🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1dk66rINNe8l@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>
>In its relationship with religion, science must be a negative
>seeker of proof, since religion's positions are always
>positive statements of the existence of spirits and the
>action of mystical forces.

      Seek and ye shall not find?  I'd urge religion to seek a 
      divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.  I'd
      urge science to do the same.  

>Its negative results towards religion are due only to the
>fact that its positive results towards the physical world
>disprove the mystical world's ability to affect the
>physical world (except perhaps through the action of those
>who maintain faith and expand "holy signs" into action, but
>I have little doubt that the science of psychology would
>explain these episodes, as well).

     They do nothing of the sort.  You cannot offer proof that the
     universe did not start from initial conditions set up by
     God, 3 1/2 seconds ago. 

>Morality is a matter of psychology; desire and temperament
>make a great force for personality, and the availability of
>productive opportunities can forestall selfish tendencies.

     Rather mechanistic view of morality, wouldn't you say?

>But then, the "value system" of religions have resulted in
>the inquisition and the crusades and any number of lost
>civilizations (making it a force for its own evolution,
>ironically enough).  

     And 'Economics' has given us several of the most crushing
     totalitarian dictatorships the world has ever known.  I don't
     consider that a blanket indictment of Economics.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926