| padib said: Gotcha, especially the admissions part, and I love point 2. For point 1, it's already working. For point 3, we'll be sharpening each other because I see it from the opposite end. As for the blinders, I know you can appreciate that there is bias on any side of the debate, and so putting blinders on can be done by any position, as it is a human flaw, not a religious one. To Dr. Grass, I'm excited to see the your contributions to the debate. |
The thing about adding religion to the science mix is that even though you might think that your religion would be a positive contribution to science, there are dozens and dozens of religion whose similar contribution to science you might not like if your wish to inject religion in science was to happen. And the only reason each person thinks their religion contributes positively is because they believe its premises.
So it is not so much about merely adding the bible to science as adding all holy texts to science (or at least all those still believed, we might get away with omitting Greek mythology). I think science already has enough on its plate with this world not to bother with those world imagined by man*.
* even if one religion is true, most others would still come from man so on average that statement is true, with possibly one or a small number of exceptions.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
