PN:

Thanks for your lucid commentary.

However there is nothing inherent in religion in principle that makes it an epistemological antonym to science. If one were to begin to explore spiritual phenomena with a firm grasp of heuristic logic, the results would be complementary to the usual intellectual efforts that fall under the rubric of science. But this is not the case with authoritarian religion anymore than authoritarian science, such as that which ran Semmelweiss out of town in disgrace or rejected Harveys lectures to the academy on circulation (to name two famous examples) constitutes good science.

Unfortunately, most religions, certainly in the west, belive in getting organized, freezing their doctrine and becoming dogmatic as soon as they can (usually within the first generation after the death of the visionary who starts the discussion). This, IMHO, is a sorry state of affairs. But it is not a reflection on the subject itself per se as much as reflection on the foibles of man as an inept social engineer.


A