From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jul 07 2001 - 23:18:55 MDT
"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> From: "Russell Blackford" <rblackford@hotmail.com>
> > OTOH I'm happy to get rid of words that I think contain false
> > preconceptions, such as "sin" and *perhaps* ("perhaps", I say carefully
> > because I'm not wanting to pick a fight with Samantha and Amara, so I'm
> > prepared to bracket off the issue) "spirituality".
>
> Sin and spirituality are words which derive their meaning from religiosity.
> Debunk religiosity, and these terms become irrelevant linguistic artifacts on
> a par with archaic mythology.
You are entitlted to your opinions of course but do not be
confused that they are any more than that. "Sin" is a concept
of some (not all) religions and actually has a more general
meaning of having broken one or more moral maxims (of whatever
source). Spirituality has many levels of meaning and mostly
seems more fundamental than religions. Of course you are
welcome to substitute religiosity if you wish and to make it
mean whatever you need it to mean to thoroughly disapprove of
it.
>
> "I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but
> not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of
> science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent
> people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them
> not to be religious. We should not retreat from this
> accomplishment."
> -- Peroration of a talk by Steven Weinberg at an AAAS conference
> on anthropics, reprinted in the _New York Review_
So what? Is it a retreat if one finds oneself to be honestly
spiritual and/or religious without for a moment letting go of
science and its acheivements?
>
> "Science has nothing to be ashamed of even in the ruins of Nagasaki. The shame
> is theirs who appeal to other values than the human imaginative values which
> science has evolved."
> --Jacob Bronowski (1908-74), British scientist, author
>
Science has not evolved values. Does the above claim values are
"imaginative" or even imaginary? If so then it is no friend of
humanity imho. Science without values is extremely dangerous,
much
more so than science in service of and bound by values.
> "Philosophy is a century behind science. Theology is a thousand years behind
> that."
> --Shirley Eugest
>
All of these quotes are very much beside the point. Think and
speak for yourself. Arguments from supposed authority are
silly.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:34 MST