You obviously missed courses like "poetry for mathematitians". Even if you only breeze through linguistics as a humanist the theories they use are all taken from serious scientific research. We can use scientific theories we can't understand. A little bit like us using a mobile-phone even if we can't build one. Just because you don't understand a theory, doesn't make it irrelevant.

There's one logical hole in your post. Christianity is just a random idea somebody had a while back. It has and has never had any suport. If you take science seriously and seriously consider christianity you also must accept every other concievable religious theory. Note that this does not mean all other religions that exist today and has ever existed. It means the infinte variations that could possibly exist. Beside it being impossible it's off-course just a waste of time.

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it right or even having a grain of truth to it. I saw some statistics that one out of four africans believe that fucking virgins can cure AIDS. Does this mean we should take the theory seriously or just assume that education is a problem on the continent?

And to reiterate an earlier post I did in this thread:

Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
You're starting in the wrong end. Nobody ever proves that something doesn't exist. It's impossible. I hear it all the time in the religious debate and it's rediculous. This is me proving you're gay. I have no evidence you're not, so you must be gay. In logic it's called "argument from ignorance" and is a logical fallacy. Even Aristotle knew that.


Now it's getting interesting. Yes, there evidently is things beyond our understanding. A very valid point. But that's saying absolutely nothing. Litteraly. The error in supernatural religions is that they draw conclusions from this where the evidence is at best hearsay or according to science, pure fantasy. It gives no suport what so ever for god. Nothing.
If your only demand on a theory is that we can't invalidat it, then you'll quickly end up with a situation where you have an infinate number of theories with equal validity. That's the situation all thinking christians invariably end up in.

I and science need the tiniest shred of evidence before taking any jump of faith. It needs very little, but something, even the tiniest of circumstancial evidence is needed. None of all of the religions have got even that. Same goes for the soul. In a situation like that. If we still chose to believe in an imortal soul we can impossibly discriminate against any other cooky theory, (=infinate number of theories).

If I see somebody spontaneously burst out in laughter or just smile, it rubs off on me. That's no evidence for anything supernatural is it?

As for your theory on dimensions. It doesn't have to mean anything supernatural. Off-course my perception of the world is different from yours. Off-course. When we tell each other things we're talking about different universes/dimensions. I'll buy that. The big question is if there's a world outside all people. The real world if you will. Does the world vanish when we close our eyes only to reapear when we open them? Is that pan-flute peruvian band playing in each city in world the same people following you? Or is it different bands? I think there's a real world no matter if nobody has seen it, and science agrees with me.