[QUOTE] Slippery words. The scientific method has enough of a track record for me to support it as a way of finding out new stuff. It may fail[/QUOTE] And you do this because your "belief" is (engendered through your training, inclinations and experience) that this is reliable (in general). [QUOTE] I think pretty much anyone could have the scientic method explained to them in such a way that they understood how science works. It's pretty simple.[/QUOTE] Indeed it is. And very very reliable (within it's boundaries). [QUOTE] No amount of explaining can assist with an understanding of the religious instinct, apart from in Dawkins terms.[/QUOTE] Wrong. No 'non-theistic' amount of explaining.. Sure you can postulate it all in terms of the selfish gene and pack instinct but it's pretty much hardwired into the human mindset. Of course if there is a God (and remember - with your scientific method running you can't say that there isn't one - merely that you have no evidence for one - which for you may be good enough to say "I don't have any evidence for a God" but not enough to say "there is no God") then all bets are off.. [QUOTE] And I'd rather you didn't lump religion and philosophy together, tyvm.[/QUOTE] Why? They both use the same parts of the brain, they both exist in order to (in their purest sense) derive a sense of place in the world. Phil.