I'm unable to really follow what's going on anymore (how did we even get to this point of debate, anyways), but I just want to say:
Siquo: Fuck you. Science is the one and only truth, and is completely infallible, and I am as certain of that as I am certain that the Earth is surrounded by 55 crystal spheres which hold the stars.
I'm not sure who you're trying to impersonate here, but I personally surely don't feel addressed. Also, you might want to defuse that a little bit, someone with mod power glancing over this might miss your attempt at sarcasm.
I was, in a sense, backing up Siquo's statement that science is not settled in a concrete foundation, and that what we know about it can change at any time, by referencing the popular Aristotelian theory of everything in the universe being held together by a series of crystal spheres that revolve around the Earth, which was disproved by Galileo and is a perfect example of the fallacies of being too arrogant in what we think we've nailed down as fact. I was hoping I would get a response from Siquo before I got responses from multiple people who missed the reference and/or warned that a mod might intervene for my rampant flaming, but such is the internet.
This thread is taking an interesting turn. This is not to say a productive one. It seems as though most of us aren't actually reading any of the pages that come before where we decide to post, judging by how new definitions of religion keep popping up whenever a new person joins into the discussion (which would be okay, except that the definitions we were originally debating over aren't being addressed). Now we're at the point where people are putting forward the idea of science and religion being impossible to blend. If we look at the religious beliefs of various scientists through history, we will find this to be false quite quickly. In fact, many things that scientists have discovered have
strengthened their faith in whatever religion they follow.