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

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

What I am trying to do is to compare science and religion, and try to show that 
there are more similarities than one might at first think.


Rick Buford wrote:
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 

I was attempting to go toe-to-toe with Mike Miller - he was making the case for 
science through its success - similarly I was trying to make the case for 
Christianity.

>>
>> 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"

I was not attempting to defend the Spanish Inquisition.  Rather I was wanting to 
show that man's capacity for committing terrible attrocities is not dependent on 
religion.  Indeed my personal opinion is that religion (Christianity in 
particular) has tended to have a restraining effect on attrocities.  I myself 
would argue that those carrying out the Spanish Inquisition were either bad 
Christians or deluded Christians - scientists should find this familiar, as 
there are certainlt bad and deluded scientists (e.g. the Nazi's invokation of 
Darwinian theories to justify their attrocities is definitely bad science).


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