ID “disses” faith

I'll concede that deists go too far in saying the creator is "God" but maybe they're just using it as a generic word for a creator of the universe. However, I still don't see any articles of faith. It doesn't require faith to view the universe as an intricate clockwork, even 250 years ago and it's even more evident today. That's strictly observation. It doesn't require faith to say that clockworks require clockmakers. Again, it's simple observation. And no, I'm still agnostic as I'm not certain that deists are correct. But if I had to bet on it I'd bet that way. DaveScot

Dave, Back to where we were yesterday... "Be a sport and tell me exactly what those faith-based assertions are." Two things stand out to me: 1) The section is an apology for Deism; hence, the author asserts that God exists. Whether He exists outside of one's own mind or not, is God not an abstract concept that cannot be subjected to direct scientific empiricism? I don't see how He is. Neither does the author attempt to offer a logical proof for the existence of God. What he does is offer arguments to support a position of faith. 2) The author also asserts that all "revealed religions" are artificial or man-made (i.e. not genuinely revealed by God). Consider the following two quotes. "all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security." and "Because Deism is based on nature, the laws of nature, and the creation, it is a natural religion as opposed to revealed or man-made artificial religion." The author makes his case, but his positions are still rooted in faith. BTW, I'm just curious, have you converted from Agnosticism to Deism? David crandaddy

These things are better called presumptions based on past performance. DaveScot

Science assumes faith because it assumes the laws of nature will be the same tomorrow and were the same yesterday. A faithless system cannot account for that or give a good reason for that. A theist can. geoffrobinson

Neal you wrote: ”Mentok, what then is the difference between “faith”/”belief” and “knowledge” then? You’re conflating the two, and you have several hundred years’ of the history of philosophy worth answering to if you want to make them the same thing.Second, who ever said I believe in fideism? I simply said what that sort of belief was called. Methinks you’re ready to bash me no matter what I say" Knowledge is objective, faith or belief is subjective. I wasn't conflating the two. I didn't say you believed in fideism. I didn't bash you in my own estimation, go back and re-read what I wrote, if someone disagrees with you and you call that being bashed, so be it. mentok

You go dodgingcars! Git your activism on. ;) Bombadill

I sent her an email questioning her believe that faith needs to be blind. I asked if the Big Bang was a destroyer of faith... If history and archaelogy are destroyers of faith... If Paley was a destroyer of faith. I reminded her that IDs examples (and approach) may be new, but the arguement is thousands of years old and it apparently did not destroy faith. I asked her if the Bible truly asked us to be blind in our faith... or if maybe it valued to some degree: wisdom and intellect. Didn't Paul in Romans 1 says that God's invisible qualities are made known to everyone through his creation? Isn't ID, in some exploring this idea? Can we detect design in nature and therefore reason there was a designer? dodgingcars

Sorry, to clarify: When did I ever say that my beliefs were those of Paul in that verse? I was trying to explain that that line of theology is long-standing. And second, I should have asked you: Is faith KNOWING something? Neal

Mentok wrote: "What is faith? Faith is belief in something. Belief can be based on philosophy, empirical observation, direct experience, lack of experience and knowledge, or sentimentalism. Those who tell me that empirical observation cannot give rise or enhance belief in something where previously there was no empirical data to support that belief are wrong. The opposite is true." Mentok, what then is the difference between "faith"/"belief" and "knowledge" then? You're conflating the two, and you have several hundred years' of the history of philosophy worth answering to if you want to make them the same thing. Second, who ever said I believe in fideism? I simply said what that sort of belief was called. Methinks you're ready to bash me no matter what I say. Neal

"And I'm sure glad that it doesn't, because irreducible complexity is junk science. A faith based on junk science turns into a junk faith. I believe. That's good enough." Just more proof that Creationists *hate* ID! I love it! mtgcsharpguy

Depends on what Biblical truth. It's certainly at odds with the story of Noah and the Ark. Two of every animal won't fit into an ark of 40 cubits and no one could gather them all - how do you propose Noah collected penguins and kangaroos? It's at odds with people living to be many hundreds of years old. It's at odds with the order in which living things appeared in Genesis. It's at odds with people turning into pillars of salt. I don't see any way to reconcile these bible stories and scientific reality without compromising either science or biblical literalness. Being a man of science and reason it's an easy choice for me to make. If it's any consolation at least we agree on Lucy. More importantly and more to the point of this blog we seem to agree on the objective evidence of design in nature. DaveScot

