In Michael Barnes book, In the Presence of Mystery, he outlines the four stages through which religion tends to pass and why. Revealed in all the stages, in ever-improving understanding, is the Divine Mystery. In his books Insight and also Method in Theology, Fr. Bernard J.F. Lonegan outlines what the human mind and person are (experience, understanding, judgment, and decision) in a way that shows that the same standards apply to theology as to science and other human endeavors

Richard L.A. Schaefer, Dubuque, Iowa/USA

John Holton,

attempts at pithy (actually merely smug) comments like yours which offer only opinion with no explanation, evidence or argument are what makes these boards painful to read through.

Henry's comment is correct, although it could have been put better.

If you disagree with Henry's point that there are conceptual limits to what we can discover using scientific method, then I encourage you to investigate Godel's incompleteness theorems, Euclids attempts to produce a self enclosed set of geometric rules, etc, etc.

In fact only someone with a limited and cursory knowledge of scientific method could elevate it to the position of rational thought and beyond. Science is merely a branch, a subset of our understanding. Read up and wisen up.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John Holton,

attempts at pithy (actually merely smug) comments like yours which offer only opinion with no explanation, evidence or argument are what makes these boards painful to read through.

Henry's comment is correct, although it could have been put better.

If you disagree with Henry's point that there are conceptual limits to what we can discover using scientific method, then I encourage you to investigate Godel's incompleteness theorems, Euclids attempts to produce a self enclosed set of geometric rules, etc, etc.

In fact only someone with a limited and cursory knowledge of scientific method could elevate it to the position of rational thought and beyond. Science is merely a branch, a subset of our understanding. Read up and wisen up.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Joris,

What's your point? Science was spawned from rational thought...that is the issue.

however much science allows us to investigate and discover how things work in the universe, we can only do this through our capacity for rational thought, something which is not wholey understood.

Science will not ever be able to fully explain the quality of conciousness. If you think it can then you have a mis-appreciation of the place that science holds and what its limitations are. Furthermore, if it was not for great minds that understood the nature of scientific method and knowledge ( including our unbroken reliance on unprovable, external rules), then all the maths and logic that we use everyday and that have produced all this technological progress....would never have been achieved.

These juvenile and simplistic dismissals of the divine and transendent, spurred on by the populist scribblings of Dawkins, Hitchens et al...they are annoying to me, but truly damaging to you.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Dear Henry,

I've never read about fundamental particles in the bible, could you please tell me in wich passage their mentioned.

Joris, Woerden, The Netherlands

Science deals with "things" religion expresses a meaning. Science may be accurate, provisional or mistaken but it seeks to correct itself constantly. And this we admire. Religion absorbs science in age after age, but slowly -- this is the real reason for saying that Religion is not (at heart) opposed to science. But Religion with its cultus & authorities can ossify, persecute, be obstructive -- even be stupid. As one trained for the ministry from age 13 to 24 (ordained Lutheran) now quite old I say (a) Religion is the myth of God (b) Science is our society's privileged myth. But who will undestand this?

Ernest Werner, Trumansburg NY , USA

How little Henry understands or is not prepared to understand. O we like sheep...............

John Holton, Ludlow, England

Science cannot explain creation. It merely observes it.

It is a lie for a scientist to say it can.

A scientific view of creation is no more valid than a religious one.

Science cannot explain how the fundamental properties of the universe were determined eg, the masses and properties of fundermental particles,nor of the fundamental forces.
Scientists will be bashing togeather fundemental particles at CERN untill doomsday but they will never find the answer.

It would be nice if they admitted this rather than perpetuating the myth that they 'know it all' when infact they know nothing.

Religion stands up to scientific analysis far better than a scientific explaination of creation - thats a fact.

The observer (science) is a property of creation and thus will never be able to explain it. Only the creator can explain creation.

Those who look to science for an answer are doomed to failure.

Henry, Leeds, UK

why can't we simply stop religions brainwashing children by teaching children how to think for themselves ... only then can they learn what nonsense these people are talking ...

Reiver, Borders, UK

Are there any relevant "why" questions? Just because you can pose a question doesn't mean it can be answered sensibly. An answer can only ever be as meaningful (or meaningless) as the original question. The answer to life, the universe and everything is an uninspiring 42 because the question is equally as useless.

Seb, Isle of Man,

Also, if you believe in evolutionary science alongside religion, then at which point did our animal ancestors suddenly evolve a "human" soul and the burden of original sin?

Seb, Isle of Man,

I agree that science deals with “why” questions. So I must ask just why it is that so many (buit by no means all) scientists are so averse to the concept of Intelligent Design and the proverbial God hypothesis.

There is a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests that the in the Universe and the World are products of Intelligent Design rather than pure random chance. Why do most scientists refuse to seriously consider the possibility that the Universe is the product of intelligence, especially when there is so much anectdotal evidence for the existence of God? Scientist spend millions searching for intelligent life forms elsewhere in the Universe but refuse to spend a dime to investigate the intelligent life form known as God.

As someone who has had a profound revelatory experience of God, one that revealed a spectacular example of ID, I can honestly claim to know God exists. Can scientists explain *why* the total solar eclipse resembles an eye in the sky aka "Eye of God"?

Robin Edgar, Montreal, Canada / Quebec

Why is Nigel Hawkes still using the discredited "science only shows HOW" argument? Science also shows WHY. Eg the theory of evolution shows why species evolve. That is, it shows what forces drive evolution.

It's true that every scientific explanation starts from some assumptions, eg Newton's law of gravity, and does not give the why for these assumptions. But that's true for religious explanations as well. If God is the root assumption one can always ask why God - indeed why a particular God - exists. God seems to me a much more difficult assumption than the law of gravity!

But there's a key difference between scientific assumptions and those preferred by religions. Science insists that its assumptions must be testable in a way that makes sense to everyone who understands them. Then it tests them - repeatedly. Thus science constantly confirms its assumptions.

Religions have no such discipline. Most religions treat rational scepticism as heresy and persecute heretics!

David Flint, enfield, uk

If indeed religion can answer why, might we anticipate being told why being gay is a mortal sin? Or why women must take inferior roles to men? Then there's the reason why, in AIDS ridden areas of the world it is a sin to wear a condom. Many people wonder why it is obligatory to deny a child certain proven treatments that would save its life. It has confused many as to why was it that those who massacred Coptic Christians during the crusades were awarded the fast route to heaven by the then pope.

Such questions as these have bewildered many a scientist.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

"To deny religion is to dismiss most of human history as an error, only now being corrected"

You do realize that your particular religion has only been around for a few thousand years at most, while the human species stretches back hundreds of thousands of years. Religion is simply a relatively recent phase in our human history. It was useful, and possibly necessary in our social development, but now has become like the human appendix, and will hopefully soon to be removed! Cheers!

Darron S, Plano, TX