> Richard Suitor wrote: >> 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 > It looks like semantics to me because all I can see from the definitions of religion is that is does in fact have to do with a higher being or spiritual belief vs. a logistical belief.