I've yet to be shown how scientific discovery is at odds with Biblical truth. It certainly seems that with every significant discovery in the scientific realm and with every new turn of the archaeologist's spade, we have more confirmation of the Bible's reliability. And I've yet to be convinced that "Lucy" was anything more than an extinct animal species which we do not share a lineage with. I invite someone to try and convince me, however. I'm more objective than you may think. ;) Bombadill

Hey Boze Whatever! Talk to the hand. DaveScot

I'm totally relaxed... ...maybe you haven't seen all his comments, or maybe you just don't agree. To say that the bible writers are a bunch of lice infested beduins, and imply that they're fools somehow is rude. To say someone is basically a fool for believing in an immaterial soul (as I believe Dembski himself does- which is the only reason I questioned Dave to begin with! Which got me the "piss off" response.) It's just uncalled for. His comment here, there's no need to talk down to me for 1. and 2. his comment about "the truth hurts" was meant to cause trouble- makes it fairly obvious he's making the rude statements in order TO start trouble. If you don't agree with everything Dave says, he comments that you're somehow silly or naive or dumb to believe in certain things (a spirit realm, for example, the afterlife as another example.) Others don't behave like that. Dave shouldn't either. jboze3131

Dave, It's late. I'll continue with this tomorrow. crandaddy

Josh, Hey, man, I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to chill. I'm a Christian, too, and I haven't found anything that Dave has posted to be blatantly offensive. Just take a deep breath and relax. crandaddy

Crandaddy "in the link you provided is fundamentally established on faith-based assertions" Be a sport and tell me exactly what those faith-based assertions are. DaveScot

"newer understanding of the natural world provided by modern science makes empirical knowledge of the natural world compatible with a theistic ontology" I disagree. I gave you examples (Franklin & Einstein) who found that empirical knowledge of the natural world led straight to deism through nothing but reason. The empirical knowledge of nature has grown in scope, but not in kind, and was already sufficient in scope centuries ago to support non-specific theistic ontology. I also further stipulate that the greater empirical knowledge has done nothing to change the relationship between science and religions based on faith in revelation (specific theistic ontology). I'm aware of no new empirical knowledge of the universe that weakens or enhances scientific consideration for revealed theism. I think you misunderstood what I meant by science rejecting faith. Science has nothing to say about faith in religion. Science is silent on religion. Science rejects faith in things that are scientific in nature. Science admits only empirical evidence into its domain (or at least it's supposed to). Faith is not empirical evidence. "revealed religions posit that God created the world" It's more than that. Revealed religions posit that God revealed himself and his relationship to the world through prophets and scriptures. "the doctrine of a creator God based on probability concepts" This is more or less deism which is quite different from revealed religions. Deism uses reason and observation of nature to deduce a creator. Ronald Reagan illustrated it nicely when he said "When you eat a meal in a fine restaurant do you doubt the existence of a chef?" DaveScot

Dave, you've now clearly proven not only your arrogance, but your rudeness, and your ignorance as well. This comment isn't mean to be rude to Christians? Your reply here is an attempt to cause trouble: "Is there some part of “lice ridden beduins” you believe is inaccurate? Speak right up. Maybe the truth just hurts." If you don't think that's rude- you might want to take some classes on civility. No one is trying to get anyone banned. Your comments towards religion are just uncalled for. You have, in the past few days, said numerous rude things about Christians and how absurd it is to believe what they do...you made fun of myself and Bombadill for believing in an immaterial soul. As if we're fools for believing such a thing. Your rude comments towards religion are uncalled for...I'm sure most here would agree. You know quite well that your lice infest quote was rude...it was intended to be rude. But you can pretend that's not the case if you want. You know very well that any Christian would take extreme offense to that...especially considering it's not even accurate- you try to pain the writers of the text is ancient fools. Hardly. I'm not threatened Dave...it's rather funny that you'd imply YOUR comments are threatening my religious beliefs. I mean, I'm sitting here gaping open mouth in shock at my insecurity, especially after you mentioned your knowledge of Christianity comes from a series of fictional novels! You're far from open minded. When Bombadill posited an immaterial soul- your first comment reply was what? "Spare me!" Does that sound open minded to you? I doubt anyone here would find that very open minded. That and your implication that theists and anyone who believes in a supernatural realm are fools for thinking that way- that's the epitome of close minded. I've noticed you've had conflicts with at least 2 or 3 other people...I have a feeling your social skills are lacking, and you're just plain rude (as I've seen in your comments to others.) My first reply from you was when I asked why Christ was your role model even tho you think the bible is bogus. Your reply was "piss off", I believe. Someone so short tempered and rude need not talk down to me and call me young man or boy. No one is trying to put religion into science Puck...these are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. Your comments at PT show you lack the common sense to figure out that concept. I was, and others were also, discussing RELIGION. Not science. Try to keep up. jboze3131

Dave The case for Deism, as opposed to revealed "religions" (I have a problem with faith being equated with religion.), in the link you provided is fundamentally established on faith-based assertions. All faith-based assertions and anything predicated upon them are essentially out-of-bounds as far as science is concerned. This is as much true for the resurection of Jesus as it is for the assertion that God exists. Faith-based assertions are irrefutable by science because they are essintially concepts that lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. The only time science can ever really disconfirm a faith-based assertion is when an aspect of nature previously believed to have been the province of divine agency is demonstrated to actually be that of natural regularity. The reason I say "disconfirm" instead of "disprove" is because science can never actually disprove anything. The best it can do is render an explanation implausible by virtue of Ockham's Razor. Dwelling on faith issues like this not only strays from the intended topic for this blog, namely ID, but also has a nasty way of generating strife. Why do I have the feeling that I'm preaching to the choir with this stuff? Did you not say this in the previous thread?: “Less bible thumping and more NFL thumping seems to be in order.” to which I responded, "I agree with Dave. There are places you can go for heated theological debate, but this blog is not one of them. Besides, I think we all realize there are people who love to falsely equivocate ID with theology. Let’s not give them fuel to add to their fire." We share common ground here, Dave, and (I hope) mutual respect. Let's not compromise either. crandaddy

Back on topic. ID doesn't "disrespect" faith but it does nothing to reinforce it either. ID is a clinical analysis of complexity in nature. It's not faith. Its science and math and reason. And that's exactly what I like about it. DaveScot

Dave you wrote: me-"“Scientific knowledge might be at odds with specific theological doctrines of whatever type but no longer is science antgonistic to some type of theistic ontology.” dave-I’m still not getting you. Can you give me examples of an antagonist situation in the past that’s no longer antagonistic today to illustrate your point?" I'm not saying there is no possibility of antagonism between science and faith in people's minds, I'm saying that there is no longer any reason for it because the newer understanding of the natural world provided by modern science makes empirical knowledge of the natural world compatible with a theistic ontology. Of course many people will disagree with that assessment, but it is true nevertheless. Dave you also wrote: "I’m saying there’s antagonism between science and all revealed religions." There may be specific religious doctrines which are not addressed by or refuted by empirical evidence but that doesn't mean that all religious doctrines and all theistic conceptions are at odds with science. Science can only go so far, it can help us see some of the mechanisms of the natural world but science isn't of any value when it comes to most theological doctrines. Science can't tell us what God is like but can show that some type of intelligence is inherent within the natural world. Science can't tell us that God isn't Jesus but is Zeus, or that reincarnation is true or not, or that hell is true or not, or that heaven is real or false. Science can't confirm or deny original sin nor karma. Science doesn't address most theological doctrines, therefore it is not antagonist towards them. While there are some theological doctrines which are incompatible with scientific discoveries e.g cosmology, those doctrines are not the be all and end all of most religious doctrines. Then you wrote: "Science rejects faith (and it mostly does if you discount faith in St. Charles Darwin) and instead requires empirical evidence and reason to establish truth (without getting pedantic about the definition of “truth”). It will never acknowledge the truth of any revealed religion unless the deity(s) manifest in a measurable, repeatable way. This upsets many of those with faith that their revealed religion is true." Well that is patently false. Science may reject specific religious doctrines of one type or another but not simply faith in God. Most revealed religions posit that God created the world and humanity and everything else. The revelations of the new physics, biochemistry, etc, clearly when viewed in an unbiased fashion support the doctrine of a creator God based on probability concepts. M.I T physicist Gerald Schroeder wrote a book showing just that called 'The Hidden Face Of God: How Science Reveals The Ultimate Truth'. mentok

