From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 18:29:16 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Tom on religion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world, usa, na
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <79104@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>Of course, this will probably devolve into a claim that science is a
>religion...  Science is knowledge[...]
>
>And a little later:
>>For example, some people seem to have trouble grasping
>the fact that todays paradigm can be tossed out tomorrow in the light
>of a better paradigm or new evidence.
>
>And then he spent the rest of the letter expounding on the virtues of
>science and the evils of religion.  His major premise was that any
>sincere belief in religion amounts to fundamentalism ("No thank you Mr
>Fundie") and was a priori evil.  And then some nonsense about How do you
>feel about the Inquisition, as though things like this are the the
>domain only of religion and that most religious people generally approve
>of the Inquisition.
>
>Now, while I must admit that the analytical thinking has given us many
>benefits, both technological and social, I must take issue with two of
>Tom's points.  Point one is that religion is necessarily detrimental,
>capable only of oppression.  This sort of assertion ignores the huge
>decline in, dare I say it, morality since the Industrial Revolution

You shouldn't have said it :-)

I'll have to take the bait and disagree here.  I don't think the overall
"morality" of this nation has decreased since the Industrial Revolution.
You long for the "good ol' Leave it to Beaver" days?  When Mom stayed home
('cause she had no choice) or blacks rode the at the back of the bus or
children worked in sweat shops?  Yes sir, those were sure days of high
morals.

Every generation has new moral issues to deal with.  I think it's a sign
of progress.  Sure, we've got problems, but going backwards is not the
answer.  Trust me (:-) ) we'll work them out.

>along with community cohesion.  And I'll be the first to say that
>morality and brotherhood is an asset.

I'll second that.
>
>The second point which Tom errs on is the infallibility of science (see
>above).  First he says that science is knowledge (it is not, it is an
>attempt to explain observed phenomenon) and then he goes on to say,
>Yeah, we keep getting it wrong, but that's the *strength* of science,
>don't you see?  Anyone familiar with higher physics knows that the
>"science" is highly mystical.  The secular high priests, quantum

Only if you don't understand the fundamentals.  There's no secrecy; the
research is published, and is open to challenge by anyone.  Can religions
make the same claim?

>physicists, hand down from on high these inscrutable statements about
>how the world was made (it all started as a point of energy, then
>exploded), about what everything is made of (well, it's all these little
>bitty points, none of which we can confirm exists so you're gonna have
>to take it on faith) and how we came to be (well, we *evolved*. 
>Evidence?  Fie on thee, infidel!)  None of this can be proven (sound a
>little like the existence of God?) and yet we are supposed to accept
>these answers to the most fundamental questions of existence because
>science is right and religion is, to use Tom's phrase, voodoo.

No, we're not supposed to take this on faith, someone's say so, or any
other garbage.  You are free to disagree.  I'll admit, if you fly in 
the face of "accepted" theory, you're asking for ridicule, but if you
can supply enough evidence, you WILL win.  History is full of such 
examples.  Science is not about religion, it is about attempting to
explain the natural universe in terms of observable natural phenomena.
Instead of fighting it because it apparently conflicts with religious
dogma, how about seeing if the two can coexist with each other?  Remember
that religious tenets, no matter what their origin, have been subject
to many interpretations and translations as they are handed down through
the ages BY PEOPLE.  Who's to say some of those who handed down the 
message didn't get it quite right?
>
>Science is a useful tool, but that's all that it is.  Secular theists
>like Tom worship the tool and fail to see its limitations.  For people
>like Tom, science is a religion; any other viewpoint adresses science
>with a little bit of skepticism, not adulation.

I don't think he fails to see its limitations at all.  He was the first
to admit that science is continuously open to revision.  The difference
between science and religion is that science recognizes its imperfections
and is open to revision.  Religions tend to resist revision.  I will agree,
however, that both are belief systems.  It's the basis for the belief 
that provides the difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh