Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[The Dude]

Really? They set science aside? Yet each (Woodward, Barney, Stewart, et. al) has shown how their analysis of the available science is consistent with their beliefs. It would seem that such is not setting science aside, but meeting the science head-on and showing how such science does not (and need not) diminish those beliefs.

How, exactly, do you believe that they are setting science aside?

They maintain their beliefs for reasons that supersede science. Science and medicine are endeavors that they cherish, but their beliefs in the LDS Church come from another realm.

Don't misunderstand me; I don't mean that as an insult or as a dismissal. It's not a handicap that needs to keep believers from using science properly. Woodward and Barney (from what I've seen) use science properly.

I find it interesting that you would equate science with the dispenser of religious truth. (But perhaps you did not mean to do so.)

I didn't. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a famous essay about the non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion. Both dispense truth when used properly.

I agree that the two analyses are not equivalent. But that does not make one right and one wrong. There can be elements of rightness and wrongness in both of them.

By "elements of rightness" you mean that they both maintain belief. Yet one uses science properly and one doesn't.

[Tarski]

Stephen Jay Gould wrote a famous essay about the non-overlapping magisteria of science and religion. Both dispense truth when used properly.

It was a nice try as far as trying get religion and science to "just get along".

But it is a nonstarter really because there is no way that religionists will leave the scientific facts to be determined by the scientists (think young earth, evolution, existence of spirits etc.). And, scientists (especially the nonreligious ones) aren't going to leave the detemination of spiritual and moral values to religionists (I'm certainly not anyway).

[trim]

The Dude:

They maintain their beliefs for reasons that supersede science. Science and medicine are endeavors that they cherish, but their beliefs in the LDS Church come from another realm.

I agree.

How can science and religion ever see eye to eye when the processes for establishing truth in their respective realms is so completely different. Scripturally speaking I believe that spiritual proofs/witnesses are more powerful but also more fleeting.

The unfortunate and unneccesary battle between science and religion is probably more the religionists fault. Unwarranted scriptural literalism and misunderstandings of ancient cultures and thier methods of expression have led to "pseudoscience" (trying to play science by a different set of rules). Within the LDS culture the expression of theory and opinion by authority figures has fueled the folklore to doctrine machine. These fabricated contradictions are commonly the cause of dispute because they have become building blocks of faith when they were never intended to be such. Differences of opinion on the matter of DNA for example should not be a matter of faith although they seem to be for some. I am not quite sure why that is. Proving the opinions and views of our predecessors to be incorrect has nothing to do with personal testimony (at least not mine). I hope that The Dude's transition to non believer had nothing to do with competing theories in the evolution of understanding (scientifically speaking), if so, I would find that sad.

[Tarski]

The burdon of proof is on the ones introducing the unusual claim (in this case the claim involves Jaradite barges, Lamanites, angels, gold plates, linkage of native american to old testament peoples etc.).

And where has this "unusual claim" been introduced, Tarski?

What?

The unusual claim is that there was a great civilization of Lamanites and Nephites in the Americas whom Jesus visited and that thier history was recorded on gold plates and delivered by a supernatural being to a self educated farm boy in the 19 century.

There is no burden on a religious position!

Why? Because its all fantasy?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by this. While it is true that no one need take up any burden of proof, it is still the case that if one wants to make claims in rational discourse concerning matters of alleged fact then such a burden exist on the claimant's side if it exist on either side. Of course, convincing proofs on historical matters are rare so maybe the point is moot. I think I can at least expect evidence to be presented, put into perspective and properly evaluated.

[Greg Smith]

The unfortunate and unneccesary battle between science and religion is probably more the religionists fault. 

I think this is likely true, at least initially. More recently, I think the fault has cut both ways a bit more equally, though the creation science crowd has drawn a lot of ire that I don't think would have resulted otherwise.

An excellent book on the subject is how atheism became a viable, even potentially respectable, intellectual position in American thought, when it previously was not even on the table is:

James C. Tanner, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America (New Studies in American Intellectual and Cultural History)

ISBN 0801834074. Amazon link

The tendency of religionists of many stripes to search for intellectual "proofs" of God led to religion's increasing tending to 'ape' the structure of science in many ways (no evolutionary pun intended).

(LDS would see this as inevitable given the loss of revelation--what else does one have left, then, save textual inerrancy, that one can 'cling to', in a sense? Without experiential, on-going revelation, why ought I to believe? If not by the authority of an inerrant text or religious group, then on the basis of rational argument.)

This worked well for a while, because one could always point to "the cosmos" or "the natural world," (a la Palley's watchmaker analogy) as something which 'required' God's existence. Thus, even the Deists like many of the US founding fathers would not/could not/did not dispense with God utterly, because He was needed to at least 'wind up' the clockwork universe.

The shattering impact of Darwin on this structure was not that Darwin proved that God didn't exist, or that the Bible was "false." The reason Darwin shattered everything is that suddenly, the key remaining "proof" for the necessary existence of God (the natural world or 'creation') was yanked out from under the religionists.

Darwin didn't prove God _didn't_ exist. But, he did provide a plausible, intellectually respectable reason for considering God superfluous to the domain of living things (few felt, for example, by the 1800s that God was necessary to hold planets in their orbits--Newton's laws would do that just fine, thank-you.) [And, arguably, if you want to study anything scientifically you really do need a scheme or model that moves God to the side.]

But, religious thinkers had dedicated more and more of their eggs into that basket--they considered the "Argument from Design" to be so airtight that when it was devastated, God went with it, which hardly needed to have happened. They dug their own grave, so to speak.

Other reactions included the fundamentalist one--to insist that the science was all a lie, or a Satanic plot, etc. But, there is an irony in the continued presence of "creation science"--its proponents are STILL looking for an intellectual proof, a "lock, stock, and barrel" way of putting people into a position where disbelief in God is silly or intellectually untenable. They want a sign, in religious parlance--a reason to insist that people MUST belief if they are at all intellectually rigorous, since evolution "can't explain it all." Thus, we need a 'creation _science_' to make the case. I don't think the 'science' is there just for getting into textbooks and classrooms--it's because they come out of a tradition, intellectually, in which the necessity of God was a very real part of a large chunk of science, which Darwin was indecorous enough to sweep away.

I've never understood some LDS people's tendency to veer this way. LDS doctrine, which advocates the primary of moral agency and the necessity of unfettered choice would seem to require a situation in which one is NOT compelled one way or the other. It would seem strange to me, in an LDS context, if the evidence was not amenable to being interpreted as either implying or negating God's existence. If there is NO even semi-coherent or plausible rationale for the physical world that does not NECESSITATE God, that would seem to be equivalent to compelling belief, at least among the rational and sane.

But, experience has shown that plenty of rational, sane people DO believe that God exists, and plenty DON'T.

This doesn't mean "evolution" must be true in all its particulars--but, it does mean that those so persuaded are rationally persuaded on the evidence as they understand it. Even if unconvinced by the evolutionary model, believers should be unsurprised that that is, indeed, how it looks, and leave off all the nonsense about insisting that the carbon dating is wrong or that the speed of light has slowed down, or any of the other jury-rigged stuff they use to insist that the evidence doesn't show what it shows. It wouldn't be real evidence, and there wouldn't be real choice if it wasn't.

But, on the other hand, those enamored of scientism should appreciate that the same data can also be interpreted, with equal intellectual rigor, as entirely consistent with (and even requiring) God--and spare the arm-chair psychoanalysis on why people 'just can't see The Truth'. There might even--horrors--be things that argue a bit more on the side of God than not-God, but these will always be 'hints and allegations.'

This hardly proves the LDS position "right," of course. (If it did, that would prove the position false!) But, it is a peculiar strength that is all-too-often squandered or overlooked by people who seem too keen to provide what God has not deigned to provide: an irrefutable proof of His existence to any and all, regardless of their inclinations or desires. "One soul shall not be lost..." (Carl Sagan's _Contact_, a fairly respectful book toward belief, despite the rather horrid film adaptation, even looks wistfully for this in the epilogue, as scientists finally find 'the clue' that God has hidden, deep in PI...FINALLY! Absolute evidence!)