Hey...at least DaveScot is still trying to leave religion out of science... Jboze seems like he would celebrate if the USA declared his belief the official religious belief of the nation....but only if they choose his "correct" belief puckSR

Is there some part of "lice ridden beduins" you believe is inaccurate? Speak right up. Maybe the truth just hurts. From my POV you seem like someone whose faith is teetering on the edge of disbelief and you lash out at anyone who doesn't hold your hand and whisper sweet revelations in your ear to reinforce your faith. Don't shoot the messenger. Then in a most unChristian manner you bear false witness to what I've said in a transparent attempt to get Dembski to ban me. Shame on you, young man. Maybe you should go find yourself a nice bible support group and stop interacting with open minded adults who might say things that threaten your personal beliefs. DaveScot

The Deist Roots of the United States of America http://www.deism.com/DeistAmerica.htm

Latter Deists were to completely reject any idea of revelation and base their ideas of God simply on the application of their reason on the creation. The order of nature to them was evidence of design. The design they detected in nature lead them to believe there is a Designer of nature, which is God.

Sound familiar? Anyone... anyone... Ferris Bueller... anyone? DaveScot

lice infested beduins is how you described the writers of the bible. sorry. i take it back, your many mocking comments of late are a sign of your adoration. silly me. jboze3131

dave- please. youre nobodys boss on this blog, no matter how much you think you are. youre the one who flips out if someone questions why you think this or that. so lets not talk about 'boys' you have mocked christianity at least 5 or 6 times in the past few days. i merely question why you post to dembskis blog if you think hes a quack with his worldview. no one is putting words in your mouth- the numerous comments --"spare me" (with your ideas of the supernatural! for one-- speak volumes. jboze3131

Boze, I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I don't despise Christianity. I don't have any faith in it and I say why I don't. Grow up little boy. DaveScot

"Scientific knowledge might be at odds with specific theological doctrines of whatever type but no longer is science antgonistic to some type of theistic ontology." I'm still not getting you. Can you give me examples of an antagonist situation in the past that's no longer antagonistic today to illustrate your point? DaveScot

from the ridiculous link dave posted:

"Since we know we did not create the creation or ourselves, yet we and the creation do exist, it is logical to believe that God, or an Eternal Cause or Creator created us. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with revealed religion. In fact, all the absurdities of revealed religion are responsible for many sincere thinking people to reject and close their minds to natural religion/Deism. The priests, ministers, and rabbis need to suppress, or at least complicate, the pure and simple belief and realization of Deism for their own job security. And the power elites have no use for Deism because they can't use Deism to "inspire" mankind to wage war against itself for the elitists' own selfish purposes. In fact, Deism, by focusing on the first creed of all religions, belief in God, could frustrate the war/money machine permanently."

i still have to wonder why he posts at dembskis site considering he despises christianity so much. jboze3131

Crandaddy, I'm saying there's antagonism between science and all revealed religions. Always has been and always will be. Nothing has changed. Science rejects faith (and it mostly does if you discount faith in St. Charles Darwin) and instead requires empirical evidence and reason to establish truth (without getting pedantic about the definition of "truth"). It will never acknowledge the truth of any revealed religion unless the deity(s) manifest in a measurable, repeatable way. This upsets many of those with faith that their revealed religion is true. DaveScot

Dave I don't think what you wrote is what I was refering to. I was writing in the context of science not being in contradistinction to or necessarily unable to be usefull for positing or enhancing a theistic ontology because of the advancement of our understanding of the natural world. Scientific knowledge might be at odds with specific theological doctrines of whatever type but no longer is science antgonistic to some type of theistic ontology. mentok

Good read on deism compared to revealed religions. http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm I think Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein would have loved IDT. DaveScot

