Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
- On Dec 4, 2007 12:47 PM, Charlie Bell <charlie@...> wrote:
>It seems far more likely to me that the same freedoms that allow wacky
> If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of
> science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it.
religious ideas (which is what we're really talking about, not religion) to
grow are the same soil in which scientific growth thrives. Maybe you can't
get one without the other.
This is not to say that I'm in favor of any of the ways in which some of the
religious wackos try to suppress science or replace it with unscientific
ideas. However, I think we would be wise to fear that any sort of
repression of wacky religious ideas might also stifle the growth and
development of less wacky ideas. Legislating what people are allowed to
think, in any form, opens a very dangerous door, in my opinion.
Fascism intended to suppress wacky religious ideas is no better than any
other sort of fascism.
Still, I'm entirely comfortable with aggressive criticism of wacky religious
ideas, so long as the criticism is logical. Making illogical arguments
against the illogic of the wacky ideas is worse than self-defeating, I
- On Dec 6, 2007 6:07 PM, jon louis mann <net_democracy@...> wrote:
> guided research and quantum computer modeling, we may be approaching theThey would abandon adultery for bestiality, I suppose.
> trans human singularity.
> ayn rand believed the masses of humanity were morons and would return to
> bestiality if not for the altruism of the elite who were kind enough to
> harness their labor so we plebians could reap the benefits of civilization.
(I'm sure you meant "beastliness" or similar)