[PLUG-TALK] why religion is the root of all evil

Ronald Chmara ron at Opus1.COM
Wed Jan 31 07:16:30 UTC 2007


On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
>> Pure science points to a different way, where *all* theories which  
>> can
>> be tested, scrutinized, reviewed, and replaced are not only to be
>> engaged, but *must* be engaged. However, in science, the "loser"  
>> of the
>> argument is not be killed, and have their history erased, rather,  
>> their
>> theories are *enshrined* for future generations to learn and advance
>> from (which also keeps us from re-answering the same questions). In
>> science, *learning* from the body of those who came before us is more
>> important that *truth*. With religion, it's often quite the opposite,
>> where *truth* is the goal, not a system of constantly questioning,
>> arguing, and re-evaluating.
>> .....
>> And now, the third rail. The most dangerous, and brutal,  
>> combination, I
>> would argue, is the *combination* of Religious belief and applying  
>> that
>> belief using the tools of Science. Since, in pure Science,  
>> *nothing* is
>> ever always true, and in religion, there is a perfect "Truth",  
>> wedding
>> the two gives us unholy monsters like the scientific religion of  
>> soviet
>> Stalin, the scientific religion of Nazi Hitler, and the scientific
>> religion of Sanger's american eugenics program. Stalin, Hitler, and
>> Sanger all thought they were "right", because they didn't  
>> understand how
>> science works. Fear any people who think that both god and science  
>> are
>> on their side, as the results will usually betray both.
>>
>> Science is not the study of finding "right" answers. It is the  
>> study of
>> finding new questions.
>
> I think you're rewriting history, here.  The view of science (which  
> I agree is
> the way science _should_ be) you put forth is a minority view held  
> by only a
> small sub-culture within science.

Hmm?

> And it's thoroughly modern.

Well, there *is* certainly the problem of Science being constrained  
by it's practitioners, and "how far science is now", as an active  
problem. I'm not sure what you mean by "modern", as that time range  
certainly varies. :-)

> Science and
> religion have always been joined at the hip.  I don't have any  
> evidence in front
> of me; but, I suspect plenty of people were killed in the name of  
> "Science".

That's why I mentioned the third rail, above. Pure science would tell  
us that we do not know, and will never know, all the details about  
intelligence as it relates to cultural and genetic upbringing. One of  
the aspects that *really* pissed people off about Darwin in his day  
(Origin of Species was published during the era of active US slavery,  
in 1859) was that he had the gall to suggest that "black" people and  
"white" people were basically directly connected to each other, and  
even suggested in his notes that they might be equal(!) species.

Of course, now much of the religious right uses the slightly more  
shielded, if much more offensive, complaint that they do not believe  
that they are "related to monkeys".

> Mind you, it's fine to rewrite history if you really think it will  
> lead to a
> better world.  But, don't think your rewrites will be fully  
> accepted by all of
> us. [grin]

Oh, hey, no problem. I thoroughly accept that misguided ideas about  
"truth" have certainly led to the abuse of science, which is why I  
provided examples for the prior century. I would, however, challenge  
you to provide me with counter examples showing that science, without  
any kind of religious fervor or belief in doing something that was  
based on "truth", was part of a "joined at the hip" effort in the  
killing of many.

> I have a theory that critical rationalism (what you're labeling as  
> "science")

Again... Hmm? When was science otherwise?

> is
> a natural evolution from the need for clerical duties to be taken  
> out of the
> hands of clerics and put into the hands of merchants.

The clerics were constantly saying things that were totally  
irrational and non-sensical, in that people could not understand  
them, or even have a system of logic for understanding it. People  
started popping up, and pointing out this inconvenient truth. The  
clerics tried burning them, but over many years, the clerics kept  
discovering that these folks were, indeed, more likely to be correct  
than the prior narrative given.

> This hygienic and
> external/sociological version of science came about because the  
> bean counters
> needed an apolitical, non-metaphysical way of counting their beans.

"Bean counters" are "silly".

Oh, wait, I forget who is now "name calling" who....
(-:<

The bean counters wanted a more understandable explanation than "a  
pan dimensional toaster strudel waffle (aka Russ) makes stars look  
different in the sky".

When they found a much simpler, much more likely explanation (the  
earth spins!), they started to wonder what else was being ascribed to  
Russ that Russ may or may not be doing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Russ doesn't exist. He does have a  
towel and all. He may be projecting the *illusion* that the earth  
spins. He may have planted an idea in our head that the stars change  
when they're really fixed.

> And,
> ultimately, it makes sense.  Accountants don't care about _truth_,  
> they care
> about algorithms where all the beans are well ordered and placed.

Math is another interesting aspect of "truth" and "science", I  
encourage you to get Wolfram's book on it. The short summary would be  
that immense, amazing, astounding, complexity is a really simple thing.

> Dawkins and his ilk are just bean counters.  To find real beauty,  
> you have to
> look to the mystics and the religious nuts.

Now, this statement I find *really* puzzling.

Dawkins and his ilk are examining the plumbing the whole of the  
universe... does your sense of beauty require an external force in  
some manner? Is the universe ugly, unless someone/something else is  
involved?

Is your first love ugly to you without a faith?

Your family?

> Further, to wed science and religion generates more than the  
> extremely sick.
> Yes, wedding the two generates great men like Stalin and Hitler.   
> But, it also
> generates great men like Einstein and Newton, both of whom muddled  
> religion with
> science... and, sheesh, look where it got them!

It stalled out their careers, and prevented them from going further  
where their beliefs might have to be confronted. Thanks to them,  
though, people who do not face their past mental blocks can keep  
moving (up to their blocks), and 100 years from now, folks who do not  
face our current blocks will pick up where we stalled.

-Bop



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list