Dave, "The antagonism has always been between science and the Christian faith." I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that science is fundamentally at odds with Christianity? crandaddy

mentok "The old antagonism between faith and science is obsolete." No, I think it's alive and well. The antagonism has always been between science and the Christian faith. There's a huge difference between acknowledging that the universe is designed (like Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein) and believing the creator sent his son to die on a cross to redeem the sins of mankind. It seems to me the antagonism is alive and well and based on exactly the same bones of contention. DaveScot

Where can I read M(r)s. Ives' detailed critique of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory? She really seems to have it all figured out: Evolution = science/Intelligent Design = faith - really convincing stuff :P. crandaddy

Anteater, "Anybody know who said 'Come let us reason together'?" Isaiah 1:18 (KJV) - "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." crandaddy

" When we try to prove and promote the metaphysical through the physical — when we muddle faith and science — we are, in effect, saying that faith is not enough, that faith, like science, requires proof. Faith that requires proof is no faith at all." The problem with all of this is that _proving_ something is not really the end point of either ID or Creationism (well, it's _part_ of the ends of creationism). The end point of ID is to allow questions relating to teleology into the realm of science, and to acknowledge intelligent agency as an independent causitive force (and thus open it up to scientific examination). The end point of creationism is to allow historical science and biology to proceed in ways which follow God's word. I wonder if the person attributes the same issues to archaeology as she does to creationism? Should archaeologists stop digging in order to have more faith? If not, then under what rubric should creationists stop their investigations? Likewise, for what reason is a historical source a priori discounted as the starting point for a scientific investigation? If Christ is truly the center of everything we are to do, should not Christians who are biologists disregard common ancestry? Or is there some reason that putting Christ first should not apply to those in the sciences? When people make such arguments (I believe in both the Bible and evolution) it is because their belief in scripture is only as a fairy tale, and not as the history of God's relationship with man. I have a friend with similar beliefs. He is a Biblical scholar, and is very familiar with ancient near east literature. When he reads Genesis, he sees all sorts of gods being argued against and thought processes which are being overturned. However, he only sees how Genesis knocks down the gods of _yesterday_, and totally cannot see the instances where Genesis is knocking down the idols of today (actually, he sees it, but disregards it as myth). He doesn't see how "after their kind" is an attack by Genesis on common ancestry, or how the lineages recorded are attacks on long ages, specifically the long ages of man. He sees only Genesis knocking down thoughts and ideas he never thought of believing in anyway, but when they attack his _own_ beliefs, he says that Genesis 1-11 is mythical. Now, even if you were to believe that Genesis 1-11 is completely mythical, I don't see how it could be useful for debunking gods of the past and not gods of today. It's either useful for debunkings or it is not, whether or not it is history or myth. Of course, many (myself included) would question how it could ever be useful for debunking anything if it were myth. johnnyb

Neal you wrote: "Mentok I believe she would be referring to the line of theological reasoning articulated by the Apostle Paul, who writes in II Cor. 4 that we “believe in things unseen,” and which is ardently endorsed by Thomas Aquinas, who essentially saw in Anselm’s ontological argument (a logical proof for the existence of God, based solely upon reason) a conflation of faith with epistemological categories of true/false, logical/illogical" Well if you want to believe that fine. I don't and I don't need someone telling me where and how my own faith is supported and where and how it isn't. I don't believe in God based on the "unseen". I "see" God working through everything. I see God through the empirical examination of nature based on the mathematical probablity of things being as they are sans a designing mechinism inherent in nature. I "see" God in the workings of our minds, memory, and ability to utilize them. The physicist "sees" God through the empirical study of the precision and seemingly designed laws of physics. The old antagonism between faith and science is obsolete. Science in it's primitive state was indeed unable to give empirical evidence of God because the scientific knowledge of nature was practically nill. Now that we have a greater understanding of the mechanisms working in the natural world we discover that the natural world is complex to a degree where the laws of probability preclude chance and random events from being seriously considered as an explanation for what is empirically observed. What is faith? Faith is belief in something. Belief can be based on philosophy, empirical observation, direct experience, lack of experience and knowledge, or sentimentalism. Those who tell me that empirical observation cannot give rise or enhance belief in something where previously there was no empirical data to support that belief are wrong. The opposite is true. mentok

Take from me -- a long-time resident of the Alamo City -- by linking Susan Ives's column, our host has increased her readership by several orders of magnitude. In fact, those who've posted comments here may be the only human beings who have ever attempted to follow her reasoning for an entire column. The three top reasons people in this city buy the San Antonio Express-News are: 1) For the TV listings, 2) For the classified ads, and 3) For lining the bottom of the bird cage. dchammer

Faith without reason or logic is just idiotic.

jboze3131, this is called "fideism" - some consider Kierkegaard a Christian thinker along these lines. Credo quia absurdum, "I believe because it is absurd." Neal

Hey, there's Lucy again! Nobody has been able to answer my question about the number of chromosomes Lucy has. Does she have the number of: 1) humans 2) chimpanzees 3) none of the above DaveScot

Well I’m glad that Susan has a cute little soapbox from where she can spread the word. Faith is Faith is Faith, Susan. If your faith is not based on logical proof or material evidence, fine. But when were you told by God that faith cannot come from those sources? The Gospel of Susan part 1, we await the second sermon from the mount.

Mentok I believe she would be referring to the line of theological reasoning articulated by the Apostle Paul, who writes in II Cor. 4 that we "believe in things unseen," and which is ardently endorsed by Thomas Aquinas, who essentially saw in Anselm's ontological argument (a logical proof for the existence of God, based solely upon reason) a conflation of faith with epistemological categories of true/false, logical/illogical. Neal

I'm wondering how she gathers that IC is junk science? I didn't take the time to even see what her credentials are...but no one has put up a reasonable explanation to how IC systems could have arisen. Well, Kenneth Miller thinks that because a mouse trap part can be used for a tie clip and a paper weight- he's done it, but his explanation is absurd. As for her comment here:

"Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

I'm going to have to disagree. Faith without reason or logic is just idiotic. Is she saying that she believes what she believes about God based on a lack of logical reasoning? Proof? Evidence? And what of "material evidence"- does she base her blind faith on immaterial evidence?! I don't base my faith on a lack of reason, logic, proof, etc...I base my faith on prophecy, historical proof, scientific proof of design, a moral universal law that demands a lawgiver, etc. She can have faith without logic, but most Christians (she says she's a protestant) would disagree with her view. jboze3131

She writes: "Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith falls into the realm of metaphysics — literally, "beyond physics," the branch of philosophy that seeks to explain the nature of reality and the origin and structure of the world." Well I'm glad that Susan has a cute little soapbox from where she can spread the word. Faith is Faith is Faith, Susan. If your faith is not based on logical proof or material evidence, fine. But when were you told by God that faith cannot come from those sources? The Gospel of Susan part 1, we await the second sermon from the mount. Then she wrote: "When we try to prove and promote the metaphysical through the physical — when we muddle faith and science — we are, in effect, saying that faith is not enough, that faith, like science, requires proof. Faith that requires proof is no faith at all." Or maybe we are not "muddling" anything. Maybe you are. The "metaphysical" is experienced at every moment by all of us. We are not physical beings alone. We have mind, consciousness, and thought. Is psychology promoting the metaphysical through the physical methodlogy of science? Is psychology muddling faith and science? Faith is something which can be enhanced or created by objective scientific empiricism regardless of what the naysayers may say. Either was ID is about truth. The people who oppose ID can come up with novel reasons to denigrate ID if they choose to do so. I find that people who promote the closing down of minds, the closing down of discussion, the closing down of free thinking in favor of some half baked spirituality to be fascistic in nature. They want to tell me what to explore and what not to explore. They want to impose their religious beliefs on me and they want to silence people who have different beliefs then their own. The demagogues may bark, but the caravan, as it were, goes on. mentok

"Faith that requires proof is no faith at all." Anybody know who said "Come let us reason together"? anteater

Amazing. On Sunday, this little genius says: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and Earth!" But on school days, she says: "God cannot have made heaven and earth, no way! For in leaving His signature on His creations, He would only have succeeded in cheapening my precious faith in my own eyes!" It's not about God, or science, or nature; it's all about this little lady's psychological state. Where do these people come from, and why are there so many of them? neurode