On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:33:05 -0800 (PST), Frank Mayhar <frank at exit.com> wrote: >Mia McDavid wrote: >> Speaking of religion in literature, one of the *many* things I love >> about David Weber's work is that the Christian church is very much >> present in Honor's universe. I get cranky when societies have total >> absence of religion--individuals may be athiests, but humans as a group >> are going to worship *something*. >Um. Why? Any particular reason or just your personal prejudice? (I don't >mean that as an insult, I'm genuinely curious.) 1. There are some things that science can't answer, even in principle. 2. There are other things that in principle might be answered but aren't, because: A. Nobody understands the principles yet. B. Somebody professes to understand the principles, but the person involved doesn't understand. C. The principles might be understood, but not enough data is available yet - e.g. do I believe my (boss, employee, spouse, child, parent, neighbor) when I am told such and such? Am I (physically, mentally, emotionally) able to accomplish such and such? What will the (financial picture, resource picture, political picture) be in the future that I must plan for? I submit that to the person that doesn't understand, as in A and B, there is no operational difference between a scientist and a priest. The current flap over the Bogdanoffs' theses represents an extreme case of how limited the range of distinction can be. I am *not* presenting the Bogdanoffs as "priests" - I am saying that only a few people know enough to feel certain about their reasoning and the rest of us don't have the time and ability to come to a reliable opinion. Therefore most of us take much of science on the same sort of informed faith basis that the devout take the teachings of their faith. That in case C, the only approach is an informed faith. That given the observed spread in ability and access to training, a large percentage of the population is getting information from people who are operationally priests and they are making significant decisions based on informed faith. There are some other characteristics of the human psyche that play a role, but I think the above is sufficient for religions to develop. I'd be tempted to classify most economic and social theories as religions - i.e. the basic tenets are based on an informed faith. Notice I haven't mentioned a Supreme Being until now. I obviously don't consider that a necessary part of what I mean by a religion. Extrapolating the development of science backwards, I don't consider it odd that many religions developed such, but the question you asked might be extrapolated forward, also. I could conceive of a society without a culture based around a Supreme Being - I could not conceive of a society of evolutionary intelligent beings without religions. Richard