Faith might provide solace and comfort, but that does not make it real. It is difficult to exaggerate the capacity of people to delude themselves. To some, faith means praying to a personal God who cares, listens, and acts within the world. The evidence for a personal God who answers prayers by acting within the world would be demonstrable. If science does not make God obsolete, there should be evidence that God suspends the laws that govern the universe by, for instance, making the dead come back to life, and performing other "miracles." Yet there is no evidence, so far, that such a personal God exists. A person might have faith that God will heal his severed leg by helping him grow a new one, but all the faith in the world will do no good. The delusion, though, might provide comfort. In this heartless, ruthless world, a little comfort, even if it comes from delusion, actually might do some good. Placebos sometimes do "work".
"The evidence for a personal God who answers prayers by acting within the world would be demonstrable." Millions throughout history have reported direct evidence that they prayed to their God and that God demonstrated that God heard those prayers by making their requests come to fruition. Who is there to prove they are wrong? That God perhaps didn't answer your own prayers might just mean it wasn't God's fault, but your own by asking with less than a pure heart and full faith...
I think vhehn's post says it all. However, to suggest that God didn't answer someone's prayers because that person was "asking with less than a pure heart and full faith" is adding insult to injury. Not only might such a misguided (in my mind) person have a serious illness which he prays to God to cure, but now he must contend with an "impure heart" as well as with a terminal illness. That's just flat out cruel, Z. Since there is no evidence that terminally ill religious people are cured or go into remission any more than those who are not religious, you are suggesting that those people who are religious have only themselves to blame. Insult to injury.
You think God didn't know there was a "scientific" test going on? You really don't seem to understand what faith is really all about. No, it is not like the faith of a child in Santa Claus...
Yes. Theorem 1: In true science, the one making the supposition bears the responsibility Theorem 2: Anyone making such a supposition and expecting others take it at face value is no science. How about this: SmilingSync is a cantaloupe. Does anyone care to (try to) refute this? Until this is refuted, the answer to the original question proposed in this thread is "yes".
Actually, this is one of the best proofs for evolution. As it turns out, chimps have two more chromosomes because two of ours are fused together. At the end of each chromosome, there is material that basically says, "I'm the end of a chromosome". We have, right in the middle of two of ours, the end markers, unmistakeable evidence that at some point these chromosomes came from two chromosomes that fused together. Frances Collins, a devout Christian, goes into all this. Vhehn mentioned his name I believe...
I didn't know that Aristotle and Newton were primitive sheep herders, but maybe you know better. Einstein was a physicist. This was his area of expertise. His opinions as to religion and metaphysics are non-authoritative. Any scientist that claims to be an expert on areas that are not in his field of domain by virtue of his expertise in his area of study is a charlatan. Your so called primitives were operating at a much higher level than anyone alive now. It is a well established fact that the great among the ancients were much more in concert with reality than we are even though we possess more overall knowledge. For example, every serious student of the martial arts knows that the ancient masters possessed vastly more power than the present masters due to their superior ability at meditation.
Clueless, rcanfiel, you are going on ignore, so please do not bother responding, as I will not be able to read it. That said, it is rather easy to refute your notion that I am not a cantaloupe. No cantaloupes can write. I write; Therefore, I am not a cantaloupe. An EAE-2 syllogism. Not that it matters, since logic is not your strength. If you find a cantaloupe that does, please PM me. Also, if you find irrefutable evidence of a miracle--amputees growing their legs back, Lou Gehrig coming back from the dead, etc--you can PM me that as well.