Kind regards,

Greg

[Ralph Man]

The "religionist" is in a bit of a pickle, though. There are only so many ways one can hold gold-belief as reasonable. And while the argument to design is in shambles, so is pretty much every other route. You've got to pick something as a believer. So while someone like Francis Collins regards the design argument as a joke when it comes to life and the origin of species, he adopts hybrid moral/design argument elsewhere that is just as flawed - for pretty much the same reasons too. Mormons might reject this whole endeveour and try to rely solely on arguments to religious experience, but I think it would be a mistake to say to least to act as though this is an area untouched by serious problems while the other areas of argument theists cling to are ravaged. Plus, a lot of LDS imagine their religious experience arguments in if not scientific ways, at least ways that very closely mirror science. Remember, science is entwined with sound empirical methodology, which can't help but be close to any argument to experience.

Also, it's worth noting as a point of history that historical arguments for the existence of God that are a posteriori in nature predate and develop with the advent of modern science. They don't ape science so much as simply act as evidential arguments that went along with science as science emerged. They're attempts at science or, in some cases, quasi-science. They still exist, of course. Ask someone why they think it is reasonable to believe in God, and chances are they'll give you a bad argument closely related to science. The aping of science happened later as specific branches of religious people attempted to put forth their arguments in the appearance of science to convince others of their sound scientific nature while lacking the substance of sound science. Hence the Morris's, Gish's, Dembski's, etc.

As far as S.J. Gould goes, why not just call what he calls the domain of religion something like, "Ethics and values?" Gould was an atheist (he called himself "agnostic" for the reason most atheists would call themselves atheist), and his attempts to sort of make peace between religion and science kind of leave religion with a pretty hollow core.

[Analytics]

...I've never understood some LDS people's tendency to veer this way.  LDS doctrine, which advocates the primary of moral agency and the necessity of unfettered choice would seem to require a situation in which one is NOT compelled one way or the other.  It would seem strange to me, in an LDS context, if the evidence was not amenable to being interpreted as either implying or negating God's existence.  If there is NO even semi-coherent or plausible rationale for the physical world that does not NECESSITATE God, that would seem to be equivalent to compelling belief, at least among the rational and sane.

But, experience has shown that plenty of rational, sane people DO believe that God exists, and plenty DON'T....

Hi Greg,

Good essay.

One thing I'll quibble with, though, is the part of this I quoted. Is this really the Mormon position? Here is Alma's position:

The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

In contrast, Korihor's position was,

I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.

Alma could have replied, "You don't really know whether or not I know. But besides that, I find your position to be plausible. In fact, your position must be rational in order to preserve free agency among the rational and sane."

But of course, he cursed him.

The message seems to be that beleif in God is not only the only rational position, but also the only position that deserves the right of free expression; Alma compelled Korihor to believe.

[awyatt]

Analytics said: Alma compelled Korihor to believe.

Might I respectfully suggest that Alma didn't compel Korihor to believe. He (Alma) left it up to God, and God gave Korihor what he wanted--a sign. Upon receipt of the sign, Korihor believed. There was no compulsion involved.

I've known, during my life, people who are disbelievers. Some of them have said that if they received a sign, they would believe. I've been in the same room, at the same time as these people and seen them receive what I considered to be a sign. They still continued to disbelieve, because they chose to continue in that disbelief. Just because Korihor didn't choose to continue in his disbelief does not mean that he was compelled (i.e., forced) to believe.

-Allen

[Tarski]

Analytics said: Alma compelled Korihor to believe.

Might I respectfully suggest that Alma didn't compel Korihor to believe. He (Alma) left it up to God, and God gave Korihor what he wanted--a sign. Upon receipt of the sign, Korihor believed. There was no compulsion involved.

I've known, during my life, people who are disbelievers. Some of them have said that if they received a sign, they would believe. I've been in the same room, at the same time as these people and seen them receive what I considered to be a sign.

I can only imagine what you might think counts as a "sign".

They still continued to disbelieve

As would I if it was like every other sign I've seen that seems to impress believers.

(harmless ribbing follows--be warned)

Did someone's sore throat suddenly feel better? Was there a sudden special feeling in the room? Did the rain stop or did someone find their keys? I still wonder what God has against amputees. And why is it that mountains still seem so heavy with all those mustard seeds around?

In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence and I want things to make rational sense.

[Analytics]

Analytics said: Alma compelled Korihor to believe.

