Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[--Pete]

Hi,

Statement no. 1 is less certain. If we're talking about Non-Overlapping Magisteria, then perhaps not - they don't *have* to conflict, so long as religion sticks more or less to non-observable phenomena. (This is the point where I wonder why anyone cares about non-observable phenomena at all, but that's my personal beliefs.)

I think that Dawkins has the right of it (summarized in your link, under Criticisms; full text here). My problem with Dawkins is that he focuses too narrowly on Christianity in particular and mostly ignores religion in general. Too many of his specific points and examples can be answered with "Yes, but that isn't part of in ...ism." I think he does that partially out of ignorance of non-Christian religions and partially out of the desire to communicate with his audience which is chiefly of European descent and thus most likely familiar with Christian tenets. However, if one looks beyond the specifics, his general arguments seem to valid.

. . . pareidolia . . .

:DWow, thanks. A new word for me. It will come in very useful the next time I go to an exhibit of modern art. :P

But the world's religions are not generally preaching NOMA. They make specific worldly claims that are definitely conflict with science - and lots of them. They assert political pressure on governments that have very real scientific implications. They insist on the literal reality of religious phenomena, intruding into the other Magisterium. Telling scientists that, in some ideal case, this would not be happening, is not very reassuring.

Yes, exactly.

--Pete