consider 'stepping back' from what you've posted, to view it from the
perspective of the other.
note the exactly-the-same defense of that which is merely-familiar, occuring
at cost to the person proposing one side or the other.
this particular stuff is neither of Religion nor Science... it arises solely
in the biology be-cause nervous systems tend strongly to direct behavior in
a way that "moves toward" that which has become merely-familiar. it's
important to get all of this straight, through an understanding of how
nervous systems process information, if one is to hope to reach out,
analytically, without regard to any particular thing that's being
'reached-out-to'.
a good book, discussing the 'same-stuff' from a behavioral perspective, is
Thomas Kuhn's, _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_.
that which one has experienced strongly 'determines' that which one is
most-likely to 'see', without regard for 'religion' or 'science'.
it's exactly the same in both instances... 'experiment' is the
merely-familiar stuff of 'science'. non-analytical acceptance is the
merely-familiar stuff of 'religion.
Religion and Science both acknowledge, not only the possibility of growth in
understanding, they demand such. both are radically-different from their
blindly-automated counter-'parts'.
cheers, ken collins
Bruce Lilly wrote in message <3794B65C.5DFF7958 at erols.com>...
>"Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." wrote:
>>>> Religion is defined as a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to
with
>> arbor and faith (Marrium Webster, 10th ed). Science does definitely fit
>> this definition.
>>Nope. Science is a method of determining provisional information about
>observable phenomena. It is not a "cause" or a "system of beliefs" and
neither
>"arbor" nor "faith" have any role in science.
>>1. Science and the knowledge obtained via science is available to anyone,
not
>just the "elect".
>2. Anyone with inclination and ability can independently verify the
>[provisional] claims made via science.
>2a. That is an essential part of the scientific process, where independent
>verification of claims is encouraged. Whereas in religion, any questioning
of
>dogma is at least strongly discouraged; it it usually labeled "heresy" or
>"blasphemy" and is typically "punished" by torture and/or by murder.
>2b. Note that science only deals with testable claims about observable
>phenomena. Religions purport to be authorities on untestable claims
regarding
>unobservable propositions as well as observable phenomena.
>3. "arbor and faith" are characteristic of dogma, which has no place in
science.
>Consult your *Merriam* Webster re. the definition of "dogma".
>4. Fundamentalist religions in particular, others to a slightly lesser
extent,
>claim that their dogma is unchanging and inviolable. Science, per contra,
only
>progresses by abandoning old models when they are found to be inadequate in
the
>light of new discoveries; e.g. Aristotelian dynamics was replaced by
>Galilean/Netwonian dynamics, which has subsequently been supplanted by
>Relativity.
>>For a more thorough exposition of the differences, see Nobel Prize-winning
(for
>literature) philosopher Bertrand Russell's "Religion and Science", ISBN
>0-19-511551-1.
