Re: There is no science vs religion battle.
- Mark, I am really stumped with your "response!" You are so
elloquent that I right away take your post very serious. Then I
examine your sentences very carefully and find there is nothing
there! Scholars are experts at double talk, but there is no
doubletalk in your posts, just strange, irrational assertions. You
seem to be a one-of-a-kind. . .
Okay, you can claim I failed to answer your arguments because I have-
--and probably never will (unless I forget).
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mark" <parashakti108@...>
> >GI:[...] I want to respond to Mark because he went to some
> to comment on my post, but I could find nothing in his responethat
> really made much sense. I really didn't know what to respond to.can
> -M: I added to my responses. Lets take a look:
> --"globalintent" wrote:
> >-Mark writes: """Its not the place of science to determine what is
> good and bad. This is the job of religion"""
> >GI: That sounds like a doctrine. "That is the way things are, so
> that is the way they must stay."
> -M: Yes. Science is discriptive, and religion is both prescriptive
> and discriptive. When science becomes prescriptive, then it becomes
> a religion. This is how knowledge is structured.
> [Sounds good to me. Science doesn't tell us how to live, but it
> help us to make informed decisions.]in
> >GI: When religions become so old that their moral formulas and
> codes become obsolete, do you say that people should not use the
> understanding of themselves and their world they have accumulated
> the meantime and come up with something better?process.
> -M: Any reasonable tradition has internal mechanisms to evolve
> itself. If not, then it is an entrenched orthodoxy that must be
> discarded.[This is why most traditions don't look the same as they
> did hundreds of years ago.]
> >GI: I think what you might actually be getting at is that moral
> systems are different from legal systems because they give a
> doctrinal finality to moral issues...
> -M: What generates laws is jurisprudence, which is religious. [ It
> is religious because it is faith-based. Some jurisprudence is even
> explicitly theological.]You seem to be seeing a difference between
> law and religion that doesn't exist.
> >GI:...that causes people to agree on them and more fully follow
> them on priniciple rather than just out of fear of arrest. If so, I
> agree with it entirely. And when religions grow so old that their
> moral systems have become obselete and unable to deal with such
> moral issues as sewing mines, for example, what SHOULD be used to
> replace the whole system?
> -M: A better religion.[If a religion doesn't evolve as it should,
> this is indicative of an inferior epistemology, a theory of
> knowledge which doesn't allow for the evolution of knowledge.]
> >GI: You have studied world history. You know that old religions
> have been replaced a number of times in the past. Its because they
> grew old and obsolete. It is a natural, social evolutionary
> -M: Yes, but this doesn't mean that all religions will grow old and
> obsolete. [Some, like Kashmir Shaivism, have highly adaptive
> theories of knowledge which allow them to adapt to changing times.]
> Mark, Seattle
> > "Mark" wrote:
> > --"globalintent" wrote:
> > >GI: Can a belief system be a "religion" if it is not a world-
> and way of thinking?people
> >-M: Any *way of thinking* is a *belief system* because a person
> believes in this *way of thinking* enough to think in such a
> > And a religion must be world-view and way of thinking.
> -M: We all would agree that a religion is a belief system, right?
> > >GI: The social sciences have never been considered real science
> by other scientists because its artists or practitioners can never
> agree on the meaning of the words they use. The result is that
> > can rationalize all kinds of "good" things, like that science and
> > religion can be reconciled, for example.
> > -M: Its not the place of science to determine what is good and
> > This is the job of religion.
> > >GI: In my website Glossary, I have one, specific definition
> > for "RELIGION" that is the only functional, instead merely a
> > descriptive, one. It is that "religion" is a world-view that is
> > built up from a theology or core of answers to only four
> > built up, that is, until it becomes a closed system of thinking.
> > -M: From what worldview do you judge religions to be closed? Is
> > worldview your religion?
> > >GI: It is this closed system of thinking aspect that binds
> > into societies and which makes religions so rigid and to last forbut
> > hundreds and even thousands of years.
> > -M: You may not have a large enough sample size to make this
> > determination. There is a saying:
> > "It takes only one white crow to prove that not all crows are
> > >GI: I looked "Kashmir Shaivism" up in Google. Of all the myrads
> > Swami gurus, why did you choose this one?
> > -M: Because She makes the most sense, and She induces spiritual
> > experiences in people.
> > >GI: I assume you were looking for something different which
> > was "spiritual". I have studied Hinduism and Hindu society with
> > considerable interest and have a whole chapter on it. As a person
> > who has used meditation and hypnosis, I am familiar with them,
> > am not deluded into thinking that anything "spiritual" is or even
> > can be science.
> > -M: Science is *systemitized knowlege*, and data for this can
> > from both objective and subjective sources.old
> > >GI: I believe that an accurate social science, when applied
> > objectively, can create a religion that has all the moral,
> > emotional, even "spiritual"-like feelings and effects that the
> > faiths have--...why?
> > -M: Why can't the old faiths be scientific and current? I don't
> > think that all of them are entrenched. If you think otherwise,
> > >GI:...yet be scientific and be able to head the world into a new
> > scientific and technological age leading to our expansion as a
> > species out into the rest of the universe.charles,
> > -M: I saw you use the word *objective*. Do you realize that the
> > of *objective* knowledge is subjective?
> > shanti
> > Mark, Seattle
- --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> --"Mark" wrote:[...]
> > --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> > >B: Yeah, but then again, so does pretty much everyone else here(except you).
> > -M: If so, who the fuck are they? Aren't they wussified mythic-materialist heretic dodgers?
>B: If you go back enough you can find them, just that most of themhave stopped looking at what it is you're typing (they probably get
-M: If they are wussified mythic-materialist heretic dodgers, should I
give a flying fuck?
>B:...with people who go over the same thing repeatedly even afterbeing refuted).
-M: So they are bored with you? If you think they are bored with me
because of alledged refutations, where is even ONE refutation?
And you DODGED this question like a WUSSY:
"I can show where you have DODGED like a WUSSY, can you show
where I have broken a rule?"
You DODGE more than Dan does, and his points and questions are better
than yours. Dan can be a macho stud, can you be one?
Dan is much better of a HERETIC than you.