Mario,

If you want to understand the beliefs of the unscientific mind (whatever that means), I think you need to reduce those images further to really understand them. The trouble I see with so many who are quick to call others ignorant is that they have little conception as to what people are really thinking when they call upon God. Science is a great enterprise and the study of science is helpful to focus upon the actual process by which things in nature happen, however if in this study you become so specialized in your interest that you lose sight of 'all of this' that we see before us and all the billions of variables that make it all possible, then of course someone won't understand why someone can still be insightful despite their superstition or their primitive notions of a God.

What science has done is exceedingly amplify our knowledge of the number of factors that need to exist in order to support the structure of nature so that 'all of this' can exist. Unfortunately for many in science, as the factors of what makes life possible expand and expand, their inclination is to attribute 'all of this' to random occurrence. What is troubling is that at some point in engaging in this inclination there is a total disregard for the huge numbers of such factors and at a certain point they are just simply ignored entirely.

In my view, the person who at least sees the need to attribute these factors to 'something' that is immaterial and exhibits some type of omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence is more in touch with the complex structure that we see and is closer to the truth than the person who has completely lost their sight.

Warm regards, Harv

• Nothing can be ignored - stormcrow - September 15, 2001 - 01:10 UTC
  • because they do not believe in accidents. - jisbond - September 15, 2001 - 01:20 UTC
    • Define "Accident" - stormcrow - September 15, 2001 - 01:51 UTC
      • I am not able to define what I do not believe exists - jisbond - September 16, 2001 - 00:59 UTC
        • Bull - stormcrow - September 16, 2001 - 01:49 UTC
          • How so? - jisbond - September 17, 2001 - 02:52 UTC
          • Corrected Questioning: "How So?" - jisbond - September 17, 2001 - 03:23 UTC
            • Just make a description - stormcrow - September 17, 2001 - 17:11 UTC
              • Your position is understood, but ...... - jisbond - September 18, 2001 - 15:26 UTC
                • I still disagree - stormcrow - September 19, 2001 - 02:29 UTC
                  • Oops - stormcrow - September 19, 2001 - 02:31 UTC
                    • Juncture of perfection. - jisbond - September 19, 2001 - 14:30 UTC
        • Here Here... - rggarfinkle - September 16, 2001 - 18:55 UTC
          • accident, by any definition - jisbond - September 17, 2001 - 03:01 UTC
• the best position for a person to be in - jisbond - September 15, 2001 - 01:12 UTC
• Are you suggesting... - rggarfinkle - September 15, 2001 - 03:35 UTC
  • at war and not in dialogue - jisbond - September 16, 2001 - 00:33 UTC
    • Yes It does - rggarfinkle - September 16, 2001 - 01:27 UTC