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

[Rick Buford <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

egads, sorry about the triple post...

 Well, let's just say, 'if your VCR is still blinking 12:00, you don't want Linux'. 



Rick Buford wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion