Byrd Wrote:

> I think you don't understand the difference
> between science and religion. They are two ways
> of arriving at the "truths" of some facets of
> life, but they deal with different arenas and they
> arrive at their conclusions in different ways.

This is really a spurious argument. If their deity came to Earth and told them they were doing it wrong they would have quickly changed their ways. The fact that there was probably no real deity to straighten them out is irrelevant. This difference does allow science to narrow its definitions and add to the body of the religion but it doesn't change the fundamentals.

Science is a religion because we accept the premises just as surely as Muslims or Babtists. Moreso people misunderstand what little has been discovered by science. They are led to believe that science will cure all ills and can't cause any trouble it can't solve for itself.

All men strive for truth. It's imparted by the wiring of the brain which is derived, probably, from the speech center and language. The magic of religion doesn't usually have the utility that the magic of science provides.

> Religion WAS tied with science in some forms of
> mysticism. I'm thinking here of the High
> Magicians, who practiced with formulas and
> substances and incantations and wrote elaborate
> rituals for summoning things and testing magic.

Magic can lead to knowledge. Granted, it is a slow and tedious process and will not have the same performance and reliability of a blast furnace.

> But religion specifically has the injunction "thou
> shalt not test the deity." And religion does not
> remake its major laws as evidence arises that the
> old ones are flawed.

The deity is allowed to test himself which is sufficient for most believers.

> And you're speaking from... experience as a
> scientist? From the standpoint of being a manger
> of a division of scientists? From whence comes
> your stated knowledge of science and how
> scientists work? Websites? Books of Alternative
> Archaeology written by non-scientists?

I've long held an interest in the history of science and philosophical science. I've also put a great deal of thought into the nature of thought. There is probably more overlap than is apparent. I've read no alternative archaeology books and don't intend to.

> ...and you know this how? What is it you consider
> truly important? Things like "why am I here" are
> not things answerable by science, but by faith and
> I don't know that computers can answer issues of
> faith.

When you say you know someone, what you really mean is that you know how he will act under a given set of circumstances. When you say you know how the stock market works you're really saying you know its direction and the reasons behind it. If all you really know is how, where, and why to buy and sell stock then you don't really know how the market works. It's the difference between understanding the physics of the automobile vs how to repair one vs how to drive one.

The important question isn't even how to invent one, the important question is where will it take me. Which route won't I get killed on today? Should I buy a Toyota or a Rolls?

> I build robots and computers. I'm fairly certain
> I've never had to incant anything to get them to
> work. I've intoned a few phrases when my
> programming goes astray and the program won't work
> or the interface won't hook up, but I don't see
> how you can argue that these (or cars or other
> devices) work on magic. Electricity, yes, other
> power types, yes... magic? Well, I don't see any
> proof of a type of power source called magic where
> you hook magic on one end and a machine does
> useful work on the other end.

The magic that makes machines work is imparted by the designer. If there's an error then it's back to the drawing board. The parts of a machine have to be built so they operate in tandem. If the fulcrum isn't in contact with the lever, it won't work. If there's nothing to hold the wheel to the axle it won't work for long. A cotter key is a part of the magic. This becomes more apparent in some machines than others. all those electrical devices you use have variable pots and resistors in them because no matter how well a circuit is designed it will probably need tweeking after it's built. Even tricks like matching transistors will not eliminate the need for this tweeking usually. Now days with the greatly increased use of computers as electrical components this is less a factor.

> And you know this from reading their writings,
> perhaps?
>
> Or have you bothered to read them? If not, I can
> recommend translations of Ptah hotep (one of my
> favorites) and his advice -- and best of all, it's
> free! We can recommend others, of course, but I
> like this ol' guy in particular:

I'm a newbie at the ancient Egyptians and I still have my own field that I play in. I've been reading anything ancient I can find. My interest pretty much ends where pyramid construction ends but there are still tidbits about the builders that might be gleaned from later material so I don't completely ignore. I have a lot of interest in other people's opinion on these subjects and am trying to understand the orthodoxy as well.

I'm interested in Ptah Hotep.




____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.