(5) Science vs. Theology

Philip Deitiker pdeitik at bcm.tmc.com
Fri Mar 6 00:59:32 EST 1998

On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 20:42:48 -0800, Per-Anders Freyhult
<per.anders.freyhult at r.lrf.se> wrote:

>Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
>> nord at mail.atw.earthreach.com wrote [..]..
>> > My conviction is that Science, though it has evidently
>> > conquered Dogmatic Theology based on biblical texts and
>> > ancient modes of thought, will go hand in hand with Religion[..]
>> > Posted by Robert E. Nordlander
>> > nord at mail.atw.earthreach.com
>> > March 5, 1998
>> Religion is not compatible with science at all-
>> religion is the antithesis of science.
>> All true scientists are atheists.
>> All truly intelligent people are atheists.
>> Religion is something found only
>> in ignorant children. The logical process
>> of reason must exclude mythological
>> beliefs.
>> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
>Althuogh I my self is probably beast designated as an agnostic I see no
>reason that relegion and science are incombatible. . . . . . . . . .

While this is all very interesting, I noted a very fatal flaw in your
argument, that being taking Efram seriously, almost noone who has
followed his antics over the last few months waste faint breath on the
fellow, and I am fortunate enough that if he writes a response to
this, I won't see it, as a result of rather expanding kill file which
rids my newsreader of his posts and posts of his brownnosing
  Let me clarify this, there is such a thing as an Efram world's. In
Efram's world people are smart because of their genes, just like
you'de be fat because of fat genes, or clumbsy because of clumbsy
genes. Since everything is a direct result of ones genetic make-up
spiritual concepts like forgiving the weaknesses of others is clearly
not neccesary since possessing and passage of weak traits is a 'bad'
thing. Now, if a dangerously obese guy wants a gov subsidy to loose
his weight, that's also a bad thing since he would stand a better
chance if he passed quickly from this earth taking his bad genes with
him. Likewise, the children of low IQ people should never be directed
toward programs like headstart, on account they will never amount to
much anyway, with any luck their lack of education will send them
galloping across the freeway of early demise.
  Therefore spirituality or other tenates of thoughts which founded
civilization are bad things to Efram, even though science is a
consequence of such activities, Efram believes that civilization is a
bad thing, it results in stupid, disgenic people. Efram also sports
his selfpercieved intellectual prowess frequently and any
inconsistancies in his thoughts are yet the 'heavily' thought out
summaries whose inconsistancies are only superficial.  
   Ethnocentrist of the passed draped their beliefs with religion, and
devinated words from scripture to support their beliefs, most
reasonably educated people find ethnocentrism and spirituality
irreconcilable, now, thus religion becomes a shakle to those which
desire to promote such beleifs in modern times. As a result one sees
an increasing number of people leaving modern spirituality and
returning to more tribal beliefs of the past such as druidism, etc or
shroding themselves in 'science'. These beliefs are not bounded in
social concern as with modern christianity or buddhism. Efram is
taking a somewhat 'higher' road that many europeans took from the
20's, peaking during the early 1940's according to the concepts of
eugenics (if you can selectively breed cows, dogs, cats, etc to get
desired characteristics, why not breed humans in the same way). While
these people drew their ideas from the principles set forth by Darwin,
they failed to be scientific about the sociobiology and genetics, not
only of those they persecuted but also concerning themselves. While I
agree that some traits are disgenic enough that they probably should
be monitored in the breeding population, the traits which Efram
promotes selective breeding have no inherited or molecular genetic
associations discerned so far. I hope this helps you to understand his
  In any case, religion poses a caution about science, not that
science is 'bad', but that one-tract, academic, thinking can lend
itself to the type of arrogance which has endangered society in the
past. As it is popular now remember the Titanic, it's one thing to
pursue the building of an unsinkable ship, believing that you've
actually built one, and plowing headlong into icebergs is an act of
arrogance.  Science is the pursuit of infinite knowledge, making it an
unlimited pursuit, thus believing that one is all-knowedgable, or that
one can stamp out dogma about all kinds of things in life, is likewise
an act of arogance, and a misadmission of what one does not know. I
suppose if you have faith, science becomes the pursuit material facts,
whereas religion is more along the discovery of self and ones
relationship with society and the continuom of socialization. This
continuom has been carried by civilization since writing commenced
allowing the passage of temporally fixed ideas past mortality. Science
has benefitted greatly from these traditions, and although the
scientific method is specifically designed to test material phenomena
and avoid the testing of nonphysical phenomena, there are those, like
Efram, which try to dogmatize the methodology to everything, and as
you see above he has his reasons.  Unless your going to talk about the
comparative history and sociology of science and religion almost any
other discussion is a matter of opinion and emotion.

<pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu>

More information about the Plant-ed mailing list