As Robert A. Pape, for instance, demonstrates (cf. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050606/011776.html> and <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050606/012057.html>), one doesn't have to share a terrorist's belief to understand it. One doesn't have to believe in Greek gods to understand ancient Greeks's beliefs. One doesn't have to be a Christian to understand Christianity, a Muslim to understand Islam, a Buddhist to understand Buddhism, and an atheist to understand atheism. And so on and so forth. Before modernity, comparative perspectives already existed (Herodotus's history is a good example), but the virtue of the Enlightenment is that it opened up a universal possibility to understand others' beliefs without adhering to them, the possibility hitherto stifled by colonialism, capitalism, and imperialism.
As for science, what do you mean by "scientific revolution"? If you mean theory changes within modern science, they have and will continue to happen, but, if you mean a world-historic event comparable to the emergence of modern science at the dawn of capitalism, it will not happen unless and until the capitalist mode of production, which stunts innovations by shackling them to requirements of capital accumulation, becomes superceded by a system of production for people's needs and desires, rather than profits -- and even in a post-capitalist society, a new scientific revolution may not happen, nor is it clear one is necessary or desirable.
>[lbo-talk] Re: Appeal to Ignoranc
>Chuck Grimes cgrimes at rawbw.com
>Sat Jun 11 22:51:54 PDT 2005
<snip>
>The general idea is that God was thought to embody the infinite. So,
>to understand the infinite, even in the symbolic form of mathematics
>was to discover God.
<snip>
>The ultimate residue of these mathematical ideals is on display
>everywhere as the Big Bang.
It doesn't require any belief in God to study set theory or an expanding universe. It's a habit of some to slap the word God on any old or new unresolved questions, but it's not a habit that all of us have, nor is it necessary for science.
>[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance
>Chris Doss lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com
>Sun Jun 12 07:41:45 PDT 2005
<snip>
>I just read that survey of scientists Yoshie posted, in which the
>author apparently believed that lack of a belief in a personal god
>is the same thing as not being religious. How annoying.
A person who has a habit of slapping the word God on unresolved questions can call himself religious and call his habit religion without joining any community of believers in any existing denomination of any existing faith if he pleases, but that's an insignificant minority among people who subscribe to religious belief in the present as well as the past. Religions that matter in society, for better or worse, and merit the attention of the irreligious in politics are collective endeavors.
>[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance
>Chris Doss lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com
>Sun Jun 12 07:41:45 PDT 2005
<snip>
>The snide "real scientists can't have religious beliefs" line truly
>ticked me off.
The claim made in the survey of scientists is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Real scientists can have religious beliefs, but they don't have to, and most of them don't. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>