From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 08:46:47 GMT

In article <exukjb.272.717912846@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1a5ptpINNprl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>>        While many claim both science and religion are both belief
>>systems. But I would rather put my "faith" (and my butt) in the care
>>of a science than a book of superstitious bull. For example, if I 
>>where hurt in a car crash, I would trust a mediocre doctor than a
>>good priest.
>
>May I suggest that you seem to be confused.  Your post assumes that 
>religion is just bad [unreliable, bogus, pseudo] science, which in turn 
>rests on assuming that religion is just a competing scientific activity. 
>But they are are very different in their purposes and content. The purpose 
>of a religion is to orient a person's thought and conduct to what is 
>believed to be of most worth in an absolute sense.  The purpose of science, 
>if it makes sense to speak of science as having a "purpose", is to frame 
>laws of the utmost generality about observeable nature.  Pure or basic 
>science is a purely intellectual or theoretical undertaking making available 
>all kinds of useful, immediate and practical advantages, such as bridges, 
>medicine, electricity.  To assume, or to argue against religion in a way 
>that depends on assuming, that religion competes with science, either in its 
>theoretical or practical purposes, argues only a lack of familiarity with 
>either science or religion, or both.  

I think you've been conned.  The religious meme complex most definitely
competes with the scientific meme complex.  Science is the way we learn
about the universe.  Among other things, religion is the way we put a cap
on how much we learn, and also allows us to compartmentalize our knowledge
to avoid having to deal with some humbling truths about ourselves and our
place in the universe.  I don't think that the ramifications of evolution
and cosmology have really sunk too deeply into the psyches of all that
many people, including many scientists who deal with the stuff daily,
and it's the doublethink encouraged by religion that is largely responsible
for this.  Science is telling us that we're insignificant.  Religion
tells us that we're not.  Since the latter is more emotionally appealing,
religion often wins, but not without great cost in mental conflict.

IMO, if our collective mental evolution does not mature beyond this point
real soon now, we will perish.  If more people viewed our planet in the
proper perspective, they would see what a precious and fragile thing
it is, and they would not be so hellbent on destroying it.  But we're
too fucking busy debating about gods and killing each other to take notice.

This stuff about:

>The purpose of a religion is to orient a person's thought and conduct to
>what is believed to be of most worth in an absolute sense. 

to the extent that it has any meaning at all, is nothing but a snow job,
very similar to the other Big Lie: that religion makes people moral.
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_