virus: Re: Science and Religion

KMO prime (
Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:04:09 EDT

On Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:59:37 -0500 (CDT) writes:

>> >but I
>> >can't think of a single word that means the content I want.
>> >'Spirituality' alone is extremely passive, while 'religiosity' is,
>> >by definition both conventionally and in my frame, POWERLESS. It
>> >necessary to avoid the aversive traits of both words. Ideas?

>'Religiosity' has the same referents as 'religiousness'. I find the
>terms equivalent, but Wade probably has more precision in this area.
>You may recall someone [I can't place the name this instant] who was
>extravagantly noting that if "one's belief in God could feed you, we'd
>call that a miracle." That explicitly demonstrates the powerlessness
>'religiosity' [and most conventional religions as well!] The memes
>generate predictions that are at best untestable, and at worst
>falsifiable [requiring hypocrisy/apathy/(faith, Virian def.) to
>loss of the host!]
>I insist that my beliefs in this domain actually give useful
>predictions--otherwise, they will be junked, as per scientific method
>mathematics. Placebo effect vs. actual cause and effect is a more
>sophisticated question.

I think I'm clearer on what you mean now. The single quotes around
religiosity lead me to believe that you were claiming that the term
itself was powerless, and I couldn't see how this could be the case
unless it had no referent. Now, I understand you to mean that being
religious deprives the adherent of personal power. If this is what you
are saying, then I will agree that this is true in many, but not all

Take care. -KMO