Harvey Newstrom wrote,
> A rationalist cannot debunk religion with the scientific method any more
> than a preacher can condemn science with scriptural interpretation. Neither
> will recognize or accept the other's methods. They are mutually exclusive.
> Neither side will accept the debunking by the other, while both sides will
> go on to believe they have demonstrated the obvious truth.
Could be, but I think sometimes science wins. For example, Galileo and
Copernicus proved the church was wrong about how the Earth and Sun relate
spatially. In any case, individual scientists can debunk religionism among
themselves to their own satisfaction. Come to think of it, being able to say
to each other that we scientifically debunked religiosity satisfies me.
Personally, I don't give a wet fart what the religionists think constitutes an
adequate debunking. It's the opinion of the scientific community that matters
to me. I have no respect for the opinions of true believers, because AFAIC,
their belief is the result of brain dysfunction.
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, CYC, and ELIZA
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:43 MDT