Trying to squeeze in as much as possible, we get right to our segment… right after a small glitch from the Retrobots.

Meet the Hosts

Our long in coming audio drama is getting closer. The first scripts are done, and several parts assigned. The only drawback remaining is in waiting for our volunteer voice actors to return their parts, so everything can be compiled. Watch for more word, and a launch date. Be sure to tell your friends, and for contributors through Nathan’s Patreon page, we have plans for interviews, behind the scenes stuff, and chat room sessions with the cast.

We never ask for monetary support for this podcast, but the audio drama involves a lot more effort, and a recurring contribution through Patreon will encourage us to devote more attention to future projects like our unassuming, everyday kind of super hero.

Our main topic really isn’t all that long. It’s a role play type of episode, and it can be difficult to give a topic the depth it deserves, when the ideas expressed aren’t your own. Besides, Keith lost his notes to guide him along, and had to wing It from memory. To allow ourselves to go down a bunny trail, we include the problem of why science makes a faulty platform for discussing topics in a public forum.

The language of science has become the only accepted and recognized way to prove a point, or settle an argument in public settings, or even in discussing morality.

The good point in science is that it tells us what a thing is, how it works, and what affect it might have on its environment. But it has shortcomings. The problem with science is it can’t answer the question “why.” It can’t determine morality.

For example:

* It can identify an object, like a hand gun by observing it.

* It can point out how the parts work, where the bullets go, and the mechanism that ends with a firing pin striking the cartridge.

* It can describe the chemical process that occurs, and how expanding gasses push the projectile out the end of the barrel.

* It can also tell what might happen at the point of impact where the projectile lands.

* An experiment might even be practiced to verify and demonstrate the hypothesis discussed to this point.

Science can not make a moral judgement of whether we should use a paper target, a tin can, a lab rat, or your neighbor’s head. Strictly speaking, science can only describe that a destructive event will happen. It can’t place any value on the object being tested in the experiment. It can’t say why it might be morally wrong to pull the trigger that sets off the process.

All science can do is state that pulling the trigger will end up in a destructive event. It’s left outside of science to determine whether the target has any value or not.

We point back to a solo episode done last March, 107 ASSURANCE OF SALVATION that includes an essay Keith wrote titled, The Purpose of Man without God. An attempt at exploring the shortcomings of worldly knowledge, pleasure, or power, and who gets to say where morality comes from.

Our role play runs short, as expected, and any misrepresenting was unintended. Please contact us if you feel we didn’t do well at it, or have a more rounded argument for us to address.

The statement of: Why I hate organized religion is brought up.

For starters, what does that mean anyway?

In Doing research, most results were from religious people giving apologetic reasons why its a bad statement. It doesn’t make any logical sense. Another result was from a foreign language forum, where people there tried to figure out this nonsense statement. They had no words for it in their own language. One blogger who had been against the so called organized religion,