Re: virus:Logic

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:59:45 -0500

I would like to see a "Religious insight" that depends upon religion for
it's conception. Can someone demonstrate this?



This is such an interesting concept. I would think that all religious
insights depend upon religion for their conception. Can you explain to me:
(a) where it is you think religious insights originate, (b) if you assume
that religious insights come from "science" (for example), can you give me
the "scientific" (or whatever) equivalent of the word "insight"--or simply
define insight for me in your own words, (c) I would think the term for
"religious insight" would be "revelation", or "divine inspiration", or
"prophecy"...what value would you place on a demonstration which included
these words?

I think that I can provide you with the demonstration you ask. I must
determine, however, if your preference for "science" will allow for a
translation between words which I see as synonomous (revelation/discovery,
inspiration/theory, prophecy/prediction..."faith": replicability?
evidence? logic?) Often one maintains a belief in science by
splitting-off--and working in opposition to--"non" science. Such a person
finds that s/he can't think scientifically very well without the contrast of
"religion" and must keep enforce minor differences between these two systems
to keep a contrast where one doesn't necessarily exist (Or, I think you are
prejudiced against religion because keeping the prejudice allows you to put
science in a sharper focus; in which case, you will not be able to translate
from one system to another without both collapsing).


At 11:43 AM 10/9/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Marie, I can't agree about religion, though I admire the attempt to
>qualify religion as an attempt to explain the existence of the energy we
>seem to agree exists. I see no reason, either currently or historically
>to believe that religion is interested in explaining what is happening
>in the universe around us. It is more interested in molding our thoughts
>to what they would like reality to be. In my opinion this is done in an
>attempt to dominate and control others. Religion is about power over the
>ignorant. When religion was the dominating philosophical force on the
>planet , advancement for the people on all fronts (violence, equality,
>life span etc...) was at a near standstill. In the short time that
>science has been gaining ground (the last 400 years say) We have become
>quite advanced. No one in this forum would even be able to communicate
>without the advancements in science we have made in just the last couple
>of decades. People use the atomic bomb as an example of the evils of
>science - well, what is evil about the bomb? there have only been two
>used, and a small number of deaths associated with them (Auto accidents
>in the US outstrip the bomb in only four or five years when it comes to
>fatalities) Though the potential of the bomb is serious, the
>advancements gleaned from this knowledge have led to a huge improvements
>in the way we live, and have insured security for our country and many
>others that could not be achieved otherwise. I am a pacifist and despise
>weapons of mass destruction, but understand that my like or dislike is
>irrelevant - does anyone really believe the US has to be concerned about
>an invasion? Of course not, no nuclear power worries about invasion.
>(except perhaps Israel which is a religious state surrounded by
>religious states)
> I don't see that religion offers ANY insights not obtainable through
>common sense alone. I was raised an Atheist from the start and in
>general find myself of stronger moral character than most religious
>people I know. I cannot kill, because death is final and complete, there
>is no "heaven" to send people to. I cannot harm another without a
>logical reason such as self continuation or defense of anther's
>continuation. I started studying religion in my early teens, and to this
>day am sickened by all religions I have discovered. This is due to one
>thread of thought in religion, and that is "divinely inspired infallible
>truth" positioned by all major religions and many minor religions.
> Science, on the other hand, is nothing like religion. Science has a
>single purpose - learn what is learn able. My opinions change every time
>a better scientific theory comes about. I cannot afford to let my
>personal tastes dominate over logic, though they try mightily. Before I
>discovered the Church of Virus, I had already determined that the three
>major necessities were Life, Love and Logic - not too dissimilar from
>Reason - Empathy and Vision.
>Life: This is so valuable because unlike most other things, we each only
>get one, and it is finite. Logically, because of it's scarcity, it is
>extremely valuable.
>Love: I consider this to be "Empathy" in the Virian Virtues.
>Logic: So far the best tool we have to guarantee growth and
>Now that I know the Virian Virtues, I must admit that I like "Vision"
>quite a bit too, but that seems to me to be the natural condition of a
>healthy mind.
>Answer to your question: Universe is NOT infinite, it is a closed
>system that so far obeys the laws of physics as we understand them. As
>this understanding grows every day, our Universe becomes a little
>smaller and our physics becomes a little more accurate.
>I must agree with some things you say though, I love poetry, literature,
>art and the like. I am a musician and am very pleased with the
>electro-chemical reactions that happen in my brain when I am releasing
>"creative energy". But nothing about these tastes argue against science,
>I will agree that science however has yet to explain precisely the
>nature of creativity. In fact, as you say, there are still mysteries -
>more mysteries than answers. I think that without these mysteries to
>pursue, existence for me would be without "value".
>I would like to see a "Religious insight" that depends upon religion for
>it's conception. Can someone demonstrate this?
>Marie Foster wrote:
>> I am going to risk it and sling in my thoughts about science -
>> religion. It seems to me that both are attempts to explain the
>> existence of the energy we seem to agree exists. How well or poorly
>> either does this has to do more with the power structure that uses (
>> or
>> misuses) the insights gained. Scientific knowledge leads to atomic
>> bombs as well as MRI machines. Luddites on the web bemoan the very
>> technology that brings us all together in this arena. As a scientist
>> I
>> still read poetry. And I am glad that there are still mysteries left
>> to
>> be solved.
>> And now a question. If the universe is infinite, are we not all the
>> center of it?
>> poetically,
>> Marie

Rabble Sonnet Retort
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague:

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Wolfgang Pauli