>>>Science is a nice
>>model for designing airplanes, but so far has proved inferior to
religion
>>for purposes such as community cohesion, inspirational leadership,
and the
>>pursuit of happiness (drugs excepted).
>Is it possible that we all acknowledge that the above statement has
some
>`objective' validity as a description of the real world?
I think game theory does a good job of proving the above.
Traditional religions offer a better context for cooperation and mutual
support than science. .... arguably because science promotes individualism
while religions <through natural selection> promote collectivism. I think
the whole thrust of sociobiology ... and certainly the point of Dawkin's
"The Selfish Gene" ... is to provide a biological basis for cooperation and
support in non-sentient species. Isn't it sentience that brings on the
"Tragedy of the Commons" where maximizing individual utility leads to
collective tragedy? Religion provides a rationale for deferring individual
gain for the collective good.