Hi To add just one footnote to Chris's comments, any discussion of science as religion would have to be clear about what constitutes a religion. Hill and Pargament (Amer Psy, 2003) (see http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/Health/Readings/Hill,%20Conceptualization%20of%20spirituality,%20AmPsy,%202003.pdf) addressed this issue as follows:
"Religion and spirituality represent related rather than independent constructs (Hill et al., 2000). Although any definition of a construct as religious and spiritual is limited and therefore debatable, spirituality can be understood as a search for the sacred, a process through which people seek to discover, hold on to, and, when necessary, transform whatever they hold sacred in their lives (Pargament, 1997, 1999). This search takes place in a larger religious context, one that may be traditional or nontraditional (Hill et al., 2000). The sacred is what distinguishes religion and spirituality from other phenomena. It refers to those special objects or events set apart from the ordinary and thus deserving of veneration. The sacred includes concepts of God, the divine, Ultimate Reality, and the transcendent, as well as any aspect of life that takes on extraordinary character by virtue of its association with or representation of such concepts (Pargament, 1999). The sacred is the common denominator of religious and spiritual life. It represents the most vital destination sought by the religious/ spiritual person, and it is interwoven into the pathways many people take in life. How to measure the role of the sacred in these pathways and destinations is the special challenge for the religion and spirituality researcher." Given the association of religion as concern for the sacred, the transcendent, apart from the ordinary, and any aspect of life that takes on extraordinary character, any claim that science is a religion in this sense of the word would appear to be on shaky ground. If one wants to use the weaker sense of religion as any general worldview (not what we typically mean when we say "a religion"), then the assertion is probably true, albeit without much significance and quite misleading given the more standard interpretation of religion. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> "William Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04-Jan-08 5:53:59 PM >>> This is a very interesting article. The ridiculous arguments against evolution are laid out well, probably by an author with a scientific bias. The statement that science is not a new religion, though, is less than honest. Darwin was seen in his time (and still is) as the destructor of christianity. What else could his ideas (and Wallace's) be than a new religion? I don't want to start a thread arguing religion. Look at the history and think about the evolution wars in terms of threats to beliefs. Darwin is not unlike Luther. The fact that evidence is used rather than ideas is inconsequential to the basic conflict. We all have beliefs that have to be *personally* contradicted in order to change. Evolution theory does not do that to most people. Bill >>> "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/04/08 12:56 AM >>> Florida to be next battleground between evolution and that other thing. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/orl-bk-science010308,0,326607.story?track=rss Chris Green York U. Toronto, Canada --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
