--- Rod <ramrod@madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > If you believe that everything reduces to that
> which
> > science can study. In any case, it is new
> religious
> > forms that supersede old religious forms,
> including
> > the new religious form called materialism (which
> tends
> > to be confused with science).
>
>
> Materialism is not a religion, it is merely a modern
> cultural tendency,
> encouraged by the media, and marketing forces!!-
> Science does not limit itself to direct study, the
> root causes of the need
> for organised religions, can be explained by
> science- i believe
>
I was using the term (materialism) in its metaphysical
sense, that all that exists is material. As such it is
a dogmatic statement.
> >> Science is powerful, if a scientist says
> something ,
> >> it is understood that
> >> he/she will , if required, be able to back up
> >> whatever he/she has just said,
> >> with proofs.
> >
> > Not proofs, only "no experiment has invalidated
> the
> > hypothesis so far". Proofs only exist on
> mathematics.
>
>
> Scott you may be right here- my mistake, but as
> mathematics is a branch of
> science, I see no conflict.
I prefer to use the word "science" to refer to
experimental science, and in that sense, mathematics
is not a science. But the point is that theories like
the Big Bang are, and can never be, "proved".
>
> >> This is why they became static systems, the
> clock
> >> stopped for
> >> christianity/judaism 2000 years ago, before this
> >> religion was in a state of
> >> flux, how many draughts were there of each
> >> testament, how many arguments
> >> between opposing theological views....it was only
> >> when written down as the
> >> testaments , did it become this static , dull
> >> religion, where if you believe
> >> what has been written, you will be saved, no
> proof
> >> needed.
> >
> > Neo-platonic influences? Arabic influences in the
> > Middle Ages? The Reformation? Schleiermacher?
> Biblical
> > criticism in the 19th century? Vatican II? No, I
> > wouldn't call it "static" if by that you mean
> nothing
> > has changed.
>
> Not so, why do we still have the ten commandments, I
> think my use of the
> term static is reasonable as the vast majority of
> teaching in these
> religions still relies on texts 2000 years old
Hindus rely on texts older than that, likewise
Buddhists and Taoists. The question is what is meant
by "rely on". Christians were interpreting the Bible
allegorically as far back as the 2nd century. More
recently, only biblical literalists take the Genesis
account as historical fact, or the 10 commandments as
other than guidelines.
> >> I don't think eastern religions (actually not
> >> religions but philosophies )
> >
> > They are religions, as they are about salvation,
> > though the vocabulary is different.
>
> This I really do take issue woth, they are not
> religions, they have no
> rules only guidelines, no commandments, no absolutes
> which must be obeyed,
> they are not about salvation, they are about living
> a good life in a good
> way
Every religion, east or west has its fundamentalist
types, its liberal types, and everything in between.
As to not being religion, the pursuit of Enlightenment
is infinitely more than "living life in a good way".
After all, isn't the stated purpose of Hinduism and
Buddhism to escape the wheel of birth and death?
Sounds like salvation to me.
- Scott
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST