Re: Religious Variation

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Wade Tarzia: "Re: from bands to states?"
• Previous message: thomas w kavanagh: "Re: from bands to states?"

At 05:10 AM 8/15/96 +0000, mike shupp wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Chuck Coker wrote:
>
>> If it cannot be proved to be true or false, it is religion. If it can be
>> proved to be true or false, it is science.
>
>
> The amount of energy in the universe, including that tied up in mass
> according to Einstein's formula, is invariable. Religion or science?
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a good point. We can't omit from religion that it has a social
function. It is an item of culture. But Coker's "definition" makes a point
too. Religion is not for empirical testing, against the laws of nature.
Like any item of culture, it creates law, in defiance of nature's.

Best wishes. rs222@worldnet.att.net

• Next message: Wade Tarzia: "Re: from bands to states?"
• Previous message: thomas w kavanagh: "Re: from bands to states?"