(Note: When I say that religion is self-consistent, I obviously don't mean every religion).

Just your religion obviously.

I enjoy how the religious like to claim Newton as their own yet religious authorities, knowing full well that Netwonian theories shattered their dogmas about the universe and how it worked, fought him to the last. He accused, among other things, with his Law of Gravity, of "taking from God that direct action upon his works so constantly ascribed to him in the Scriptures and transfered it to a material mechanism" and that he "substituted gravitation for Providence".

No, religion is not self-consistent. (not least because of all the parodoxes which have been summarily dismissed). It is anything but. It has been forced to cherry pick what it wants to uphold from both science and its own doctrine. Knowing full well scriptural accounts for physical reality are inadequate to the point of being absurd, the religious now claim that those parts of the scripture are "metaphorical" or not meant to be taken literally. Whereas the religious used to claim all sorts of supernatural interventions in the physical world, beyond merely the so-called resurrection story which was said to have occurred 2,000 years ago, now they claim that religion only explains the phantom "spiritual" world.

This is the problem whenever you subscribe to such an inflexible worldview that claims to be timeless and infallible but was invented in the Bronze Age, you run into serious problems when the current of knowledge far outpaces what religion can explain. Now you have to resolve all sorts of contradictions and religion is ill equipped for change because of their ridiculous claims of their god being perfect and all-knowing, and the scripture being a reflection of this supposed perfect and all-knowing being.

And I realize that things like "God is mysterious" is supposedly a basic implication of a theist's beliefs, but it just reflects the total inability of religion to ever be held accountable for any of his absurd assertions. Whereas religion gets away with simply making random, blanket assertions without any sort of substantiation or support, science is lambasted by the religious for not fulfilling their demands for instant gratification.

The religious have no patience for the advancement of knowledge, and if they're not satisfied with the answers we have now, they smugly assume that the answers cannot be discovered. The whole ethos of religion is a complete contempt for the faculties of mankind.

*He was accused of substituting gravitation for Providence*

If only the Abrahamics could accept that their god is limited in some way, and wasn't all perfect, all knowing, all powerful, and the only true god, etc the thing could be taken more seriously. But flawed, limited gods don't sell I guess.

@Putin,

I've already responded to your alleged demonstrations of inconsistencies. Since this is just another empty assertion that you gave some, I'll leave interested readers to go see my earlier responses, as well as the excellent responses of others.

As for Newton -- sure, some in the church disliked his theories. Some in the church (including myself I might say) dislike aspects of his theology. What the heck does that have to do with whether he was driven by religion or not? It's not even controversial that he was. It would be like if I said, "You claim Dawkins as a scientist, but even Stephen Jay Gould didn't agree with him." Yeah, people disagree. What of it?

The rest of your post constantly conflates different strands of Christian theology. For example, it's simply not true that Christians used to look for constant miracles, and now don't. Some used to, and some do still; some used not to, and some still don't. There are different strains of theology, and have been from near the beginning.

"The religious have no patience for the advancement of knowledge, and if they're not satisfied with the answers we have now, they smugly assume that the answers cannot be discovered."

Right. Like Newton. Like Maxwell. Etc., etc.

Frankly, your own philosophy is itself riddled with contradictions. Take, for example, your certainty that consciousness will be scientifically explained. Now, personally, I don't know if it will or not. My beliefs allow for either, and I can see that we just don't have strong evidence either way (I'm inclined to buy philosopher David Chalmers's arguments that such an explanation is unlikely, but hey, maybe there will be a revolution).

You, on the other hand, are committed to the position that science _must_ explain consciousness. This is simply a faith-based position. There is no scientific evidence for the proposition that science will explain consciousness. You may point to some kind of "grand arc or progress," but that's just a mental construct. The fact is, you can provide no reason for believing that science will in fact explain consciousness apart from your precommitment to a metaphysical positions (materialism).

I just bring this up as an example; as I pointed out already, I don't really hang much on science's ability or inability to explain this (notwithstanding your accusation that this is some kind of last desperate stronghold, lol.) In fact I love physics and study it, and would be fascinated if it shed light on that subject. But the point, anyway, is your own inconsistency -- a devotion to science as the way we can know things (or so I infer from what you've said), and a reliance on things that science hasn't shown.

"If only the Abrahamics could accept that their god is limited in some way, and wasn't all perfect, all knowing, all powerful, and the only true god, etc the thing could be taken more seriously. But flawed, limited gods don't sell I guess. "

Well, there are plenty of religions, and strands of Abrahamic religions, that do relax their belief in these things. Since I don't see you accepting them either, I guess I'm going to have to put this down to a misleading rhetorical attempt to put down your opponent's position.

You act as though Newton and the religious authorities simply had a mild disagreement, or that church "disagreement" amounted to nothing but an academic debate. No, religious disagreement meant repression. To equate the thing to Gould vs Dawkins is quite astounding.

"or example, it's simply not true that Christians used to look for constant miracles, and now don't. Some used to, and some do still; some used not to, and some still don't. There are different strains of theology, and have been from near the beginning."

And this is evidence of its self-consistency? It's total fragmentation and ability to discard supposed sacred and timeless principles whenever it is convenient. The Bible calls for church unity. There is only one body, there is only christ, there is only one church. Yet Christians seem perfectly pleased with the fragmentation into countless tiny sects all claiming to be the *real* doctrine.

"Right. Like Newton. Like Maxwell. Etc., etc."

Right, they were so 'inspired' by religion that they utterly destroyed religious dogmas and replaced them with materialism. I guess that's the best anybody can come up with. When all else fails, just simply take credit for the advancements of science based on the fact that they were not all atheists. Nevermind that the theologians of the time wanted them silenced or killed. Nevermind that their theories do nothing to advance theistic explanations of the world, in fact do the opposite. That they profess to be Christian is sufficient to claim victory.

"Frankly, your own philosophy is itself riddled with contradictions. Take, for example, your certainty that consciousness will be scientifically explained."

"You, on the other hand, are committed to the position that science _must_ explain consciousness. This is simply a faith-based position."

No, it's a reasoned assumption, based on the fact that science has utterly annihilated every other supernatural or non-material account of the physical world. Whereas the supernaturalists have been able to explain precisely nothing, and have delayed the progress of mankind's knowledge through their use of terror and coercion. Based on the fact that one view has a tremendous record of advancing knowledge (indeed just look at the great progress is cosmology in the past decade alone), while the other view has a completely abysmal record, it's the only rational prediction to make.

It's akin to predicting which of two lawnmowers will work. One has a history of routinely working and getting the job done. One has no record of ever having started at all. Now you can sit here and say that the only prudent claim would be to say that you have absolutely no idea one way or the other which one is more likely to start. But that would be a bogus false equivalency. You know damn well that one is much more likely to start than the other one.

"Since I don't see you accepting them either, I guess I'm going to have to put this down to a misleading rhetorical attempt to put down your opponent's position."

I've spoken highly of pre-Abrahamic paganism, especially the Hellenistic inspired Roman variant, so that's what you get for assuming.

"Well, there are plenty of religions, and strands of Abrahamic religions, that do relax their belief in these things."

And how do they reconcile that with the claims made in their scripture?

"You act as though Newton and the religious authorities simply had a mild disagreement, or that church "disagreement" amounted to nothing but an academic debate. No, religious disagreement meant repression."

Wow, crazy then that Newton was never repressed, isn't it? How would you explain that?

Let's see, if I remember right, he was given a prestigious professorship in his 20s, was celebrated in his 40s, and ended up with a prestigious government post. Crazy how religiously repressed those scientists were, huh?

"Nevermind that the theologians of the time wanted them silenced or killed."

*yawn* Really, you grow boring. This is a completely absurd portrayal of mainstream theologians' response to Newton, or any subsequent physicist. I refer the interested reader to.... well, ANY reputable book on the history of science and religion during the enlightenment.

"And this is evidence of its self-consistency? It's total fragmentation and ability to discard supposed sacred and timeless principles whenever it is convenient. The Bible calls for church unity. There is only one body, there is only christ, there is only one church. Yet Christians seem perfectly pleased with the fragmentation into countless tiny sects all claiming to be the *real* doctrine. "

Well, I'm certainly not pleased with it, no. But I didn't cite it as evidence of consistency, per se. I cited it as evidence that _your_ argument for INconsistency was fallacious. It does just a dandy job at that. To go back to Dawkins and Gould, I couldn't very well say that science is inconsistent by quoting Dawkins on something and then Gould contradicting him and then saying, "See? Science contradicts itself all over the place!" could I?

"Right, they were so 'inspired' by religion that they utterly destroyed religious dogmas and replaced them with materialism."

Actually, none of them were materialists, so I don't really know how you can say they replaced them with materialism. Sure, materialists tried to use them to support their cause, but then, lots of religious people (including themselves) rejected the validity of doing so. So, you'd have to assume what you were trying to prove to just assert that they "set up materialism." Man, you love doing that.

"Nevermind that their theories do nothing to advance theistic explanations of the world, in fact do the opposite. That they profess to be Christian is sufficient to claim victory."

You really seem to be having a terrible time keeping your eye on the ball, putin. Here was my point. You said religious predictions never came true. I pointed out that Newton viewed the order he was looking for as a distinctly religious prediction. This fact overturns your statement. This is a narrow logical point. I am not saying, "Rah rah, scientist Christians, yay for us." I'm refuting your point.

That was Newton. The Newton, Maxwell remark was refuting your other point, where you said, and I quote

"The religious have no patience for the advancement of knowledge...."

The fact that Newton and Maxwell, et al., were religious is sufficient to overturn this ridiculous generalization. Again, no "Rah, rah, we're Christians," just a total refutation of a narrow point that YOU made. I am not the one making generalizations or silly claims.

Once again, please pay attention to the _context_ in which I make statements. It will lead to your making far fewer irrelevant comebacks.

"No, it's a reasoned assumption, based on the fact that science has utterly annihilated every other supernatural or non-material account of the physical world."

Yeah, and? The point remains that you have no observational evidence that it will do so again, so if you really believe that observation is the one true way to get truth, then you just don't know whether it can extend and explain consciousness.

Maybe, after all, neither lawnmower will start this time.

"And how do they reconcile that with the claims made in their scripture?"

Indeed. I didn't say that such a thing was admirable or likely to be convincing. That was you.

Putin, what Semck said. And a bit more...: You complain about people suppressing science in the name of religion, and yes, that has happened. But no one here is arguing all religion is correct, or that everything that is done purportedly in the name of God is actually his will. What about evil scientists, like Mengele et al.? It would be a juvenile argument to say that since Mengele was evil for his Nazi experiments on humans, therefore science is evil. No, our point here is a limited one: to show that your own anti-religious, anti-spiritual, anti-supernatural worldview does not hold water, and to share our own experience with a supernatural God.

Excuse me; I guess that's two points, albeit related.