Science and religion

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Judy Mann's article in Washington Post l0/l4-Out of Poverty"
• Previous message: John Mcreery: "Rushton and Racial Research"

It would appear by the mail I have received that I have been
misunderstood. When I put forth a possible distinction between science
and religion, I was looking for an answer.
I am not looking for any sort of religious truth at all. To be quite
honest, I suppose that I am agnostic, and am quite secure with my present
lack of enthusiasm toward "religious truth."
I am not uninformed about the world's religions. I have been
seriously reading about various religions for about ten years now. My
queary was supposed to be scientific, not religious.
The original question, put forth by someone else on the list (sorry, I
didn't save that message) for another reason, was:
What is the difference between science and religion?
The original question, I believe, probably had something to do with the
lovely race debate (which really doesn't deserve mention) in its inception.
My response, in its most parsimonious form, is:
Science must actively falsify itself to obtain objective truth.
A religion would fail if it tried such active falsification.
I understand that maybe the phenomenoligists might have a problem with
the first part, since there is no objective truth for them, but I have
stated what I believe. As I said earlier, using various definitions,
other that Tylor's of course, science would seem like a religion. I hope
to be able to explain to my classes with confidence what the difference
is between the two. Please let me know personally or on the list what
you think. You can flame me all you want, I am *really* in search of the
scientific truth here.
Leo T. Walsh (ai653@ksu.ksu.edu)

• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Judy Mann's article in Washington Post l0/l4-Out of Poverty"
• Previous message: John Mcreery: "Rushton and Racial Research"