Sorry to butt in, but both physics and religion are man-made. So in a way John has a point. Most of us accept physics as truth as a matter of faith. We have not done the experiments. And so we trust those who have that what they report is honest and correct.

Howver, science has the advantage over religion in that a relatively great number of scientists can be trained to repeat and confirm the experiments.

Religion has very meager resources in comparison. The closest documented contact with god, at least in western literature, is the recorded teachings of Jesus. However, none of his Apostles could write. The New Testament books, originally written in Greek, were written by people who never met Jesus. The earliest writings are by Paul, who also never met Jesus, except in his imagination. And there is the essential difference between science and religion. Religion is imaginary. Science is real. That does not mean that religion is not true. But the truth generated by science is much more concrete.

It is usually the case both in western and eastern religions, that a master or god transmits an oral tradition that is written down generations later.

Actually, I think that when Plato wrote down what the master Socrates said, he prevented it from becoming a religion. Otherwise, it had all the essential ingredients of a religion, including death of the master. It seems that an oral tradition is necessary to sufficiently embellish the myth for it to foster a religion.

• Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One more thought - skintless - February 7, 2001 - 15:36 UTC
• Regardless - bruce - February 7, 2001 - 19:53 UTC