SpitValve wrote:Charlie! wrote:jtniehof wrote:Dobblesworth wrote:[Christian Scientist]
I do not think that means what you think it means.
And I'd assume him capitalizing both words implies that he's talking about the Christian Scientists who think that faith determines health, not the christian scientists who think that the scientific method is a good way of finding things out and also happen to believe that God exists and loves us.
Actually, I think he was talking about Creation Scientists. We have:
Christian scientists = Scientists who are Christian
Christian Scientists = A peripheral denomination of Christianity, who have an additional book to the Bible
Creation Scientists = People who try to prove creationism.OneFish wrote:I think it's worse than pseudoscience, it's subversion of the language of science for political purposes. After all, isn't religion just an ancient political motif?
This is an assertion that doesn't ring true to me. It's basically just an excuse for saying religion is worthless. This is why you shouldn't try to learn history from the Da Vinci Code. Early Christianity had no particularly strong political message, nor did any of the other underground religions and cults that were starting up around that time (worship of Isis, Mithras etc). The entirety of the New Testament had been written well before the first Christian emperor, and some early canons (including the four gospels of the modern canons but not all of the letters) had also been proposed.
I'm not sure why you drag the Roman emperors into the discussion. It seems to me that apart from a few things that the human Jesus said about taking care of the weak and less fortunate and avoiding politics, the Christian religion has been all about politics ever since. I would maintain that it is fruitful semantically to separate what one man said from "religion". I call the whole enormous house of pain that has been built on the words of what was probably a pretty decent fellow "religion". It is my assertion that "religion" has always been political.
As a social phenomenon you may assign any value that you deem appropriate. I am of the opinion that the negatives far outweigh the positives though occasionally there probably are small, isolated pools of positive effects that go unpunished and unreversed.
As science, religion IS worthless. All the arguments that I see about evolution versus creationism fall squarely into the category of religious activism in the realm of politics. To repeat: the words of science spoken with the meaning of religion. The intent is not understanding, it is control. Politics not Science. Pure crap.