The Wrath of the Intelligent Designer - any challenges?

[jporter]

I'm comparing and contrasting Science and Religion. I'm claiming that
both are cultural artifacts- perhaps two branches of the same Artifact,
which may underlie and have preceded them- something that emerged
just beyond the dawn of human  consciousness and made possible by
language (The Word).

Religion is way more honest in its recognition of the need for power and
control on both the individual and social levels- morality being the 
natural
outgrowth of that recognition. Science, on the other hand, would claim 
to
be an amoral technique for producing objective knowledge. I think it is
pretty apparent that in order to know, one must be, and so, whether or 
not
there is anything "out there" which can be known, knowing is necessarily
subjective. The knowledge produced is not only "tainted" by this, but,
pre-selected for those types of knowledge which can most efficiently
increase the power and control of those in power, by those in power.

What would this process be like in a world without the ameliorating 
aspects
of religion? Would it be better or worse than a world where religion had
free reign,  before the enlightenment, for example? It may be that 
science
and religion are mutuality co-dependent with respect to the evolution of
culture.

jody


On Sep 28, 2005, at 8:31 PM, Cyrus wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but ... are you equating morality to 
> religion?
>
> Cyrus
>