Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!sun4nl!oce.nl!not-for-mail!oce-rd2!qndj
From: qndj@oce-rd2.oce.nl (Nick de Jong)
Subject: Re: religion
Message-ID: <D79z59.7B3@oce.nl>
Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy
Summary: religion vs science
Keywords: religion science
Sender: news@oce.nl (The Daily News @ nntp01.oce.nl)
Organization: Oce Nederland B.V.
References: <3k7jnq$dqc@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> <3mfuqt$5h2@oswald.eciad.bc.ca> <D6ysvD.BM4@oce.nl> <3mm018$164@oswald.eciad.bc.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 09:17:33 GMT
Lines: 64

Hello J.Aaron, you wrote:

>mode of spiritual existence. I ask: what does what you *like* to think
>have to do with anything other than your own personal and internal
>entertainment?

I don't mind you only believe the things you can find in an encyclopedia.
What I like to think is my personal entertainment, yes. What made you
think religion is logical. (even though lots of people who are not religious
believe there should be something of a 'God' or 'soul').

When someone tells of an out-of-body experience you say that person is
(probably) mad. When that person says (s)he saw something in another room
during it you say that is a coincidence. I think it is a good thing to
check all those claims (I don't know what to think about them) in a logical
way. If they are true, there must be someting 'more'. Having seen the things
in life (so far, at least) make me think there is 'more'. Yes, it's just a
hunch.

>Point taken. The ten commandments tell us how to behave. Science does not
>tell us how to behave. What kind of moral imperitive can possibly be
>buried in a provable fact?

> Science is knowledge. Religion is moral,

Right. But you can use both as a reason for anything.

> and those morals and their interpretations have been wildly misconstrued
> throughout history to nobody's benefit.
> How would a scientific fact compel me to kill anyone, even if
> misinterpreted. Even if I thought 1+1=3
> I still wouldn't feel compelled to behave differently. The examples you
> cite are examples of political evil. Science has nothing to do
> with it.

Ok, example. You and your team of scientists have worked years and years on
a big project. When you are in the final stages of work, some high ranked
boss comes along and says he doesn't like this and the project should be
stopped and all you should be fired. You, or one in your team finds that
so unrightful (sp?) that he, in a flash of anger, kills that boss. When
the police catches him he says that the work what is done is so important
for him that he can't bear the thought of leaving it all behind. Well, that
is a reason (for him!) to kill a man.

Maybe the science itself didn't tell him to kill anyone, but it was science
that had something to do with it. Now if I kill someone because he does not
like my religion (my 'project') I might find it perfectly reasonable to kill
that man but that has, in real life, nothing to do with my religion, just
as the scientist who kills a man has nothing to do with science.

I think the reason that (lots) more people get killed over religion than over
science is that you don't need much intelligence for a religion, but you need
some of logical thinking to master a scientific book. Killing people (or
torturing or ...) is most of the time done by people who have lost (at least
part of) there mind.

If you want to do something bad, you can find any reason in any subject as
long as your imagination is good enough. That's the point I wanted to make.
(I, in my arrogance, thought this was all so logical....)


Nick de Jong
(email at nick@grafix.xs4all.nl)
disclaimer: the views in this text are mine
