Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[kandrathe]

...this is overwhelmingly for the best, at least if we value our health more than our religion.

I still find is astounding how in both education, and medicine, religion played such an important role in moving forward human progress, and yet at this time we view religion as backward to scientific progress. I'm seeing here the primacy of the dogma of science and empiricism over any sense of the importance of rationalism in forwarding philosophy. You tend to focus on all the negative aspects of monasticism, and religious scholarship, but deny the scholarly discipline and drive that preserved and cherished knowledge and propelled Europe into it's golden ages. Yes, there has been great evil perpetrated by men, both within and without a religious context, so it is certainly not a benevolent shield that insulates us from harming each other. But, neither is it the malevolent force, or primitive mysticism you seem to portray it as either. When a society has harmony, it integrates its dominant philosophies. If you look even to the Protestant movement, it was seen as an attempt in stepping away from that backward mysticism and bringing "God" out of the ceilings of Gothic cathedrals and closer to the hearts of humanity. My only issue with Christian Protestantism is the concept of "Sola Scriptura", because I believe enlightenment comes from all aspects of your life regardless of the source. What is important is the ability to discern the gems from the dross, rather than blindly follow the same path, even though it may be well worn. As a life philosophy, emulating the positive character traits of that person known as Jesus is not too bad a place to begin. To me, that is the essence of Christianity. But, I've also been inspired by people like Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. I've had extremely interesting religious discussions with Hindu's, Buddhists, Muslims, and the many sects of Christianity. All these things, including science, help shape my world view, but I would not hold up or dismiss out of hand one aspect higher or lower than the others. All things are accorded their place in perspective.

As we've discussed in the past, the philosophies related to religion and those related to science can be synthesized to accommodate each other. This does not mean compromise. This becomes difficult when we consider such hot button issues, such as origin, or such things as existence itself. I think the way to seek that common ground would be that science asks questions related to evidence, and religion needs to respond to rationalize its philosophies to accommodate the reality of that evidence. When the answer is nonsense (as it often seems to be to scientist), then scientists should be patient because the empirical evidence and the truth it reveals will eventually sway the rational mind. And, believe it or not, most people have rational minds and desire their philosophies to be well ordered. Personally, I think the details (like who, what, when, how) are irrelevant to the greater philosophies of benevolence, love, self sacrifice, morality, and perseverance (motivation/purpose). Was there a biblical flood? I don't care, and that may not be the point of that particular text. People tend to miss the forest by examining and arguing over the trees.

Perhaps the conflict you see now is due to the rapid change in knowledge due to sciences, which has not been reflected in the philosophies and dogma's related to religion. I know we disagree as to the need for religion as a social glue altogether, but I still would maintain that it is a fundamental part of was defines the ethical and moral "WE" in our society. Steven Reiss has proposed a new theory of why people (globally) feel the need for religion, but nevertheless it does seem to be well rooted in the human psyche (~ 1/6th of the worlds population are atheists, agnostics, or non affiliated theists). If, as Marx wrote, "religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers", then I'd say that no one should try to remove their crutches without insuring they can walk without them.