John K Clark (
Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:33:44 -0700 (PDT)


"Okanna Borra" <> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 Wrote:

>Science is our greatest method for finding truth, but religion
>generates meaning.

I have no religion, yet from the time I was in the first grade I've had the
ability to make sense out of many ASCII strings, including the sequence you
just sent me, so obviously religion can't be the only thing that generates
meaning. I suppose you'll tell me religion can give me some sort of ultimate,
if nebulous, meaning but the trouble is if you tell me "X" is the meaning of
life then the obvious question is "What is the meaning of X ?".
And what is the meaning of meaning anyway?

>integrate Science AND religion... It can be done, if you want to do it

Correct, Science can be polluted in that way.

>I get the feeling you don't, however


>and your life will remain meaningless...

It would certainly be helpful if you could provide some examples, why is my
life "meaningless" and why would I be better off if it were not?

>>I don't know what "freedom of spirit" means.
>>and you never will until you find it

So help me find it. You used the term so I assume you know what it means, how
about giving me a hint, who knows, I may already agree with you that we have
"freedom of spirit".

>you are already a dedicated worshipper of _S_cience and its High
>Priests, Fenyman, Sagan, et al.

Is there any particular reason you feel it's necessary to brand these two
splendid human beings with that insult?

>I'll say it again. Science will lead you to Truth,


>Religion will lead you to meaning.

But I don't understand your meaning. Just one specific example where religion
helped anybody understand anything would be more useful in communicating your
ideas than a thousand more vague platitudes.

>Avoid the Bible if it grieves you so, but find some spirit have
>you tried Taoism?

As I've admitted before, at one time I thought all mystics were fools, then I
read a wonderful book written by a mystic Named Raymond Smullyan called
"The Tao is silent". I disagree with Smullyan on lots of stuff but the man is
quite definitely not a fool.

I respect Taoism, at least as it was originally taught by Laotse, but then,
Taoism is not a religion. Unlike a religion Taoism asks profound questions
it does not provide vapid answers, it claims no revealed truth, it takes no
position on the existence of God and doesn't even have a position on the
truth of Taoism. If you want to call something like that a religion then I'm
a religious man.

John K Clark

Version: 2.6.i