Beyond Belief - The New Inquisition

Throughout the four sessions that we have watched I have found it to be true what Stuart Hameroff said to start his lecture. Up to that point he said that it seemed more like a new inquisition, but this time it was against religion. We all believe that the Inquisition was a horrible moment in history and should never be repeated, but would it not just fall into the survival of the fittest category. I am curious to understand where this theory stops between the animal kingdom and "ours". Something just isn't too clear to me. We say that it is okay in nature, that we are simply the continuation of nature, but that it is not okay to act in such "beastly" manures like genocide. I know that we haven't really talked much about it, but there has to be some morality issue brought into the discussion at some point, and more elaborated on that science can explain morality one day. Maybe I missed something but it seemed as though it was what we have heard.

I think that Joan Rathgaurd (not sure on the spelling) made some interesting points. Not so much to favor religion over science, but rather to broaden the field of scientific research into researching more to understand it better. I find it very hypocritical that the side of science only has reacted so emotionally and not rationally in stating their facts that science does prove itself right in the end, even when that means new findings disprove some older findings, because who is to say that with our such limited understanding of the natural world (we barely know anything in our own world, much less in the universe) that we will not find something in the future of metaphysics, supernatural, or some evidence of phenomena. It may sound impossible, but if science truly is always advancing who is to say that what seems impossible today is possible for tomorrow. The scientific greats themselves made such comments when referring to what was simply for the Creator to know.