[lbo-talk] RE: An Appeal to Ignorance

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

> Miles Jackson wrote:
> 
> > According to any plausible definition of science, the question of God is
> > in fact not a scientific one.  I'm not being a dogmatic (rabid?) atheist
> > here; the problem is that there are no accepted scientific methods to
> > determine how "man may find God" or if "God exists" or if "God likes
> > to play bingo".  Theological speculation is outside the circle of what
> > science can study, at the present time.  (Science can neither support
> > nor undermine my belief in God.) 
> 
> Look, what I'm trying to say is this: we should not let the fundies 
> define the meaning of religion any more than we let Bush and the IMF 
> define the meaning of democracy.
> 
> Try to entertain the possibility that both religion and science are 
> forms of inquiry and are only meaningful as such. When either hardens 
> into orthodoxy, it is dangerous and, by definition, false.
> 
> Joanna

Religion provides answers, it doesn't promote inquiry. That is its 
purpose. It is also by its nature exclusionary. Religion cannot have an 
"us" without a counterpoint "them". This makes it naturally divisive. 
While fundies hardly define religion they don't need to for us to see its 
corrosive effects. Anything good you can think of that religion adds to a 
community can be had without religion and the negative baggage that by 
definition accompanies it.

John Thornton