Funny, I had to go back to re-read your original question, Ed... The threads do take on a life of their own, don't they...
There were, as I read it (correct me if I'm wrong here, Ed), 2 questions/ideas that started this all off - 1. Reconciling personal religious belief and war, and 2. Prophecies of current events - could this be the proverbial 'It'? That's a lot of ground to cover...
For the first question, it's probably important to understand that I am an atheist.
Now, you've equated science to religion, which I'm going to have to disagree with you on. The strict definition of atheism is a "lack of belief in any god." This also usually refers to all things supernatural, which eliminates pretty much any belief system that is founded on the existence of the supernatural.
Now, theism (the belief in a god or gods), by definition, requires faith for whatever religion that builds around it to work. That is, being a Christian wouldn't really work to well if you doubted the existence of God (that's pretty much what began the end of my Christianity). Science, on the other hand, requires no such faith. Indeed, by its very nature, science requires proof, rendering notions of faith unnecessary.
If it were as simple as this, I'd be done, but these things are often not so simple. There is an alternative view on atheism, wherein the proponents (and, I'm not one of them) count atheism to include the belief that there is no God. It's a subtle, but critical difference, because, as you've pointed out, the second definition
does carry with it some notion of belief, where as the first does not. Let me restate them side-by-side, to clarify their difference:
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
I identify with the first definition, not the second. It doesn't invalidate the second definition for some people; it just doesn't apply to me. I don't have a belief system. I do have opinions, which if you must equate to beliefs, fine, but understand that when I say "I believe such and thus," it's based on my understanding of the
facts, not on an already-established belief system (faith).
What has this to do with the war?
Having no belief in the supernatural/gods/whatever, also means that I do not believe in the notion of an afterlife. This means (to me), that life is that much more precious, since we only get one go at it, and what we do in
this life is critical. Mayhem, destruction, and war are in essential conflict with the ideal of preserving life. It would seem that Saddam is responsible for his own brand of mayhem, and there have already been threads about the rights and wrongs of this war, the responsibility of the UN, and US's unwillingness to respect the UN security council. But I'd sweep that all aside, simply putting to you all that the war is unnecessarily costing lives (on both sides) where a peaceful, diplomatic solution was possible. The
probability of such a solution is, again, a debate for other threads.
The second question, regarding prophecy, is similarly complicated:
I hold that prophecy is a very dodgy business. It's far to easy to apply the ramblings of a prophet to modern events, simply because the prophecies themselves are generally so vague. After 11 September, there were a lot of misquotes of Nostradamus, attributing to him the prediction of the carnage of that day, but the actual text is a little less clear:
Century 1, Quatrain 87
Earth-shaking fire from the center of the Earth.
Will cause the towers around the New City to shake:
Two great rocks for a long time will make war,
And then Arethusa will color a new river red.
Century 2, Quatrain 89
One day the two great leaders will become friends,
Their great power will be seen to increase:
The new land will be at the height of its power,
To the bloody one the number reported.
Century 4, Quatrain 16
The free city of Liberty made servile,
Made an asylum for corrupt ones and dreamers:
The King changed, to them not so vehement:
From one hundred will become more than a thousand.
Century 5 Quatrain 65
Suddenly arrived, the terror will be great,
The principal players in the affair are hidden away:
And the lady in the hot coals will no longer be in sight,
Thus little by little will the great ones will be angered.
(taken from
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/91101.htm)
The thing to get here is that Nostradamus does not specify in C1Q87 what the New City is, nor that there were just 2 towers. Indeed, Nostradamus died in 1566, long before New York was established. York, NY's namesake, BTW, could not have been considered a New City even in Nostradamus' time; it was founded during the Roman occupation, in 71-73 CE (
http://wawa.essortment.com/yorkenglandhis_nyz.htm). C2Q89 is completely nonsensical, given that our stated objective is to kill Saddam if he does not leave, C4Q16 could have just as easily applied to Paris in 1940 (funny how the Nazis keep turning up in the thread), just as C5Q65 could have just as easily applied to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1942.
With the right "interpretation", I think any prophecy can be made to seem that it applies to contemporary events, and as such, should be treated with the greatest skepticism. Even Jesus was attributed to saying "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" (Mt7:15-16, NIV). Likewise, picking out modern events from the thornbushes of prophecy is not likely to bear any useful fruit.
I apologize for the the sheer bulk of this post, but it turns out I had rather more to say than I'd originally thought...
