No, I have never posted the OP before, it is completely new and a completely new topic. Nowhere have I stated that I want or expect anyone to believe like me, I don't care, it has nothing to do with the thread topic, other than to help make the point, it all boils down to what we individually have faith in.
As for Apple's repeated 10-page diatribe, it also ties into the thread OP, because in that example, we have someone who has chosen to have faith, not in science or spirituality, but in argument. As long as he can continue to argue his invalid points, he doesn't have to accept facts or admit defeat. It doesn't matter that he completely defies logic, science or reason, in the process, as long as he can keep his 'argument balloon' in the air, that's all that matters. He bases his beliefs on the ability to continue to defiantly do that, and so far, he has been successful with it.
But just the fact that we worship doesn't prove that the object of that worship is real. It's bad science to make that conclusion
Again, why would you apply "science" to something that science is not suited to prove or analyze? Is that really much different than applying "religion" to something science can prove, like the rain? The fact that we worship, doesn't prove much, this is true... but the fact we've worshiped for as long as we've existed on the planet as a species, is quite a different matter. One thing we do know from science, this is not the case if the attribute is non-essential. Superstitions might be a good example here, of some attribute mankind really didn't need, it just existed to help explain the unexplained. In the past, people had a great deal of 'faith' in superstitions, this is well-documented. Nowadays, most of us realize that superstitions are silly and unnecessary, and we don't live our lives by them... but we still worship... 95% of our species worships or has some level of 'faith' in something greater than self. Only 5% are true Nihilists.
If we studied the salmon and why it swims upstream, do we just conclude it's because he is curious about what's there? Of course not, we continue to study and eventually find there is a reason he does that, it serves some functional purpose to his existence, he doesn't just do it because he is curious or needs to fill a void. The same applies with human spirituality. This has never been an argument for Religion, or for any particular definition of God, it is only an argument for mankind's kindred connection with spiritual faith and belief, and how that has always been a part of what we are. Just as science is inadequate to explain what made great artists and composers imagine the works as they did, or why you dream what you dream or think what you think, it is unable to answer questions concerning spirituality, and spirituality relies on spiritual faith, not faith in science, they are two distinctly different things.
