Worth Re: [FoRK] Faith and/or Science - Newton et al

[Luis Villa]

On Nov 28, 2007 8:11 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> >> Indeed it is, particularly given how ABOMINABLY BAD religion has
> >> been, historically, at achieving that stated end ("shared meaning")
> >> and how very precisely science-as-method is a means of achieving the
> >> same thing far more reliably.
> >
> > Uh... meaning? Science does a lot of things, and I love science, but
> > it is pretty bad at creating meaning.
>
> Too fine an interpretation of "meaning."
>
> Substitute "understanding."  Surely religion, in creating shared
> meaning, must first create shared understanding?  Yet --- it fails
> even at that prerequisite.

Understanding is not a prerequisite for meaning. Meaning, in this
context, means 'I *feel* like I'm doing it for a purpose' not 'I know
or can explain what the purpose is.'

I think my mom called religion a safety blanket (and she's a believer,
sort of.) Safety blankets don't keep you warm, and they don't keep you
safe. They keep you feeling safe. Science might make you safe, or it
might make you realize at some high cognitive level that safety
doesn't matter. But it rarely makes you *feel* safe.

Luis