--- On Fri, 4/17/09, Gilbert Lawrence <gilbert2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Since you-both have asked for my clarification, I am stepping into this > cross-current. >
Dear Gilbert, I had asked you to tell me why you think that even the religion that Fr. Ivo was preaching in these kinds of threads was pseudo-religion - a term that you used when you initiated this thread. Unfortunately, you have not done that in this post or any other. Instead, you have produced two posts whose contents as well as purpose are incomprehensible to me, and perhaps to others. So in order to try to understand what you are saying, let me ask you some simple questions and seek further clarifications from you. I would appreciate it if you could respond to them. > >There are the sciences of philosophy, theology, logic, human behavior etc. > all of which fields (in varying degrees) are encompassed within the >training > of priesthood, irrespective of religion. > Are you claiming that Christian priests and ministers, Muslim mullahs and imams, and Hindu bhots and swamis study science and scientific method as part of their theological curriculum? If so, could you please let me know the name of at least one science textbook that they are required to read. > > So IMO both Religion and Science can be scientific endeavors. > Can you please explain how religion can be a scientific endeavor with at least one specific example? > > To be critical of the past (with a retro-spectroscope) is > easy, may even border on demagoguery; but it is not very > intellectual except for those with a low IQ. > What in the world are you talking about here? The above statement does not make any sense at all in the context of what has been discussed in this thread. The problem is not the past but what is being done in the present - the fact that outdated ancient medical practices such as Ayurveda and Homeopathy are being practiced unchanged and untested at the present time. They are giving patients the same unregulated pre-scientific pills and potions that Dhanvantari and Hahnemann gave their patients centuries ago. How can you not recognize this simple fact after claiming in the same post that in your own field, breast cancer treatment has changed in less than three decades based on new findings, with the advent and insistence of the rigorous application of the scientific method in today's evidence-based scientific medicine? Cheers, Santosh
