Hi Mel,
You seem to be arguing for Stephen Jay Gould's notion of
"non-overlapping magisteria" or NOMA. What I couldn't figure out from
your post is what these two different projects are. It was clear that
you see science as our best attempt at honest inquiry, but what is it
that you see religion as doing or supposed to be doing? It seems to me
that if there are truths to be known whether they are about human
flourishing or the orbits of planets, then we can try to know them. Why
do we need religion if we have in hand an MOQ idea of science as the
study of stable patterns of value? We have sciences that studies
inorganic patterns (physics and chemistry), sciences that study
biological patterns (biology and zoology), sciences that study social
patterns (sociology and psychology), and sciences that study
intellectual patterns (mathematics and linguistics). What would we need
religion for? Oh, yeah, I left out Dynamic Quality! Is that what
religion is supposed to be about? Maybe, but it's supposed to be, but
is it? Is it really????
Why can't science study the benefits of different uses of attention
(meditation, prayer, affirmations) on human well being? If morality is
concerned with human flourishing, why can't science study which
cultures are successful or unsuccessful in achieving that goal? Why do
we have to think of morality and spirituality as out of bounds to
rational inquiry? If there is a purpose for religion in society in
promoting human well-being as a social pattern, then it seems to me
that science can study that and some day say what that purpose is and
why it is or is not important.
Best,
Steve
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
