Dart. I understand your point that the scientific method cannot be used to address specific religious claims. I'm not retarded.
You're a breath of fresh air.
The scientific method is grounded in testability and repeatibility. Many religious claims (I.e. the existance of god, that the body has a soul) cannot be tested.
Correct, which was essentially my point. This would be like trying to verify a Chinese translation using the Rosetta Stone.
The approach you take, that science and religion are two separate ways of knowing, is essentially correct.
You won't get an argument from me. I agree. But Schmo had a conniption fit when I said it.
Gould describes this approach as NOMA (religion and science represent non-overlapping magisteria). I'm up to date on what can and cannot be explained by the scientific method (which I use everyday in my research).
You've already agreed with the points above, so I have no reason to doubt your education on this. You're not retarded; Schmo is.
My post was not an argument to your position. In fact, it wasn't an argument at all, yet you treat it as such, with your point by point critique.
I was just emphasizing my point that science currently is not able to test religion, I wasn't picking a fight. You're holding out hope that eventually it will be able to test religion, but this could either prove true or it could simply be wishful thinking. And yes, I am aware of the limitations of science with respect to the human conscience.
Have you read the works of either of the authors I mentioned? They can explain much better what I tried to state in a few sentences.
I ordered them after you posted them. I've read Lewontin and Dawkins, but it has been a while. I find the entire subject absolutely fascinating, and have considered going back to school to do graduate studies in sociobiology.
If religion is a natural phenomenon, if it is a selected trait that's beneficial for survival, why shouldn't scientists use the scientific method to study it?
Again, science doesn't tell us enough about the human conscience to know definitively where theistic beliefs come from. You believe one day it might. That's fine. I have no problem with that so long as you realize it currently doesn't.
You seem pretty confident that science does not have many answers in this area.
This isn't a matter confidence; it is a matter of fact. Of course, I suppose "many" is relative.
Neurotheology is in its infancy. Give it some time...you might learn something.
Neurotheology will probably suffer the same fate as parapsychology.