Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Is science a religion?

[Rick Buford <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Science has been extraordinarily successful at solving many of the 
> material problems that humans face.  This is indisputable.  But 
> science has done poorly at meeting the spiritual needs of humans.  
> Indeed many people in our current culture find science to be empty and 
> devoid in meeting their inner needs.

But does religion expand to fill a current void, or does it carve out a 
little niche for itself to survive in? I tend to believe the latter as 
most "religions" profess, at some point, to be the "one true" religion 
and that others must be mistaken.

> Now a scientist might respond and say "so what exactly do you want - 
> what are these inner needs that you need satisfied - if you cannot 
> define them, how can I help you."  As such the scientist is defining 
> the problem away, in a sense telling the person that it is his fault 
> for feeling this way, and to come to reality and get over it.

Isn't psychology the science of mind and behavior? I'd be curious to see 
some solid numbers of the number of people healed by religion/faith vs 
the number healed by practicing therapists. Personally, I believe that 
if more people

> Religion has been remarkably successful at meeting the inner needs of 
> many people.  Indeed almost every culture has religion, and views 
> religion as essential to its survival - one of the few exceptions is 
> the current western world (particularly Europe where atheism is 
> strong), and some observers feel that this culture is on a downward 
> slope.

I would tend to disagree. While religion has been remarkably successful 
at meeting the needs of SOME people, it has actually harmed many as 
well. If one were to extend the definition of "religion" to include "the 
church", one could most certainly find that "religion" is the root cause 
of many of humanities past and present troubles (intolerance, racial 
hatred, etc...). The problem being that, while a religion can espouse 
love and caring for your neighbor, fanatical 
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fanatical) resolution to an 
idea allows one to be manipulated by the interpreters of that idea 
(read, the church). Due to the fervent nature, religion tends to be a 
polarizing factor in dealings with other people and cultures.

> For example, I have been watching a four hour show on the History 
> Channel International, which gives a history of the church in the 
> first millenium.  It is amazing how this small Jewish sect took over 
> the whole Roman empire in a matter of three to four centuries.  It 
> truly met the needs of so many people at that time, who felt 
> spiritually bankcrupt.  In this sense Christianity has been very 
> successful.

But does successful equal right? Does it do any good for your soul to be 
saved by a Christian religion if the Buddhists were right?

>
> Now we can see all the wars and atrocities generated by religious 
> people.  But really, science has its bad points as well.  For example 
> the atomic bomb is definitely a scientific and non-religious 
> creation.  The worst atrocities in history were committed by the Nazis 
> (which seems to have derived its world view from Darwinism) and 
> Communist Russia (which claims to be atheist).  The Spanish 
> Inquisition pails in comparison to these.  Another example is the 
> French revolution and American revolution, which took place almost at 
> the same time - the American freedom fighters were either Christians 
> or were strongly motivated by Christianity, whereas the French 
> revolution seems to have been more guided by atheistic or humanistic 
> values.  The American revolution was comparitively attrocity free, and 
> has led to a nation that esteems personal freedoms.  The French 
> revolution became a bloodbath and led to the tyranical rule of Napolean.

This would seem to be supportive of Christianity by war. The fact that 
the Spanish Inquisition pales in comparison to the Holocaust I would see 
as having every bit as much to do with a lesser ability to 
kill/rob/murder as the willingness to do so. Additionally, I take great 
exception to an argument that tries to prove itself by being "less evil"

Taking your comments a bit further, why would it be wrong for the more 
devoutly religious world to erase the un-godly, heathen Americans from 
existence?

> Another example - many historical observers have pointed out the 
> increasing depravity and hardship of life in 17th century England.  
> Many have said that the revivals of Wesley and Whithead and such like 
> changed the whole face of England.  It would have degenerated into 
> revolution and the same mess that France has faced - instead it became 
> a strong society with values (leading to improving conditions for the 
> poor, stopping the slave trade, increase in democracy in a relatively 
> non-violent manner) ultimately becoming the strong empire under 
> Victoria's reign.  (OK, I'm punting a bit here with my historical 
> facts which might be wrong here or there, but I think I got it largely 
> right.)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the revivals of Wesley and Whithead, 
but can you give some supporting arguments to your "hypothesis" that 
England was preparing to self-destruct?
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion