RE: virus: Science and Religion
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 15:40:37 -0600


>Maybe the discussion we have been having is not about utility. Maybe we
>don't care about tools, machines, theories. But can we be so blind to the
>technical achievements the practice of science has brought us? Could we,
>in distant parts of this planet, habitually have these forum-conversations
>were it not for the implict faith that the scientists and engineers placed
>in their experimental process? Perhaps that faith is misguided; perhaps
>our models are a little kludgy; perhaps scientists are a little
>arrogant...but the civilization which we seem to be taking for granted and
>the one which we would have propogated is built with tools created by
>science. Modern life is circumscribed by our technical achievements.

Good point, Mr. Konsler, and one I tried to assert in a previous post
(although not in nearly so detailed a manner) for both sides.


>I'm so tired of "you guys are soooo arrogant", "you guys can't explain THIS
>observation, can you?", "you guys have all these conflicting models, can't
>you come up with something better than that?" The only response I can give
>is: we're fucking working on it. This is a human, physical endeavour and
>it is error prone and time/energy intensive. If you think God will inspire
>you to better solutions to the problems of how to feed, clothe, and
>educate, and provide for 10 billion people...well, God help you. I've
>never claimed that SCIENCE is infallible.

Another point I tried to make earlier.

However, I do disagree with you on one thing:
You wrote, "Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick [nice image, by the
way; sodomy and the saced in combination... :)] ! Aren't all these things
enough? What do [you] become Gods?"

First question: No.
Second question: Yes.

Simple as that. Call me Neitzche with a priapism.

Toward the accumulation of useful information,