Jerry wrote: "See the collective works of Kal-el"
Umm, the only Kal-el I ever heard of is a fictional character usually known as "Clark Kent" or "Superman". I don't recall encountering much about religion in those tales.
Jerry also wrote: "and you will see that calling God an outlaw goes far beyond a technical term used by insurance companies. Changing a tec. term can not change ancient past, nor can it change the incoming future. It is simply too irrelevant a thing to effect any result."
I'm still not understanding you. As far as I can see, the ONLY reason to call God a criminal is because of all sorts of perfectly Natural and CALLED-"bad" phenomena are blamed on God. Well, what if God does not exist? Then all the blame is misplaced, absolutely. Alternately, what if God exists but did NOT create the Universe? Why should God then be guilty of any criminal charges? And thirdly, what if God DID create the universe, but has had a "hands off" policy ever since, KNOWING that it was self-supporting, stable, and not in need of any "tweaking"? Then all random events are EXACTLY that and no more than that, and not blame-able on God as being specifically intended. So, if you live in an earthquake zone, and an earthquake happens that demolishes your house, why are YOU not to blame, for choosing to live in an earthquake zone?
Jerry quoted: "Why not {have faith the earth is flat}?"
--and wrote: "Well, first of all, I've only ever heard of such an assertion from those who attempt to slam religion/faith, and I have never heard it from any member of a religion/faith."
Well, nowadays for anyone to say any such thing is just to announce personal idiocy.
--and wrote: "Second, that assertion was never based in any holy text,"
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm
--and wrote: "nor did that assertion reflect within the seed of God within me."
In other words, you CHOSE what and what-not to have-faith-in. Just like most anyone else.
Jerry wrote: "I recall an episode of Connections where the host briefly discussed a scientific experiment which irrefutably proved that the Earth was flat. Such stories from the basis of my doubt in current scientific knowledge." I think it happened in the 1800's, but yeah, science also believed that the Earth was flat, so don't try to make it sound like such an idea lay strictly with religion/faith. This experiment was faulty science, just as that belief was faulty religion/faith.
I'd like more information about that. I remember "Connections", but don't recall the thing you are talking about. Also, how do you know, for example, that the experiment wasn't devised by
detractors of Science? Science had THREE tests, dating back to Aristotle's time, indicating that the Earth was spherical. See Section 14 of this link:
http://www.butler.edu/physics/as102/homework/homework2/Hmk2solF02.html
To say nothing of the globe-girdling voyages of Magellan, Cook, and others. And in the 1800's Science was organized enough that experiments that didn't fit the "mesh"-of-what-was-provable-by-other-means were automatically suspect. One part of that "mesh" was the Foucault Pendulum (~1850), which DIRECTLY reveals the fact that the Earth rotates.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/PHYSICS_!/FOUCAULT_PENDULUM/foucault_pendulum.html
Jerry also wrote: "We humans carry our taint with us into what ever we undergo. Because we are flawed, everything that we do will be flawed in some fashion. Like religion/faith, science is no exception."
Ah, but Science has self-correction mechanisms built into it, while Religions don't. That's because Science KNOWS it's imperfect, while Religions claim perfection. As a result, Science explores ideas and progresses toward genuine perfection, while Religions oppose independent thinking, and stagnate. (Note that Science does NOT generally "replace" one theory these days with another. Instead any new theory has to show how existing theory is just a special case. That's why Newton's Law of Gravitation is still taught and
used, in spite of physicists knowing that General Relativity is a more accurate description. Newton's version
remains useful.)
Jerry quoted: "Well, then, every time proof appears that something CLAIMED by Religious Authority to be true isn't, then why does faith persist in disregarding the proof?"
--and wrote: "this is criticaly important, you must separate "church", "religion" and "faith". They are each very separate, independent and distinguished things. Faith is the trust in a thing. Religion is the practice of that trust. Church is the institutionalasation of that practice."
I see what you are saying, but I used the phrase "Religious Authority" correctly. MOSES was a Religious Authority long before Judaism was institutionalized. Jesus and Mohammed were Authorities, also, not to mention large numbers of other prophets and saints. Including those that caused schisms, like Martin Luther. Which brings us back to opposition to independent thinking. ANY such means that some prior Religious Authority is being questioned! The ability of the Questioner to become a new Authority tends to be related partly to charisma, partly to oratory skill, and partly to the insightfulness of the questions asked. (Miracle-working helps, too, of course.
Well, the fact that Religions tend to evolve somewhat, in spite of claims of perfection ("WE have the Truth"), tends to disprove the claims of perfection, doesn't it?
Jerry also wrote: "To your point, just because the oldest global business of emotional blackmail and social engineering which is the Vatican ..."
I disagree. Judaism with its dietary and other control-freak restrictions is rather older than the Catholic church, and Hinduism with its "caste system" may be older yet.
Jerry continued: "... declared "X", doesn't mean that most people bought/buy into it. I would bet a gentleman's dollar that most people went along with that idea because they didn't want to be burned alive, not because they honestly thought that the Earth was flat."
That's not really what I'm asking. The Church leaders are supposed to have faith, also, right? Well, THEIR faith is up against Scientific Proofs, just as much as the faith of ordinary folks. I can see that they might be "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to dealing with Scientific Proofs. If they alter Religious Dogma to mesh with the Proofs, then doesn't that mean that they are admitting fault in prior claims of perfection --and are exposing themselves to mass departure of believers? Yet if they deny the Proofs and are revealed to be idiots, then ALSO they are exposing themselves to mass departure of believers! (Burning-alive HAS gone out of fashion these days, you know, as a means of keeping the flock in line.) SO, isn't it better not to make the claim in the first place, to Having the Truth?
