Re: virus: Re: Science and Religion
Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:59:37 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, KMO prime wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:44:21 -0500 (CDT) writes:
> >I would much rather ditch the 'spirituality/religiosity' hack term,
> >but I
> >can't think of a single word that means the content I want.
> >'Spirituality' alone is extremely passive, while 'religiosity' is,
> >by definition both conventionally and in my frame, POWERLESS. It is
> >necessary to avoid the aversive traits of both words. Ideas?
> Could you say a bit about why the word 'religiosity' is powerless. Does
> the word have a refferent? What do you mean by 'powerless' ?
> Take care. -KMO

'Religiosity' has the same referents as 'religiousness'. I find the
terms equivalent, but Wade probably has more precision in this area.

You may recall someone [I can't place the name this instant] who was
extravagantly noting that if "one's belief in God could feed you, we'd
call that a miracle." That explicitly demonstrates the powerlessness of
'religiosity' [and most conventional religions as well!] The memes
generate predictions that are at best untestable, and at worst directly
falsifiable [requiring hypocrisy/apathy/(faith, Virian def.) to prevent
loss of the host!]

I insist that my beliefs in this domain actually give useful
predictions--otherwise, they will be junked, as per scientific method or
mathematics. Placebo effect vs. actual cause and effect is a more
sophisticated question.

/ Kenneth Boyd