Might I respectfully suggest that Alma didn't compel Korihor to believe. He (Alma) left it up to God, and God gave Korihor what he wanted--a sign. Upon receipt of the sign, Korihor believed. There was no compulsion involved.

I've known, during my life, people who are disbelievers. Some of them have said that if they received a sign, they would believe. I've been in the same room, at the same time as these people and seen them receive what I considered to be a sign. They still continued to disbelieve, because they chose to continue in that disbelief. Just because Korihor didn't choose to continue in his disbelief does not mean that he was compelled (i.e., forced) to believe.

-Allen

If you insist on quibbling about it, according to the story, Korihor actually believed the whole time but was merely pretending that he didn't. There is no evidence from the scriptures that Korihor, or anybody else, even has the choice about whether or not to believe in God. All things denote there is a God and there is no way to not believe in God, much less a rational way not to believe.

Alma said,

This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be astruck dumb, according to my words.

Saying Alma "left it up to God" isn't what the story said.

[The Dude]

Stewart hasn't been seen for 72 hours. I think he's not coming back. It sounded pretty final when he accused me of being both too stupid to understand his points and dishonest enough to contrive endless rationalizations. Oh, but he had time to bully Katherine one more time. Oreos suggests that Stewart might be too busy... that could be half of the reason (IMO).

I take note of Allen Wyatt's earlier attempt to harmonize science and pseudoscience as true, as long as both approaches help people maintain faith. It is interesting to me that the lds.org newsroom has links to twelve "resources" on the Lamanite DNA issue, mostly from the likes of John Butler, Michael Whiting, et al. who represent the consensus that DNA isn't a problem because BoM people were a minor contribiution to the people of Native America. Nevertheless, one of the twelve "resources" is now a link to Stewart's article on FAIR that says Native Americans funneled through a Book of Mormon lineage just like the LDS have traditionally believed. Stewart claims there is great harmony between DNA studies and traditional belief. It seems that the webmasters at lds.org share the view that it is okay to serve up gross distortions of science "for the Lord".

Helping people maintain faith with junk science is building on a foundation of sand.

[Ralph Man]

Not to cheerlead, but...yep.

[trim]

Quote Tarski:

In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence and I want things to make rational sense.

Is it reasonable to force scientific method onto religion when its textbooks/scriptures establish a completely different method for discerning truth?

The Dude mentions the different realms of science and religion. I think those realms are irreconcilably separate not because the opinions contradict but because the laws that govern them are distinctly different. At this point they cannot meld into one happy whole. I believe that scripture suggests that such a union will one day occur, but for now it just doesn't work. Until the Grand Unifying Theory that considers spiritual as well as physical evidence is established, I'm afraid your demands will never be satisfied. But, maybe that is how you want it.

Strangely, even objective evidence is not enough to convince all. There are many who refuse to believe that man has set foot on the moon, for example. Spiritually there are some who look at the noon sun with their own eyes and deny its existence. The 'objective evidence' is not always proof even when it makes 'rational sense'.

[Tarski]

Quote Tarski:

In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence and I want things to make rational sense.

Is it reasonable to force scientific method onto religion when its textbooks/scriptures establish a completely different method for discerning truth?

I expressed what I wanted. For the record I believe that religious methods of determining truth are simply a failed sham. Where's the beef?

different majisteria my armpit!

The Dude mentions the different realms of science and religion.

[trim]

Quote Tarski:

Frankly, looking around the world at all the religious strife has put me in a bad mood regarding religion. I keep hearing that it is only the extremists but I am begining to wonder if the "moderates" are silently cheering on the nut cases. Where is the outrage?

The classification of religion does not guarantee righteousness or truth:

Moroni 7:12-14

12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

Don't lump all religion and the gospel in the same pile.

Regarding the "failed sham": The method is dependant on faith and real intent according to the manual. If it is applied properly it seems to work just fine.

When current passes through the filament it gives off light and heat. It is a repeatable experiment.

When truth is sought per instructions it also gives off light (knowledge) and heat (burning bosom). It is also a repeatable experiment.

