virus: Re: science and religion

Ken Pantheists (
Tue, 01 Oct 1996 02:20:00 +0000

Kenneth Boyd:

>Unification is a two-way street. Not only does science need to be
>applied to religion-type phenomena, the religion-type phenomena need to
>be viewed in terms of augmenting science proper.


Yes. I agree. And there are a number of very healthy, fiercly
intellectual, skeptical and rational theologians who participate in that
very practice.

Unfortunately (in the case of Jim Roberts, a friend of mine) they also
wind up in the papers or on the CBC as "that left wing priest that
supports abortion and women's rights and Rome hates."

i.e. they become the oddity.

Now United is a different matter. A United Church minister friend of
mine once said jokingly," You can believe anything and be in the United
Church-- you could believe god is an alien entity if you want." He also
gets a lot of materials for his sermons from Star Trek.

>[The Raving Christian Right EndMeme is flaring up: one monitor of its
>'speed' has outright stated that he only sees one barrier between the
>current situation and the Eze 38/39 Gog War.


I don't understand what this Gog war is... (?)

Also please explain Endmeme--- like Endgame?

The meme of the christain right endmeme sounds interesting-- did you
engineer it?

The fact that it is picking up speed and there is only one barrier
between us and the final chapter is also an interesting meme.

reminds me of

Nuclear Holocaust
Global Warming
... others.

Many news stories use the same plot device-- makes a good "threat of the
week" story.

These would make good cards for the deck.

>While there is a proper use of the word 'supernatural', it usually [in
>form-without-power religions] connotes "we want to know as little about
>it as possible. Frankly, knowing it exists is knowing too much."

But people who are religious don't have an appreciation for the
supernatural, they have an appreciation for the mystery. (I am not
tossing that word around... there is a very big difference between the
two. Check out the original greek)

They hopefully also have enough common sense to avoid religious leaders
and institutions that abuse power.

>Please keep in mind: there is usually a bias to consider repeatable
>phenomena as 'natural'. This strikes me as an ineffective criterion. If
>'supernatural' is a real domain [I haven't decided yet], I will outright
>assume it is susceptible to science as well.

I would think that anything that is suseptible to science as wholly

Somewhere in your post you mentioned that religion requires miracles.
And that science can narrow the scope of what is considered to be a

Which miracles are you referring to specifically?

What do you mean by miracle?

This is how I define a miracle:

A miracle is not just some weird occurance that no-one can explain. If
they were, Houdini and David Copperfield would have their own religions.

A miracle is a huge statement that states, simply, the world view of the
religion. It is a pure statement that reflects the many facets of the
given religion's ideology.

For example, the turning of water into wine is a statement.

About life, about death, about being poor, about being wealthy, about
being generous, about creation and transformation.

I don't think you'll be making the headlines if you told people that it
is scientifically impossible. But if you find the statement is worth it,
you suspend your disbelief and enjoy the benefits of the meme.

I jumped ahead.

I should wait for your definition of a miracle.

Ken Pantheists                     
Virus Theatre           
TooBa Physical Theatre Centre