well, that was what i was trying to put across. i didn't mean to come across as "scientists don't need proof at all". my point was just that the view of the letter you originally posted only holds if a scientist cannot have faith.



there are many religions that aren't well-known, so i wouldn't be so bold to assume there are none that can be disproven by science. if a scientist within a religion finds that it is undeniably disproven, that scientist can only remain a true scientist and be religious by finding a different religion that hasn't been disproven.

i did leave out the fourth option though: stop being a scientist AND stop being religious, but i can't imagine someone looking at this option simply as a direct result of the scenario i mentioned.

i looked up Jesuits and found too much information for me to read without being late to uni this morning, so i was wondering if you could elaborate on them? i may misunderstand your meaning by "change in your scientific outlook" but i thought that was implicit in any discovery.

cool, i'm glad we're in agreement there. and i'm not sure if your stab at young earth theory is also meant to be a point where Christianity can be disproven. many Christians do believe in a young earth, but many don't or don't care. i personally don't believe that the earth has to be millions of years old. i haven't looked into it, but i don't need to because it doesn't matter to me. i don't think there's enough proof in the Bible that means we Christians have to think the earth is 6000 years old ("in the beginning" at 4004 BC or something). if, as a Christian, i would have to believe in a 6000 year young earth, that's the only reason i would care about the age of the earth.

so, yeah, science and religion are still compatible, just as you said

julz