“Religion” is often a fire needing quenching. That’s when it’s enraged with noble, but not-quite-right, understandings of truth (as in Hinduism, Animism, Greco-Roman and Norse Paganism, et cetera): For only the noble inspires such vigor, for good or ill.

“Religion,” when ignoble or pessimistic (e.g. modern materialist atheism), cannot inspire such vigor for good or ill, but can neither inspire much sacrifice, creativity, service, or — an important point — sense of duty to the objective truth, come hell or high water.

Judeo-Christian tradition, philosophy, and belief, however, gave us specifically that sacrificial duty to the truth in our civilization which was needed to invent the physical sciences. Which is why the Catholic Church in particular was such a generous patron of the sciences…and why on the rare occasion when a clash with a scientist went the wrong way (e.g. Galileo, though it’s a vastly overblown episode) the scientist in question was willing, against all self-interest, to insist upon what was true.

Or did you think it was a coincidence that, after brief but unsustainable outbursts of learning in Egypt, China, and India, it was Europe where it first flourished?

One has to believe in an ordered universe, friend, to think that what one does now has predictable outcomes. Atheist scientists today are not worse scientists for it, and I mostly take their protestations of intellectual honesty at face value (knowing and loving a few of them, as I do). But they are living off an inheritance, and unless they are more careful about preserving it, they will have little left of it to pass on to their intellectual children.

But never fear. Jews and Christians will continue to churn out more than their fair share of people who insist that truth is more important than “getalongability.” And even if half of them are duped or bullied into apostasy by academia, that value will allow the scientific tradition to live on, continually renewed by its most faithful (no pun intended) source.

You say,

It is interesting for me to see how those who erected Obama cannot see that Palin is better qualified for VP.

Isn’t it more accurate to say that Obama “erected” them?

Or did I misunderstand the euphemism of Chris Matthew’s “tingle?”

I’m disregarding the delusion of monotheism, for one reason, if the notion were first proposed today then it would have never have become self-sustaining, we have better answers today for what canonical teachings give us, better answers for the origins of life, better answers for philosophy and morality, better answers for geological and meteorological events, better answers for humanitarianism; religious dogma should not be revered nor should the words of anyone claims it as their credentials, alchemy has given way to chemistry, astrology has given way to astronomy, classical reason nullifies these notions of the past. Look at what religion has given us in the north Ireland, the Middle east, Indonesian, Philippines … the evidence against religion is exceeds a reasonable doubt. I mean look at the teachings of Jesus, there wasn’t a place of everlasting fire until Jesus meek and mild invented it, and what serial killer could be prosecuted with “turn the other cheek” — it is not moral to teach these things.

Finding common ground with militant theism is the last thing we need to do; spray em’ squash em’, kill em’ — I can go on and on but I think it’s clear what I mean to say about militant theism.

I know, I know. The creationists will have literalism only. Sigh. But don’t perpetuate the either-or choice. It only makes them worse.

And you’ve got to back off that “1/2 a brain cell from militant Islamists thing.” It’s clever, but it’s progressives who put their energy into the wittiness of a comment rather than its accuracy, not us.

In Feb., of course, nobody knew who McCain’s opponent was going to be, but now that we do, I think it’s worth extending the analysis further. Obama’s mother died of cancer (a disease for which genetic heritage is an extremely important factor in determining one’s general susceptibility) when she was only 6 years older than Obama is right now. Thus, the belief that McCain is likely to die in office, while Obama is not, may very well not be correct.

At minimum, just as McCain has allowed reporters to peruse his medical record, Obama certainly should do likewise.

I only wish that the left was as tolerant of ideas they disagreed with.