true, IF they have the tools. But how would you define the drive that claims 'there MUST be more than this, and if our instruments aren't up to the task, we must MAKE tools which can'. That drive to put one's self and ego at risk of failure and doubt, that down-to-the-soul conviction that there IS more and that one cannot rest without trying to grasp it, IS blind faith. There is no proof already that all the effort will be worthwhile in that person's lifetime. It's the same risk as believing in God; and the same sense of satisfaction when one is over and over proven right. Where science and 'religion' differ is science prefers recognition for their works and discoveries, whereas living with them is satisfaction alone for believers. Sometimes this argument reminds me of court where you COULD show evidence, but there is greater gain not to (if in your defense) and so reserving that right gives the appearance that it just doesn't exist.

• Improper distinction between science / religion - johnpowell - February 13, 2001 - 18:07 UTC
  • define 'works' maybe? - gwynj - February 13, 2001 - 22:31 UTC
    • Science and Religion don't need each other - johnpowell - February 14, 2001 - 02:20 UTC
      • Re: Science and Religion don't need each other - yanniru - February 14, 2001 - 13:33 UTC
        • Jesus was a super alien? - johnpowell - February 14, 2001 - 18:12 UTC
          • Where did the word super alien come from? - yanniru - February 16, 2001 - 22:17 UTC