Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

First, I would like to make the claim that perhaps my cat is God, and if she is, she is more like the "War God of the Hebrews" in the Old Testament. She appreciates worship, but if you rub her the wrong way you will taste her wrath.

These are two different statements. Humans are complex, and can hold strange and contradictory sets of beliefs while maintaining harmony in their lives.

For a moment let's define christianity with a small 'c' as what the rabbi named Jesus actually taught. Set aside the Judeo-Christian god, and our rabbi's alleged paternity. The 2nd primary rule of this basic philosophy is one of treating each person you meet in your life with the love you'd have for a literal brother or sister. Would you let your brother starve? If your sister needs your help, would you help? Would you take advantage of your sibling's weakness? As a social fabric, I can think of nothing as unifying than acknowledging our common inheritance and interdependence.

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 belief.)

I don't think that religion needs to stay on its side, but rather, needs to acknowledge the "truth" of reality defined by our observation (ie. Science). Science, and the scientific method are better tools for ferreting out the truth of the observable world. Science still has trouble with moral questions like, when should we pull the plug on a person in a coma, or when does that embryo become a US citizen. So, while intellect is good, there are times when we also need our best social wisdom. I think many of the big religion conflicts involve life or death decisions. Science can bring us the atomic bomb, but only our wisdom can prevent us from using it. So, before Pete gets in a twist, you don't need religion to resolve these morally tough questions. But, I contend that religion as a social fabric of commonly held values and mores provides a pretty good meter for determining an acceptable resolution. The rub for the non-Christian minority in a Judeo-Christian society is that the majority writes the rules (and sometimes the rules are more stupid and archaic than the rule writers). It is this same principle that brings me in conflict with moralists who believe I should be forced to pay for other peoples benefits. Common law, Magna Carta, or US Constitution (prior to perversion) ultimately gives us the freedoms and rights of torts and contracts. In other words, the government should exist to protect us from people who would do harm, to us, our families, or property, and to enforce the promises made by bound contract.

Aesthetics perhaps fall somewhere into this camp. Maybe one really believes that the similarity between the Rose Window and DNA seen from one particular angle "means" something. I think this is nothing more than pareidolia, but it's not testable, so I suppose that branch of spiritualism could coexist without conflict.

Rose windows and DNA on its head are a bit of a red herring I think. You are getting closer with aesthetics, or beauty, or perfection, or purity of mathematics. If a geneticist looks at DNA and sees a divine perfection or a divine complexity then so be it(for them), however, as you know it does not prove anything spiritual. How that scientist describes that DNA in a scientific setting can be different than their spiritual expression.

But the world's religions are not generally preaching NOMA. They make specific worldly claims that are definitely in 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.

Some people ("they") are making specific worldly claims in conflict with science. The understanding of God and the universe by someone like Roger Penrose, or C.S. Lewis is very different than that of someone like Jim Bakker. The latter type being the ones who garner the spot light through conflict. Not just conflict with science, but conflict within Christianity, Islam, Judaism or the secular world. We both have a problem with the likes of them, although we'd define that problem differently, and I'd say deep down we'd resolve that difference to be that abrasive, cantankerous quality that tends to define what we find distasteful about any religion (i.e. "I'm right, and the rest of you are all wrong.")

In the same way, I don't have a problem with many Muslims. I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety that condone terrorist violence. Of that 90%, there are many that have a similar view about human rights that you or I might. For Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, the media, and the attention is paid to the most outrageous ones. Again, if it bleeds, it leads. You didn't hear about that incident where a well off couple fully paid for a young unwed mother to get her undergraduate degree and pay for her child care. Or, that youth group that runs an inner city soup kitchen. Yeah, stuff like that happens every day, but hardly gets noticed.