Re: RELIGION: The meaning of Life

Gregory Houston (
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:50:41 -0600

Eric Watt Forste wrote:
> Once upon a time, religion was an off-limits topic on this list (because
> of the Great Witch War). Perhaps we should invoke this rule on some of
> Eliezer's posts. ;)

Hmmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it would be next to
impossible to remove the topic of religion from any in depth discourse
involving science. Would you grant me that subjects of faith are the
property of religion? ... And that every science is based on precepts
which cannot be proven and thus must be accepted via faith alone? If so,
is religion not the foundation of science? It seems to me that religion
might be the buffer between science and the unknown. As science expands,
so does its religion. Perhaps if we replaced the word faith with
probability, it would all become science again, i.e., instead of saying,
"I have faith in this a priori precept", I might say, "It is probable
that this a priori precept is true." But then, by replacing the concept
of faith with that of probability, am I not merely ontotheologically
sublimating the concept of faith with a more evolved or refined concept
of the same? Is probability anything more than exalted faith? Just a

I don't see science so much as a departure from religion, but the
evolution of it. We still have similar goals such as immortality and
controlling the masses [doctrine and crusades vs. military weapons
technology]. It doesn't appear science has become much more mature than
religion ... though perhaps more refined, more sophisticated.

The evolution of attaining what we need/desire:
primal need/desire --> religion --> philosophy --> science

I have faith, or does it just seem probable to me, that there will be
something beyond science as well. Hard to imagine, but things always
move on. I bet the evolutionay path I so wonderfully typed above will
recursively come full circle ascending once again to a more
sophisticated level. This would mean the synergism of science [reason]
and emotion. Again, hard to imagine, but it might not hurt to think
about it. What ever it will be, it is inevitable (very probable) that
someone will make the next leap.

E[PN/D] --> R --> P --> S --> E' --> R' --> P' --> S' --> E'' ... E^n

Perhaps my emotive bent hinders my cognitive reasoning. [fancy way of
saying I might be a flake.]

> Hmm. Can you say "decontextualize"? What the hell, I can play
> recombinant memes.

Thanx for the information Eric. I'll check out the URL.

Gregory Houston