Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an incredible lot
> > of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on darwinism,
>
> Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over
> several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading Russia
> was?

As you mention it - yes, invading eastern Europe and later Russia was along the
same lines. "Lebensraum im Osten" ("room to live in the east") was the motto of
that.

> Darwin talked about natural selection and changes between generations.
> How does that equate to killing millions of people based on their religion?

Jesus talked about holding the other cheek. Still the crusades are commonly
associated with the religion he founded. Why should science be treated any
different in this respect?

That's actually hypocrisy.

> Again, just because the nazis claimed it was science doesn't mean it was any
> more science than throwing witches in the lake to see if they sink was
> scientific.

.... neither do I find any reference in the Bible of Jesus mention anything of
throwing witches in lakes, and still the middle ages are frequently taken as an
argument against christianity.

If actions committed with reference to christian teachings are considered valid
evidence against christianity, then actions committed with reference to
scientific teaching must be considered valid evidence against science - or am I
missing some important point here?

I'm quite sure that Hitler got Darwin's teachings perfectly wrong, but I'm sure
the crusaders and witch hunters din't get Jesus' teachings perfectly right
either.


> But religion (in general) doesn't provide moral guidance either.

Even leaving aside that this is far from true for virtually all religions I know
of, it would in no way contradict my point.

It seems to me that you think I'm trying to defend religion against science, but
I'm not at all. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that science possesses
all traits of a religion as well.


> It just
> states "this is good, that is bad" without saying how to achieve that
> goodness, how to avoid the badness, or why anything would be good or bad. It
> gives a fiat as to how you should behave without explanation or evidence.
>
> Science isn't good or bad. It's a way of figuring out how the world works.
> You have to decide whether it's good or bad.  Unfortunately, religion isn't
> the way to do this, since it's irrational and therefore ungrounded in
> reality. Once you ground it in reality, it is *ta daaah* science.

Why is irrationality bad and rationality good? What makes you think knowing that
doing X will get you from A to B is superior to just knowing that doing X (or
maybe actually Y) is the right thing to do? If nobody can tell you whether
being at B is really a good thing, knowing how to get there doesn't seem to add
much substantial benefit. Maybe being busy finding out how to get to B may
instead actually distract you from the question whether you really want to go
to B?

I think the disciples of science employ a circular argument regarding the
alleged superiority of rationality.


I'll stick with it: From what I see, science possesses every feature of a
religion. Not in the theories it develops, but in its very foundations. I do
repeat my plead here to not get me wrong: It may be the best religion to be had
so far. But I cannot be perfectly sure about that.

Post a reply to this message