Science Blog Wars

Scienceblogs are home to a large number of atheists, and thus many of their discussions are very anti-religous. Sometimes ridiculously so, as ridiculous as some anti-atheist diatribes I've seen. However, one blogger has recently begun discussing his own stance, and he's no atheist. I highly recommend reading his posts:

So I'm a Christian, Shoot Me
and
What is the Purpose of Religion?.

I think the key statement is here: "We are talking a layer of reality that is crucial for many, irrelevant to others, and orthogonal to the natural world except via the affects is has as a result of the actions of the faithful."

However, trying to get the virulent anti-theists to actually consider that seriously is like...trying to get a Christian Fundamentalist to show respect for the Koran. The thing to realize is that he is not making any statements contrary to naturalistic science. There's a fundamental (er, no pun intended) disconnect here. I think it goes like this:

NA:"There is no direct interaction with the natural world."
A:"Then you admit there is no god!"
NA:"No..."
A:"If there's no interaction, there's no way to measure it, so it doesn't exist."

And then the discussion generally degenerates into namecalling on one side or the other (or both). I look forward to the post where Rob explains why he chooses the label "Christian" for himself.

I consider myself a Taoist. What is the Tao? *shrugs* How do I know it's real? *waves a pair of pliers* What if it didn't exist? *blinks in puzzlement* Am I actually going to answer any of these questions? *smiles*

A mite more detail than that: The Tao is the Tao. But as soon as you call it the Tao, it's changed. It's something other than what it was. What was it to begin with? If I answer, it is no answer. If I do not answer, you might have a chance at understanding. Does the Tao intervene in human affairs? *blinks* I'm wearing socks, aren't I?

I could go on, but it's unlikely to help anyone currently scratching their heads in puzzlement.