Robert Coyote asks,
> Is it possible that all the "atrocities" cause by Religion would just as
> likely have happened for other reasons because religion was the excuse for
> the acts, other excuses could have served the tyrants uses as substitutes?
If so, then why didn't the tyrants use some other excuse? Why did they choose
religiosity? Tyrants can turn anything into religiosity it seems, except for
authentic science. Stalin made communism into a religion, and Mao Zedong did
approximately the same. Call it what you will, it still needs debunking, and
it's still anti-science. And there's no need to put the word atrocities in
quotation marks. They were real atrocities (though I don't think I used that
term, so you're not quoting me).
Perhaps you've hit upon a good test to determine is something is real science:
If it can be turned into religiosity, then it's not science. If someone can
use it for an excuse to commit atrocities, then it's not real science.
Hmmm... What does that say about politics? Debunk it?
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, CYC, and ELIZA
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT