Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[Jenny A]

No, I'm not troubled by any of those questions. In fact I think they are interesting questions that you raise. I spend quite a bit of time in meditative prayer, and I'm always interested in what is happening neurologically there. For example, I join with Buddhists once a week for mediation and discussion, and I'd be interested to know if our slightly different approaches to meditation have the same or different effects on the brain (I suspect it would be very similar). I'd also be interested in seeing any differences in brain activity between those that have faith and those that don't; I don't see that as a threat to faith, just as I don't see looking at brain activity differences between the blind and the non-blind is a threat to believing that people see things that are real (I'm not trying to stress the 'blindness' of atheism there; I just can't think of an example that does't in some way seem to suggest a difference in sensory capabilities between thesis and atheists).

I would be very interested to know if there is different brain activity differences between atheists and theist, particularly in the case of people like me who didn't go through a period of belief even though raised in a very Christian household. There are a surprising number of us. The difference is not something I consider a lack in myself. Though I do find the ability, practically necessity in some cases to believe puzzling.

Just back on the OP, I'm interested that, rather than discussing the relationship between science and faith, it is mostly a critique of philosophical arguments for God. I think that's quite a different topic, though I do wonder how many people's faith is derived from philosophical argument. I don't think I've yet met a person who came to faith from any philosophical argument (that doesn't, of course, mean it can't and doesn't happen, but I think it must be pretty rare). Those arguments to me seem to be more about just showing that it is not unreasonable to believe in God (they start with reasonable premises and proceed logically to a conclusion; but they are far from certain proofs), and perhaps appeal more to people who already have faith and want some assurance that they have not gone completely bonkers. Even Aquinas, who is frequently quoted, devoted very little time and space to them; he seems to deal with them just in passing.

I would agree with you there. I doubt there is anyone who has every really been convinced in any meaning way by any of the proofs of god. Kierkegaard devoted time to demolishing them himself. He believed that belief was necessary to salvation is if there were proof, there be no salvation. I find this emphasis on faith both inexplicable and charming the way one finds a sweet but dotty old lady charming.