>
>(1). This is a forum for the Church of Virus, which defines itself aa
>a
>memetically-based _religion_. Since this is the case, why are we
>finding so
>much anti- or pro- religion or science (take your pick) banter here?
>The
>Church is supposed to be based upon an application of the dialectic;
>why
>are we trying to eliminate thesis or antithesis (take your pick)
>instead of
>formulating a synthesis?
For my part, I was neither arguing for or against religion or science.
(Take your pick.) I was contesting the claim that there is no difference
between science and religion and more specifically that there is no
significant difference between accepting the probable truth of a
proposition because it has withstood numerous and varied attempts at
refutation and accepting the truth of a propostion because we believe it
to be backed by divine authority.
I find much of value in relgious ritual. I enjoy a melieoristic faith
and I have no interest in trading it in for an informed pessimism
(sometimes known as 'realism'). I've experienced the temporary
dissolution of the boundaries that define and seperate me from my
environment with and without pharmacutical assistance and I consider
these experiences to have been benefitial.
What I find repulsive about numerous religious meme-complexes is their
practice of undermining the ability for critical thought in their hosts
and the demonization of those who refuse to allow themselves to be so
limited. Not all religions are guilty of this tactic, and non-religious
meme-complexes employ this tactic as well.
Take care. -KMO