Note: "guest" was placed in quotation marks in the main table, since this "guest" is not the commenter who normally goes by that name.
wrf3: I'm trying to understand the source of your vehemence; what triggered all of this -- and I'm not sure I've got it pinpointed very well. It appears to be a combination of the following. Perhaps you'll help me out.
1) An attack on scientific consensus. If this is so, it really puzzles me, since there is no scientific progress without an attack on consensus. As Isaac Asimov said, The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'.
2) An attack on science. But, here, what is it you think we're attacking? If scientage, see #1. If scientody, then where have we done that? The same for scientistry. See here for definitions if you need them.
2a) An attack on science, where science is conflated with naturalism. We're certainly guilty of attacking naturalism, since naturalism isn't a true theory of reality. Naturalism is like Newtonian mechanics; it's good for most everyday things, but it isn't accurate everywhere.
2b) To this last point, you wrote, ... some scientific field saying there's a better, more substantiated, godless explanation for an observation than what their personal religious stance says. Nothing is godless, guest. Everything that happens does so because God created a (mostly) orderly universe.
The discussion continued here... The conclusion I offered to "guest" was, So all this stems from your hatred of theism and those who question, or even mock, the High Priests of Naturalism.
