@enorbet: Try this: https://www.wired.com/2002/12/convergence-3/

I don't subscribe to magazines, because I'd end up reading them! I was surprised by the article too.

The first half of it is good and thought-provoking, but it's a pity he falls for the "intelligent design" business at the end because that's neither good science nor good religion. It fails as science because, once you can fill gaps in scientific theories by saying, "Oh, that was a miracle", you no longer have any incentive to create better theories. And it fails as religion because a God who has to plug design gaps in His creation with otherwise uneccessary miracles is clearly not very competent at what He does.

Incidently, there are quite a number of groups who work at the interface of science and Christianity, including one that I belong to myself, Christians in Science.

You're religious? ew gross.

I sometimes have very paranoid thoughts on the pace of major technological advancement. The technologies that are just too elusive to develop and deploy are usually the ones that give billionaires or governments fits. Quantum computing threatens computer security which is at the heart of national security and corporate security. Pondering fusion energy makes fossil fuel magnates to have migraines. Space colonies give military men angina who have read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", or watched the "The Expanse". Genetic engineering could cull the common herd by billions, but Billionaires and Generals have plans in place to shelter behind hepa filters and uv sterilizers and with deep private wells or such, so everyone can hack way at that stuff in their basement today (if they are so inclined).

Everyone to his taste!

Perhaps better served in the Faith & Religion Mega Thread here but would you care to define "religious" since it seems rather broad brush to wrap it all up in some common box. I am most definitely anti Organized Religion beginning with any confidence in ancient beliefs before humanity understood much of what is earthbound and next to nothing beyond our little planet and most recent ones are fabricated hoaxes but that doesn't preclude all speculation on Origin. That we don't know and likely can never know with even 50/50 odds but choosing one over the other, to my mind, doesn't warrant automatic derision.

It seems to me there is a world of difference between say Young and Flat Earthers, %0 virgins waiting to serve the faithful for eternity, or Jupiter on a throne squabbling with several oter gods, etc etc etc and those who simply think it is more likely that some manner of Designer is a distinct possibility.

It is moot but assuming the speculation is purely binary, that one position is "Definitely Right" and the other, "Definitely Wrong" are equally jumping to conclusions, don't you think?. That's quite different from insistence on the literal translation of any scripture. In short, "religious" is an extremely broad term, impossible to nail down into one thing in my view. Isn't it akin to Philosophy?

One of our humourous writers summed your thoughts up nicely:

anyone read this book btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Me...rime_Intellect

Haven't read it, and wouldn't, presuming the review is accurate. Aside from the suspension of Reality required for the basic premise, it doesn't gift you a good plot. Even the Marvel franchises are gifted a plot by the suspension of reality.

From the review it sounds like he overcame writer's inability or block by the use of doubtful substances one chapter at a time.