[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[Mark Smith]

On 04.12.2007, at 19:35, Stefano Mori wrote:

>
> On 2007-Dec-04, at 16:51, José Trejos wrote:
>
>> There is religious fundamentalism and there are many other kinds of
>> religious spirituality.
>
>
> Yes, quite right, and Mark had to add "hocus-pocus" to make the
> statement.

Religious spirituality is hocus-pocus.


> If a spiritual or religious institution says, "abstain from
> intercourse until you are adult and your life will go better",

...then its just making an ethical and, or moral point. I have never  
said that all religion is ethically, or morally wrong.

The point is that *all* useful ethical and/or moral arguments can and  
may exist outside of any and all religious frameworks. The framework  
is only religious when it *also* has the hocus-pocus. Religions have  
always hijacked additional useful morals and ethics as it became  
necessary.

> But if I recall right, Mark tends to say that any rational moral
> injunction is almost by definition not religious?

No, see above. Religions can include useful morality/ethics, but  
religion has no dominoin over morals, or ethics.

> I mean, I agree we need to resist fundamentalist irrational dogma in
> adulthood, and unfortunately there's just so much crap in most if not
> all religious institutions that we end up simply dismissing them point
> blank.

There is nothing other than crap in any of them that is unique to  
them. They are by definition then, full of useless crap. They should  
be dismissed.

...and that still doesn't mean that there is definitely no "god". It  
does mean that a scientist cannot be a true *believer* in any religion.