Consider the religious, and for the sake of clarity and brevity, only those who are not friendly to science. That’s a substantial group. Why do they have that affinity? From what I understand, they consider religion to be warm and appealing, and science to be cold and unfeeling. They are certain that there is “something more.”

Now consider the scientific, and once again for the sake of argument, only those who are not religious. Again, that’s a substantial part of the population. Why do they have that affinity? Speaking as a member of this group, I’ve always found science to be rational and religion to be strange and somehow alien.

However the conversation repeatedly breaks down as the religious attempt to have a conversation based upon religious principles, and the scientific attempt to have a conversation based upon scientific principles.

Science is not appealing to a significant sector of the religious. On the other hand, religion is not appealing to many of those with a scientific bent. I can explain my affinity, but I’m aware that I do so in terms that are fundamentally scientific. And, if I attempt to reframe the debate in more religious sounding language, it comes off as conceding the matter as ‘simply a matter of opinion.’

How else can you rationally explain the statement that ‘I believe in science’, when belief is fundamental to religious thought? Even stating that my ‘belief’ is different from a religious belief just sounds like rationalization. In fact notice that the word ‘rational’ comes up repeatedly, while the deeply religious do not require this notion at all.

And what, pray tell, does science suggest we substitute as a form of transportation?

Hmm, I would say that the science advises against doing this on the grounds of there not being enough raw materials and energy to give every American a Prius, and that it tells us that all Americans should pretty much completely stop driving instead…

I don’t think science has done this. Science can tell you when brain activity is apparent, when a fetus can feel pain, when a fetus’s circulatory system is working, etc.

But what constitutes “life” That’s a moral (and political) issue. Science doesn’t know when “life” begins, because it’s impossible right now to know what constitutes life (since we know of many cases in various different states that are technically alive – but have minimal to zero activity.

The fundamental issue with public policy is to what extent it infringes on individual rights. Who could reject a public policy of buying every American a Toyota Prius? Well most people could and would. First there is the cost. Second is the fact that not everyone wants to drive a Prius, both for personal and practical reasons. The reality that a Prius consumes less oil than other automobiles does not justify a policy that everyone should drive one.

Science can discover and explain natural laws. It can increase one’s understanding of the world and the better choices one can make. But science is not a justification for subverting the democratic process. Rare is it that public policy does not require compromise between conflicting scientific truths. Such is the nature of scarcity – the pursuit of a good thing must be forgone to accomplish something better. Science has yet to demonstrate it is equipped at making these complex, societal determinations.

Disagree with me? Consider abortion. Science has revealed the undeniable truth that a fetus is viable human life in the second trimester. Yet has that knowledge produced a consensus policy? No it has not and it probably never will.

Put another way public policy should be based on sound reasoning, a scientific fact is

I’ve “rated” (something I picked up at Dawkins’ site) unwilling, only doing what you demand of others not to do. In this way, you are no less an “apologist” then the “new atheist apologist”, decisive, unclear, unwilling and useless on an important subject. Unless of course you rate me as “uncivil”?

I will play your adversary until you make something nearing a rational statement on the subject.