Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Probably The Matrix Revolutions. Such a disappointment considering how innovative and thought-provoking the first movie was.

I guess I'd say morality should be based on the promotion of the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of sentient beings, or something to that effect.

I've heard it said that science answers "how" questions while religion answers "why" questions. I think, throughout history, religion has always tried to answer both. The motions of the heavenly bodies, the causes of sickness, of earthquakes, of lightning, rain and the seasons have all had religious explanations at one time or another. It is only after a few hundred years of scientific advancement that we can confidently conclude that most religions "how" answers were completely wrong, having been replaced with testable and consistently accurate naturalistic explanations.

The problem is that devout religious followers tend not to embrace having their long held beliefs challenged by contradictory evidence (just ask Galileo). A belief predicated on the perfect words of the creator of the universe probably shouldn't contain any errors or contradictions of any kind, or else the whole belief might be called into question.

This is where the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection comes in; the ramifications of which come into direct conflict with a literal interpretation of many religious creation stories. If you can't take your religion's creation story seriously, and must instead interpret it as allegory or metaphor or mythos or whatever, then how can you be sure that other portions of your religious doctrine aren't also allegory or myth? By what methodology do you determine which of your beliefs are based on fact and which are based on fiction?

The fundamentalist realizes that if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile. They cannot afford to accept any error or contradiction in their holy doctrine even if it means turning a blind eye to evidence and reality to keep their beliefs intact.

If God's nature is truly one of complete goodness, devoid of any evil or wickedness, then God cannot commit an evil or wicked act.

If God can commit an evil or wicked act, then God is not omnibenevolent and not wholly good.

If God cannot commit an evil or wicked act, then God is not omnipotent, since an omnipotent being can commit any act it so desires, wicked or good.

The two concepts contradict each other.

"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised."

~George F. Will