> >3) Most scientific studies and experiements are never validated by
> >replication, thus to depend on this as a safe-check method is not a
> >good idea. That is, to assume that it has been replicated or proven
> >could be a fatal mistake (in finding the truth).
>
> Why must scientists base their beliefs on refutations of religion and visa
> versa? The memetic idea is a good one (that <fiath> encourages others to
> disregard logic). But, aren't either science or religion based on a
> philosophical perspective which is coherent enough to do what they do
> respectively (or even cooperate where that is possible) without attacking
> the other system. Aren't we lookeing for objective reality, or truth?
> Don't both systems attempt to do that?
>
Chardin,
I agree with your list Chardin, except for number 3 quoted above. No
sceitinfic result can be considered real without validation. I agree
with all others.
Brett,
I do not see religion and science as even remotely similar. Science can
explain everything about religion. Where it came from, why people are
driven to it, why it effects people as it does. Religion on the hand
requires ignoring science to exist. It is based on divine inspiration of
human beings, whom we all agree are untrustworthy. It constantly shrinks
as it's myths are exposed. It is fancy and emotion without substance.
Religion is a piece of human animalistic nature.
Science is mans first attempt at objectivity - it's far from perfect,
but grows expotentially, and is more accure every day. Science is beyond
man's animalistic tendencies, not scientists, but science.
Sodom