Cofty and his anti-religion, anti-faith, pro-rationalism cruzade carries on ... Sometimes I wonder just how much have you really changed in your core being, from a dogmatic JW to a charismatic born-again, to a zealot atheist scientific orthodox; because the personality trait remains the same. Let's leave out of the equation who you are, since I accept that you're a respectable, intelligent and honored man. That's beside the point.
However, when contemporary scientific orthodox people such as yourself presume they have achieved the ranks of "unquestionable Truth" about the cosmos, you prove yourself to be absolutely no better than the religious orthodoxy that you so ardently advocate against. There's a blatant hipocrisy when you claim that you're not dogmatic, since what you accept as scientific fact generally accepted as valid among the scientific circles can indeed change if new evidence makes a compelling case for a change of interpretation of the reality, but, at the same time, you act as if the present knowledge is a sacred cow that cannot be questioned or challenged by others outside the "priestly" class of the "anointed" scientists, pseudo-scientists and lovers of science such as yourself.
Because the root of the problem lies in a snobbish attitude towards those who don't share your supposed rationalistic enlightenment. In many regards, you still live in the 18th century, in the Age of Enlightenment. I suspect that you would easily become an enlightened absolutist, since you do not tolerate the presence of people who hold faith without giving in to the irresistable call for atheist proselitism. And the urge to simply attempt to crush alternative views of the cosmos with your "shock and awe" argumentative tactics. It gets tiresome after a while to put up with it. Let the believers be believers, Cofty.
You (and others too) often attempt to hold religious leaders - and by extension, those who accept and share into similar beliefs - accountable for actions you judge as 'irrational'. I wonder what kind of punishment would you find adequate to prescribe to believers who commit the thought crime of having a non-rationalistic view of the world. Death, perhaps? A guetto, maybe? How about a concentration camp for believers? Would that suit you to satisfaction? But, in due honesty, can you claim that science hasn't acted irrationally as well?
If we could compile every claim published in respectable science publications since peer review became norm, and see see how many formulations once accepted as "truths" have been revised, amended, and even discarded as new evidence or measurements or social norms have emerged, what would a sensible person conclude? How foolish some accepted "facts" of 150 years ago appear to us today? How foolish will today's scientific zealots such as yourself appear some 200 years from now? I wonder if you're willing to accept that your descendants may well hold you accountable for your errors and your dogmatic vision of the world. If they're smart, they will say about you, what you say about religious discourse of people today: "The very definition of hubris". Your dogmatism will undoubtly be deemed foolish. Perhaps, if they're better than you, they'll forgive your ignorance and arrogance.
Eden
