Re: virus: science's mememic place (was: Sexuality)

Patricia & John Crooks (
Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:12:34 -0500

>A real difference in science vs religion is that you may take a
>piece of science (say newtonian gravitation) and believe it, while
>throwing out other pieces because they are not appealing to you
>due to lack of evidence (or whatever) (say quantum mechanics).
>Christian fundamentalists insist on taking their holy book and
>believing it lock, stock and barrel.

This really isn't true, or even logical. If Christian fundamentalists truly
did this there would be no such things as denomination, sects, cults,
schisms and so on.
I can tell that there are a lot of people on this list with really good
science backgrounds but no religious background outside of the experiential.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, it should just be recognized up
front. It certainly isn't essential to have a background in religious
studies or theology to discuss religion, just as it isn't essential to have
a degree in biology to discuss cell division. However it is important that
when it comes to certain subjects in our culture we have a tendency to be
reflexive rather than reflective when not dealing in objective certainties.
A lot of what several posts have characterized about religion seems to be
much more a result of popular media characterizations and supposition rather
than the objective study and observation that of the scientific method.
John Crooks