Dear Selma, Thanks for your wishes and apologies for my tardy reply. Your respectful disagreement notwithstanding, I can hardly see how you can put religious and scientific thought on the same footing.
Organised religion evolved from tribal fears. Anything that could not be explained was attributed to God(s) and as those unknown phenomena were explained by scientific thought and experimentation, religion had to get more sophisticated to the point where today 'Heaven' and 'Hell' are no longer real threats while 'Purgatory' has been abolished. Science encourages enquiry while religion suppresses it, instead relying on 'blind faith'. There is hardly any doubt, judging from the proliferation of the multitudes of religions, that there is some evolutionary advantage to believing in a supernatural deity and an afterlife. It probably allows us to lead a semi-normal life without spending every waking moment contemplating our inevitable demise. That 'faith' has now been misappropriated to amass great wealth and/or give false hope to the terminally ill. However, that hope is all that may be available to many who have not been reconciled to the fact that our bodies are mortal and our souls are just a manifestation of the brain. Judging from the popularity of places like Pota and Lourdes, Christianity has been quite successful in propagating the myth of faith healing. In a previous post, I referred to a mainstream religion (Christian sect of Jehovah's Witnesses) who have been unable to come up with a logical theology that would protect the lives of their congregations by what we would consider today to be mainstream medical practices. Where have the checks and balances failed? Thanks for the dialogue, Kevin Saldanha Mississauga, ON.
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:52:46 -0800 (PST) From: Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Mission/to Kevin
Hi Kevin, Good to see you back. I respect your opinions on this issue but I respectfully disagree. Religion like any body be it scientific or governmental, is a body of organised thought. This thought has the potential to be either progressive or regressive. When progressive it can greatly enhance the evolution of society, when regressive it can greatly impede it. Mainstream religions have enough checks and balances to ensure a progressive stance in the main. Its fringe elements tend to be manipulative and exploitative. That said, Christianity was a fringe element of Judaism, just as Buddhism was a fringe element of Hinduism. In the end, the legitimacy of a movement can be gauged only by whether it moves its members ideologically forward or renders them immobile. I believe Pota falls in the latter category. Take care, selma
