Re: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)

Brett Lane Robertson (
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 23:54:38 -0500


I do not see religion and science as even remotely similar. Science can
explain everything about religion. Where it came from, why people are
driven to it, why it effects people as it does. Religion on the hand
requires ignoring science to exist. It is based on divine inspiration of
human beings, whom we all agree are untrustworthy. It constantly shrinks
as it's myths are exposed. It is fancy and emotion without substance.
Religion is a piece of human animalistic nature.

Science is mans first attempt at objectivity - it's far from perfect,
but grows expotentially, and is more accure every day. Science is beyond
man's animalistic tendencies, not scientists, but science.



Here Sodom is destroying religion in order to make science sound more
important even though he says that they are not remotely similar. So why do
you compare them, if they are not similar?

I think that a scientific understanding must begin with the idea that there
is nothing known (about an object) and then it must *disprove* itself. To
me this is a double negative...finding what *is* by first saying it is not
and then by saying it is not not, so it is. Running this back through the
equation, if it is then it is not so we prove that it is not not...again and
again. Scientists who are attempting to prove that something IS, are
continually disproving themselves and objectifying the results...they are
destroying "self" and proving "object/other"...over and over.

Perhaps faith begins with what IS and nurtures the self; and arguments
against science are not at the expense of science but in an attempt to save save the self/soul in it's slow and gradual development.
Though the external might not gain a phenomenological "spirit" as quickly
(objects might not gain the "self-hood" of undisputed fact), the development
of faith is like that of a tree and not like that of the fire which consumes
the tree to prove it's existence--science.

I am not so sure that advanced forms of spirituality and their practicioners
are not able to describe reality as well as science...I would say that
spirituality can tell the innermost workings of life to a degree which we
haven't yet "discovered" externally. I think that the church of the masses
are like institutionalized governments (traffic laws, etc.). They provide a
way for those who are not spiritually mature to enjoy the benefits of
spiritual knowledge--by following rituals and laws. I'm sure that many
doubters of intuitive knowledge are destroyed by science as intuitions
(which cannot be "proven") are objectified to the detriment of the
scientific ideal (that we cannot know *anything*).

I still wonder why one needs to destroy religion to be a scientist or to
destroy science to be a religious adherent.


Rabble Sonnet Retort
Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.

H. L. Mencken