re: #263 Cognito

It’s an absolutely appropriate analogy. Science and religion each address something the other cannot. Science addresses what happens on this side of mortality; religion, the other side.

So a religious figure using his religion to expound on science is completely analogous to a scientific figure using his science to expound on religion.

How is a scientist discussing his non-theistic, naturalistic world view equivalent to “using his science to expound on religion”?

This merely repeats and amplifies the goof-up you’ve been making all the way through this debate: mistaking the topic of “life, death and what is good” for the topic of “religion”. They are not the same.