Tanaka

I never suggested causality, nor even correlation. I simply made the observation that, as religious scientists demonstrate, there can be peaceful coexistence between sceince and theology.



I don't think anyone has suggested that it would be better. I don't think it has made any difference.



So you don't admire the scientists mentioned, despite their very admirable acheivements?

Oh no, an anti gravitational theory. Hold on to your hats, kids.

If you can't be specific in general, that's the point I'm making about how you can't really compare the beauty of a mountain to a beauty of a skyscraper in terms of degrees. You'd have to have some more principles on WHAT makes for conflict as you say. Since you can't answer that in general, and because of the fundamental differences between mountains and skyscrapers, you can't say if structures can *exceed* nature in beauty. They have very different visual elements.

That is not true at all. Rand's philosophical principles are formed and validated inductively through utilizing knowledge of the world and of human nature and the requirements of human life. It is quite possible to reject some philosophical formulation of hers because you are not convinced of the factual basis upon which it rests. Such an error of knowledge is not an indication of immorality or the failure to think.

There is a difference between understanding Rand's principles and confirming firsthand the facts upon which they rest.