virus: Science

Reed Konsler (
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:06:40 -0400

>From: (Patricia & John Crooks)
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 13:44:54 -0500
>Subject: Re: virus: Sexuality
>How are you seeing that as being different? You aren't saying that
>fundamental religion never undergoes drastic change are you? If you are you
>would be indicating a serious lack in your education regarding theology and
>the history of religion. The transistion from Judaism to Christianity to
>Islam, or from another perspective, from Judaism to Catholocism to
>institutional Protestantism to evangelical charismatic populist
>Protestantism would be enough to refute that idea.

This is a really good point. The difference is that the Catholics still
disagree with the Protestants in a way that noboby still believes in a flat
earth or geocentric solar system. There is an evolution in religious and
scientific paradigms, but religion (usually) does not include a
self-referential critical system. Science attempts to define and predict
everything, including itself! Tall order, maybe futile, but very very

I mean, I'm not arguing there aren't parrallels. I guess it's just a
matter of how alike you percieve two things to be. That's a matter of
opinion; I don't see them as that similar, you might. It isn't a issue I
think will be resolved by debate. I contend most strongly, however, that
the idea of "science as religion" is misleading and oversimplifying. That
model doesn't provide an adequate description of science, or religion for
that matter.


Reed Konsler