[Sethbag]

I'm with Tarski on this one. The "non-overlapping magisteria" thing just doesn't add up in my book. It's because the claims that religion answers a different set of questions than science does, implies that the answers religion comes up with are worth a damn. As far as reality goes, I don't think they do. As far as making people feel more hopeful or loving towards each other, some religious "answers" do that. But it's sort of like the Doctrine of Santa Claus. Sure, it makes the kids happy, but it doesn't mean it's real.

[trim]

Quote Sethbag:

I'm with Tarski on this one. The "non-overlapping magisteria" thing just doesn't add up in my book. It's because the claims that religion answers a different set of questions than science does, implies that the answers religion comes up with are worth a damn.

At least your objective and open-minded.

it's sort of like the Doctrine of Santa Claus. Sure, it makes the kids happy, but it doesn't mean it's real.

Are you suggesting that emotional results are invalid? (sort of Vulcan of you) There is a Santa Claus in my house and I assure you that he is real. The childs understanding may be off, but the evidence on Christmas morning suggests that there is reality to the belief. (I am short on time but hopefully you get my drift).

[Confidential Informant]

In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence and I want things to make rational sense.

Just curious, but what good does objective reason do you when a terminally ill child asks what will happen to them when they die? Or when a man loses his whole family in the blink of an eye to a drunk driver?

Science can offer all kinds of answers, but in the end it can never offer the one thing that really matters to most people: Hope.

Somehow, I can't imagine looking into a dying child's eyes and telling him or her that at the very least he or she is biodegradable.

C.I.

[Sethbag]

Quote Sethbag:

I'm with Tarski on this one. The "non-overlapping magisteria" thing just doesn't add up in my book. It's because the claims that religion answers a different set of questions than science does, implies that the answers religion comes up with are worth a damn.

At least your objective and open-minded.

How do you think I went from totally, completely, and utterly believing TBM to nigh-on athiest, if my mind were closed?

it's sort of like the Doctrine of Santa Claus. Sure, it makes the kids happy, but it doesn't mean it's real.

Are you suggesting that emotional results are invalid? (sort of Vulcan of you)

Are you suggesting that emotions are a good guide to external truth?

There is a Santa Claus in my house and I assure you that he is real.  The childs understanding may be off, but the evidence on Christmas morning suggests that there is reality to the belief. (I am short on time but hopefully you get my drift).

I love this. It's absolutely priceless. The apologetic impulse just cannot be stopped in some people. Yeah, I get your drift alright; Santa Claus really is true, for some certain definition of Santa Claus.

[Sethbag]

Just curious, but what good does objective reason do you when a terminally ill child asks what will happen to them when they die?  Or when a man loses his whole family in the blink of an eye to a drunk driver? 

Science can offer all kinds of answers, but in the end it can never offer the one thing that really matters to most people:  Hope.

No, science doesn't pretend to offer people "hope". It's just trying to understand and explain what and how things are, and why (in the mechanistic sense, not the philosophical sense).

It's true that most people want hope of something better. Nobody really wants to believe that they'll die and just return to the dust from which they came, and that's the end of it. That really sucks. Sure, it cheers people up to hear that there's more. But the fact that something cheers people up and gives them the hope you're talking about is not the same thing as that thing actually being true.

If all you're looking for is some answer, any answer, to make you happy, I'll see if I can have a special Magic 8 Ball made for you which gives out only really positive, uplifting kinds of answers.

Somehow, I can't imagine looking into a dying child's eyes and telling him or her that at the very least he or she is biodegradable.

Who really wants to hurt a child? Not I. I don't want to tell a child that she's about to die and cease to exist, forever. I think how one deals with kids and what they are ready to accept and understand is a bit different than what does with adults. It's why I told my daughter when she was little that Santa Claus existed, and that's where her presents came from every Christmas. But now she's all grown up (well, she's 14 now) and knows it was just a "kid's thing" to believe in the reality of the Santa Claus (north pole, flying sleigh, etc.) myth.

Now, what's troubling to me is the things people tell their kids, and tell them as absolutely true facts, and the kids grow up believing them still. So they grow up and strap on a nail-studded bomb and go blow themselves and 30 other people up in a crowded restaurant, because Allah wants them to, and they're going to Heaven to enjoy their justly-earned new 70 virgins.

Dagnabbit, this whole thing really took a turn away from Dr. Stewart's paper. Well, I think The Duderino and Dr. Stewart each said what they intended to say, so all's well that ends well I suppose. Personally, I favor The Dude's approach, but that shouldn't surprise any of you.

[Tarski]

Quote Tarski:

Frankly, looking around the world at all the religious strife has put me in a bad mood regarding religion. I keep hearing that it is only the extremists but I am begining to wonder if the "moderates" are silently cheering on the nut cases. Where is the outrage?

The classification of religion does not guarantee righteousness or truth:

Moroni 7:12-14

12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

Don't lump all religion and the gospel in the same pile.

When current passes through the filament it gives off light and heat. It is a repeatable experiment.

When truth is sought per instructions it also gives off light (knowledge) and heat (burning bosom). It is also a repeatable experiment.

It is a repeatable self deception. A sensation of burning doesn't provide cosmic truth any more than does a burning filament.

Regarding the "failed sham":

[Tarski]

In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence and I want things to make rational sense.

Just curious, but what good does objective reason do you when a terminally ill child asks what will happen to them when they die?

Every very young child worships their parent. What good does objective reason do when a hopeful child asks why his/her daddy is being arrested for abuse or why his/her mother is receiving money from her "John".

Telling the truth to a child is often hard and maybe even ill advised but it is still the truth.

[The Dude]

Somehow, I can't imagine looking into a dying child's eyes and telling him or her that at the very least he or she is biodegradable.

Religion can give hope in ways that science never can. Of course you tell the dying child a fable -- what harm is there in that, even if you don't know what's going to happend when she dies.

IMO, that's where religion does it right, and that's probably how religion started.

Then it got hijacked by ideas (memes) like divine right, priesthood authority, monotheism, cattle worship, fertility management, and jihad against the infidel (to name a few). These ideas cling to all religions, modifying their fitness in the competition for a finite number of adherents. Religions that spread readily and hold tight to their believers have survived the centuries. The ones that don't have the right features fade away. Mormonism has a neat ability to adapt to changing times... it's called continuing revelation.

Trim said it would be sad if I left my religion because of the competeing theories of scientific understanding. Not at all. I left because of the competing theories in the evolution of religion.

The great apostasy began when the memes took over the simple fables we tell our children about what happens when we die.

[awyatt]

Analytics said: Alma compelled Korihor to believe.

Might I respectfully suggest that Alma didn't compel Korihor to believe. He (Alma) left it up to God, and God gave Korihor what he wanted--a sign. Upon receipt of the sign, Korihor believed. There was no compulsion involved.

I've known, during my life, people who are disbelievers. Some of them have said that if they received a sign, they would believe. I've been in the same room, at the same time as these people and seen them receive what I considered to be a sign.

I can only imagine what you might think counts as a "sign".

And I'm sure that's all you can do--imagine. (But wait! Can't objective science tell you, in demonstrable ways, what counts as a "sign," even for a rational believer like me? No? Well, dang. Guess science can't do everything. )

Tarski said:

They still continued to disbelieve

As would I if it was like every other sign I've seen that seems to impress believers.

How utterly condescending of you. (Did you mean it that way?)

Tarski said: (harmless ribbing follows--be warned)

Did someone's sore throat suddenly feel better? Was there a sudden special feeling in the room? Did the rain stop or did someone find their keys? I still wonder what God has against amputees. And why is it that mountains still seem so heavy with all those mustard seeds around?

Good-natured ribbing accepted.

Tarski said: In all seriousness, I don't want a sign. Thats a religionist concept. I want objective repeatable evidence and I want things to make rational sense.

Which presumes that any sign or divine influence in one's life is neither repeatable or rational. Most of those darn religionists know better, of course. While God isn't a pet monkey that can do tricks on demand, He is a real being who can touch people's lives when they are least expecting it, and do so more than once. And it happens to rational people all the time.

Tell me, Tarski--forgetting for a moment that you feel God is both mythical and impotent, how would you even know if God were touching your life?

-Allen

[awyatt]

The Dude said: I take note of Allen Wyatt's earlier attempt to harmonize science and pseudoscience as true, as long as both approaches help people maintain faith.

Mind telliing me how you got that out of anything I said?

-Allen