wla@ccieng6.UUCP ( BAND William L. Anderson) (09/21/83)
In response to Stan the leprechaun ... Please define what is meant when you think that we are in trouble if a majority of Americans prefer religion to science for solving problems. I think that there could be an informative discussion of the roles of religion and science in individual lives and larger social groups. But, we need first a definition of 1. Religion 2. Science 3. The kind of problems people feel need solving via one of the above two methods. And after this, maybe a set of objectives for the discussion? Could there be a consensus on the definitions? I don't know. Bill Anderson ...!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng6:wla
shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) (09/24/83)
(Gee Dad, I was just flaming...) Defining religion and science and how people see each as solving problems is a pretty tall order, and it's not helped any by the fact that I didn't see the original poll. Just guessing, though, I'd say that "religion" and "science" were painted in the broadest possible terms; meaning that religion includes mysticism, Eastern philosophy, and all those other things in addition to traditional religion, while science includes anything technological. I'm not going to claim that science (in this general sense) will solve *every* problem, but my complaint is that many people totally reject the notion that it can solve *any* problems (I really would like to know the breakdown of opinions in that poll - would make it easier to determine the degree of anti-technological bias in the country). Take Reagan ( please! :-) ). He's been going about trumpeting that his 4-point program for education is going to restore excellence in schools. One of those points is the re-introduction of prayer in school. I haven't seen the slightest shred of hard evidence that praying helps solve technological problems. On the other hand, daily repetition of dogma can "calcify" the brain, making it harder to accept new ideas and to solve problems in novel ways. This is not a problem for Reagan, he probably hasn't had a new idea in decades, but is highly inimical to any kind of science or technology. Has religion solved *any* problems itself? Has it helped to learn how to use fire, to grow crops, to build power plants or computers? What of today's problems? Will praying generate more natural resources? Spacecraft? Justice? (Not likely, going by the history of religion!) What has religion in any form accomplished, except for the psychological equivalent of a frontal lobotomy? Better stop, smoke is coming out of my ears, stan the l.h. (of darkness) utah-cs!shebs
CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq@pur-ee.UUCP (09/28/83)
<pilot light [tiny flame] on> stan the leprous--er, leprechaun hacker: Religion has not solved massive problems for the simple reason that people have not accepted it massively. I mean that in two senses: 1) quantities of people, 2) degree of acceptance. While millions are on the rolls of the major denominations, they are still a minority (in this country at least); and not many people allow their faith to really change them. It seemed a little odd that you criticized religion for not solving problems of technology, which are, of course, not its department at all. Religion is aimed at solving spiritual and (partly as a consequence) psychological problems. I, for one, have seen a great IMPROVEMENT in my psychological health over the last several years (quite the opposite of "the equivalent of a prefrontal lobotomy"), largely due to my faith, and to the faithful help of "the God who is there", as Francis Schaeffer says. I, of course, am not at all the only person who can say such things. Thus, "religion" has been shown many times over to solve problems on the individual scale. But not enough individuals get enough of their problems solved to have the psychological strength to make much of a dent in the massive non-technological problems of the world. Certainly I still have a long way to go. <pilot light off> Dumb question: How did this discussion get into net.politics? -- Jeff Sargent/pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq