X-Message-Number: 17748
From: "Gurvinder Bagga" <>
Subject: RE: SCIENCE V/S RELIGION
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:22:24 +0530

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C15374.BFEA4E40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

    
Hi everyone,

This is my reply to Ruthanna R Gordon;

> And there were people conducting scientific
>experiments in Nazi Germany. 


That does not make them scientists. Or maybe they were forced at the point of a 
gun. 

>I find it interesting that you are here comparing "a scientist" to "a
>religious *fanatic*."


I am comparing science with religion.Period. There are a lot of 'religious 
fanatics'. I have hardly heard of any 'scientific fanatic'.

>  And a scientific heretic will find it
>very difficult to get a job, or to publish their heresy any place where
>the scientifically correct can read it. 

Let's discuss scientists not quacks.

>On a smaller scale, many students
>have found their lives made much more difficult if they disagree with
>someone on their dissertation committee.


That's politics not science.

>Conversely, not all religious priests "force" their thoughts on others,
>and not all religions have a system of punishment set up for those who
>disobey.  Neopaganism, for example, doesn't have any universally
>recognised authorities, nor much in the way of universally accepted
>thoughts.


Neopaganism. That's 1 religion. And I have never heard of it!(Here in India). On
your first point- When you make a child who is one day old a christian or a 
muslim or a sikh or a hindu that's FORCE. Just swith on your TV. How many Afghan
children who are a day old are being killed for no fault of theirs?

>   Again, not all religions have a system set up for doing this.

But you agree some have!  And what about Physics, Chemistry, Biology....

>You *can't* communicate an idea to a child who doesn't understand language
>yet!


That's why it is a crime to load him/her with religion which he/she may anyway 
reject later on. And BTW a child of three/four who cannot speak fluently 
sometimes understands ideas like 'praying', 'temple' and 'turban'. Try not to go
to church/mosque/mandir at age four and you'll most likely be slapped.

>As for science, try being in fourth grade and firmly disagreeing with the
>outdated cannon in your biology text


I really don't understand what science has to do with this. Infact if the child 
disagrees with anything in a textbook at such an early age he/she might become 
an outstanding scientist.

>Up until recently science, and academia in general, had *very* regimented
>systems of dress.


Was this forced , written as law, or followed voluntarily. BTW a scientist 
becomes one normally after graduating from college. Not after he is born. 

>Up until recently, it was impossible or all-but-impossible for a woman to
>study physics, or biology...science was traditionally a male bastion, and
>even now the gender percentages in most fields are hopelessly
>unbalanced.  Many women still report discrimination of one sort or
>another.


Also it was impossible for a woman to vote. But that does not make democracy 
evil. Infact it has evolved like science which is the right thing to happen. How
many religions of the world even today have women as HEAD PREISTS. And I forgot
to mention one more thing in my original post. ALL RELIGIOUS ICONS 
(CHRIST,MOHAMMED,MOSES,GURU NANAK,KRISHNA,BUDDHA,MAHAVIR,ZORASTER etc) are 
MALES.

>To name a few of science's more sordid moments:  Nazi
>Germany (again), the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, lobotomies on
>housewives, not to mention the creation of all sorts of unpleasant and
>deadly weapons.


If someone keeps a gun on your head and tells you to make a biological weapon 
you might do it. Scientists are not angels and get killed by guns. And they like
ordinary humans would like to live. So some of them will compromise and work 
for fascists like Hitler or more recently Osama bin laden. Does this make 
science bad?

>  My partner, an EMT, tells me that around here
>the Catholic hospitals are better run, and healthier, than the secular
>ones, because the people in them are motivated by a spiritual calling to
>save lives rather than by money.


Refer to point no 13. Where does money for charity come from? HEAVEN!! 

I think if religion wants to find GOD and run hospitals at the same time, which 
the government and the corporate sector can also do, there is someting wrong 
with it. As far as charity goes unless the reason is very good it is always the 
opposite of justice (refer AYN RAND). As a tax payer , if you are one, you 
should be concerned if 'SECULAR' government hospitals are not run proplerly  and
you can go to court if 'SECULAR' privatley run hospitals are not properly run.

>Reform Judaism is based explicitly on the idea that religion should
>evolve.

Again just 1 religion.
> Even the Pope admitted that the Earth goes around the sun


After the christian clergy threatnend scientists with death for thousands of 
years. You still think these people are in search of GOD? Why not talk about 
Galileo instead of the pope.That's what I'm trying to say. Scientists don't go 
around threatning people with death if no one believes them! Only criminals and 
terrorists threaten people that way!

>.  *No one* is following the exact religious practices that their ancestors
>followed a thousand years ago.



It has infact become an orgy of junk faiths more degraded then it was when it 
was originally concocted.

>I suppose it depends what you mean by "required."  Although there are
>people for whom religion leads to insanity, there are others for whom
>religion helps them deal sanely and ethically with an imperfect
>world.  That's *why* atheists are always telling us that religion is a
>crutch.  :)


I think you should really try to imagine. Let's say GOD pulls out all the 
religious priests OF ALL THE FAITHS TOGETHER  from this planet. What do you 
think will happen?.And I mean all. Not one faith because then it will mean 
accusations, and guess what - WW3.  So all religious priests. So people do not 
know whom to blame.Does the world stop functioning?  Now try doing that with all
the scientists. And I mean all. All the engineers,professors, researchers, 
technicians,doctors..... and then try to communicate over the internet and 
participate on cryonet.....

>Wait...science is better because it originally put weapons of mass
>destruction into the world?  I don't follow the logic


Not scientists who work for the consumers. Like I said at the point of a gun you
will reveal all to a political master or a religious fanatic. Take 
nanotechnology for instance. You think people who are doing research in this 
area are MAD! And BTW it's more dangerous than Anthrax or WTC collapse or even a
nuclear weapon. So we should stop researching nanotechnology? You answer that 
question. Does it make religion better by default!

>I will admit that religion is not, and never has been, about
>proof.  However, saying that religion encourages not doing hard work in
>this world is grossly ignorant.  Saying that priests are inherently lazy
>indicates that you have not met many priests.


Work is a scientific unit. Also an economic unit. Priests are neither scientists
nor economists. They do not produce anything of value except read from a book 
that is already available with you. As far as my meeting any priests goes I 
don't think that should change what I am trying to say. Meeting people and 
coming under their INFLUENECE is POLITICS.

>  If it makes you feel better, many scientists in
>fact "use" the fruits of religion in their personal lives.

What are the fruits of religion?

>Money predates science by several thousand years.  


Your view of 'science' as something that STARTED on 5th october 3000 B.C is 
astounding. When did science start? And BTW the FIRST person who INVENTED money 
(remember it has to be invented- it did NOT FALL FROM THE HEAVEN) was a 
scientist. For your information inventors are also called scientists.

>Light is a particle.  Light is a wave.  Just because we perceive a
>paradox, doesn't mean we are not perceiving reality.



How do you know this? How can you perceive a paradox? I presume some scientific 
thought has gone in before you can make such remarks. The fact that light is a 
particle/wave was told to us by scientists. So it seems you want to take the 
knowledge gained by scientists and use it against them. 

>As scientists, we cannot have the luxury of stereotypes and
>prejudices.  In fact, one of our main responsibilities is to admit when
>variation exists that we haven't fully measured, to admit when we don't
>know.


Look all around you. Are plants religious? Are animals religious? But that is 
not to say that there is no varition in a rainforest. It is infact the most 
beautiful portion of this planet. Beauty without religion.Pure evolution. And no
intended malice. 

Science does not create stereotypes and prejudices. Religion does.


Gurvinder.






 





------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C15374.BFEA4E40

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17748