>Richard, I notice you use distinction memes in the above paragraph; e.g.,
>science is good for building airplanes but not community cohesion,
>vice-versa for religion.
I think it interesting that none of the argumentative sorts on this list
have yet to take direct exception to Richard's statement that:
>>Science is a nice
>>model for designing airplanes, but so far has proved inferior to religion
>>for purposes such as community cohesion, inspirational leadership, and the
>>pursuit of happiness (drugs excepted).
Is it possible that we all acknowledge that the above statement has some
`objective' validity as a description of the real world? And if so, doesn't
it behoove us, as the creators of a new religion[1], to understand _why_
this is the case?
-Prof. Tim
[1] Ahh, yes, wasn't this the purpose of _Church_ of Virus at the offset?