> > In other words,
> > though you are right that one cannot define "religion" very precisely,
> > the social fact is that the religion most of us rub up against is some
> > form of theism, and usually forms that imply some sort of interference
> > with nature from "beyond nature." Science does not disprove "religion"
> > for reasons you give. But on the whole the last few hundred years have
> > provide more exciting things to think about than god or spirit.
>
> maybe. an awfukl lot of people still think an awful lot about god and
> spirit (even some of us who think of ourselves as atheists). but it's
> certainly given us plenty ELSE to think about.
>
> j
------------------
"There is a reason why metaphysics sounds so passe, so vieux jeu today; for intellectually challenging perplexities and paradoxes, it has been far surpassed by theoretical science. Do the concepts of the Trinity, the soul, haecceity, universals, prime matter, and potentiality baffle you? They pale beside the unimaginable otherness of closed space-times, event-horizons, EPR correlations, and bootstrap models..." [Bas Van Fraassen] --
"Oh Finland, Finland, Finland" [Michael Palin]