing hard evidence is static. Such a belief could easily remain unchanged for hundreds of years, if it is never subject to review, analysis and modification, as science is, Hmmm My point is we wouldn’t have much of the scientific knowledge we have if those who had faith in their area of reaserch had given up when they were dissed by others BECAUSE they had no verifiable evidence. I think there has been a gradual exspansion of knowledge in the spiritual quest. {Granted, by looking at certain religions you’d wouldn’t think so} Science has assisted by helping east meet west and giving seekers access to more information and concepts. It is a slow process. Didn’t certain areas of science remain unchanged for hundreds of years while one bit of knowledge was gained from the last? Aren’t there areas still in their infancy? > [@](#): > > You can _easily_ prove these things are possible, if you can move a mountain or cure blindness. In fact, if you can move a pebble, or cure a relatively minor ailment, I’ll gladly admit such things are possible. I doubt you would. They would probably remain unexplained until a rational explanation was found. Rational in this case meaning acceptable to you. To me belief in God is rational. > [@](#): > > You’re claiming _science_ is resistant to change? I don’t believe I claimned that at all. I expect science to be true to its guideing principles. I expect scientific knowledge to expand. I expect that as the search for truth continues the spiritual and scientific will agree. > [@](#): > > And I wish nothing upon them but continued good health, but there are explanations for their improvement other than undetectable energy fields. How did you draw that conclusion? Scientific evidence or personnel belief and personnel experience? Funny. Thats what I did. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/135 "2005-03-09T02:59:59Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Except that’s a standard not required by the cited passage, unless I’ve misunderstood “as small as a mustard seed”. What I’m attempting to solicit from cosmodan (cute name, by the way) is a definitive statement of something the energy fields can do, which I’ll then use to describe a test which could prove (or at least strongly indicate) the existence of said fields. I understand the JREF challenge, much discussed of late, operates along siimlar lines. Thanks, my parents gave it to me. Two s’ though. To perform your test someone would have to propose something that the energy field CAN do and explain HOW it is accessed. The subtleties of faith, need, and conscious direction are still being explored. I’ve already conceded that there is no viable evidence that would meet current scientific standards. My desire to “gradually expand my knowledge” comes from personnel belief and experience. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/136 "2005-03-09T03:58:25Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Hmmm My point is we wouldn’t have much of the scientific knowledge we have if those who had faith in their area of reaserch had given up when they were dissed by others BECAUSE they had no verifiable evidence. True, _but_ when the person advocating the radical theory managed to come up with verifiable evidence, science tended to take note. I’m not actually sure what your point is; that science should incorporate theories _before_ evidence is presented? As for being “dissed”, why is disrespect relevant? If you can present evidence of your theory, surely that evidence can speak for itself. If you can’t, then your theory is meaningless. > [@](#): > > It is a slow process. Didn’t certain areas of science remain unchanged for hundreds of years while one bit of knowledge was gained from the last? Aren’t there areas still in their infancy? Of course. I’ll gladly agree that certain fields of science were relatively stagnant until pivotal discoveries and paradigms were established. In fact, I’d have to say that modern science started with Isaac Newton in the late 1600s and has been on an accelerating pace since. This also corresponds with the advent of the publication of scientific journals and the increasing speed of communications. This allowed theories to be advanced and rapidly refuted or supported by scientists conducting their own tests of the theory, who could then suggest alternatives or refinements. I fact, I don’t understand your point. Is the careful progress of science bad, or something? > [@](#): > > I doubt you would. They would probably remain unexplained until a rational explanation was found. Rational in this case meaning acceptable to you. To me belief in God is rational. Well, if you could present evidence that God existed, then I would conclude that belief in God was rational. If God demonstrably exists, _not_ believing in God’s existence would be _ir_rational, as would not believing in anything for which evidence exists. So far, I haven’t seen any such evidence, but if you can cure ailments or move pebbles, I’ll consider it. To be honest, I’d first want to eliminate known explanations, such as fraud. Hence, I’d want a pretty rigourous test design. I’m sorry if my word that I’d treat the matter objectively isn’t sufficient. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe I claimned that at all. I expect science to be true to its guideing principles. I expect scientific knowledge to expand. I expect that as the search for truth continues the spiritual and scientific will agree. I’m not certain how that is going to happen. Possibly, I can imagine future-neurology finding the part of the brain that controls sprituality, but I’ll guess that isn’t what you meant. > [@](#): > > How did you draw that conclusion? Scientific evidence or personnel belief and personnel experience? Funny. Thats what I did. Well, there’s quite a bit of scientific evidence about psychosomatics and dopamine and other biological factors. In fact, given available evidence, the simplest explanation for unexpected healings is the operation of some little-known and poorly-understood aspect of neurochemistry. Undetectable energy fields are rather down my list, but if they’re higher on yours, so be it. > [@](#): > > Thanks, my parents gave it to me. Two s’ though. Well, I like “cosmodan” better. No matter. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/137 "2005-03-09T05:32:29Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > True, _but_ when the person advocating the radical theory managed to come up with verifiable evidence, science tended to take note. I’m not actually sure what your point is; that science should incorporate theories _before_ evidence is presented ? You’re really not sure, or is this just an arguement technique? The point is that it is nessecary for someone to believe in a theory in the face of skepticism in order to gain knowledge. > [@](#): > > If you can present evidence of your theory, surely that evidence can speak for itself. If you can’t, then your theory is meaningless. There is a valid arguement that Da Vinci’s sketches of flying machines were useless or meaningless because he couldn’t present evidence. There is also a valid arguement that it was nessecary for the concept to exist in order for the historic event to eventually take place. > [@](#): > > I fact, I don’t understand your point. Is the careful progress of science bad, or something? Sigh!! Of course not. Neither is the careful progress of spiritual truth. You see no progress now or in the future because you are the skeptic of this theory. OKay. At some point we will know if your skepticism was warrented. > [@](#): > > I’d first want to eliminate known explanations, such as fraud. Hence, I’d want a pretty rigourous test design. You don’t have to repeat every scientists experiments in order to accept the results do you? Why is it that you trust what is written in the scientific journals you mentioned? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/138 "2005-03-09T10:57:47Z")
Cosmosdan, did you read what I recommended to you? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/139 "2005-03-09T13:31:33Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] > [@](#): > > You don’t have to repeat every scientists experiments in order to accept the results do you? Why is it that you trust what is written in the scientific journals you mentioned? Just to throw in my two cents, I can take an article in a scientif journal in “faith”, or the option exists for me to carry out the exact same steps proposed by article. I see no such ability to do so with “miracles” Re: my proposed experiment, > [@](#): > > To perform your test someone would have to propose something that the energy field CAN do and explain HOW it is accessed. The subtleties of faith, need, and conscious direction are still being explored. That is what I understood the following to mean, and what I answered.: 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/140 "2005-03-09T16:38:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I should remind you that we’re not (yet) in the Pit, and insults, including self-censored “profane” ones, are frowned upon. Only my opinion, but I find Scotts sarcastic ridicule of Fessie’s post at least as offensive as her self censored insult. I didn’t take either too seriously. I enjoy a little humor and good natured sass in my discussion. I appreciate that it doesn’t go to far in these forums. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243.md?page=8)