From: [email protected]
On Behalf Of Santosh Helekar
<<Good to see that you (Roland) have had this epiphany, leaving aside the fact
that it took an article in the Economist for that to happen. I guess the pinch
of money is much more painful and effective in driving most people away from
stupidity than that of reason and evidence. Yes, 60 billion dollars is too much
to spend on moonshine. But my concern is not just the money that is wasted. It
is the lies that are told in its support, and against real medicine, in its
name.
**It is good that people know the limitations of modern medicine as well as of
other medical systems. But also people know what they get from them. I am not
going to comment on this article on "alternative medicine", though the author
concedes to the herbal drugs and to the effect of medical systems on the immune
system.
<<As far as religion is concerned, while it might be a much bigger faux
business than quackery, there is a deeply personal element to it that I have no
desire whatsoever to take away from anybody, nor can (and should) I or anybody
else. Dawkins and Hitchens are misguided in believing that they can do so. It
is enough for me that nobody has yet dared to call it alternative science, and
the number of confused priests who delude themselves that they are real or
alternative scientists is negligible.
**Other medical systems nor religion are "quackery" or business. Dawkins and
Hitchens are against misconceived religion. Religion is science, not in the
same sense as chemistry ("alternative science"), but as an organized body of
knowledge. It is source of knowledge. Faith and science are sources of
knowledge. Faith gives us the transcendental dimension of human beings, which
is lost in empirical sciences. Catholic priests know Science, but they are not
"alternative scientists"...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
--- On Tue, 5/24/11, Roland Francis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Santosh has been proved right all
> along. His long-running battle against
> alternative medicine on Goanet has been borne out by a
> latest article in the
> Economist.
http://www.economist.com/node/18712290
