[MD] Empiricism for dummies

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Mel,

You seem to be arguing for Stephen Jay Gould's notion of 
"non-overlapping magisteria" or NOMA. What I couldn't figure out from 
your post is what these two different projects are. It was clear that 
you see science as our best attempt at honest inquiry, but what is it 
that you see religion as doing or supposed to be doing? It seems to me 
that if there are truths to be known whether they are about human 
flourishing or the orbits of planets, then we can try to know them. Why 
do we need religion if we have in hand an MOQ idea of science as the 
study of stable patterns of value? We have sciences that studies 
inorganic patterns (physics and chemistry), sciences that study 
biological patterns (biology and zoology), sciences that study social 
patterns (sociology and psychology), and sciences that study 
intellectual patterns (mathematics and linguistics). What would we need 
religion for? Oh, yeah, I left out Dynamic Quality! Is that what 
religion is supposed to be about? Maybe, but it's supposed to be, but 
is it? Is it really????

Why can't science study the benefits of different uses of attention 
(meditation, prayer, affirmations) on human well being? If morality is 
concerned with human flourishing, why can't science study which 
cultures are successful or unsuccessful in achieving that goal? Why do 
we have to think of morality and spirituality as out of bounds to 
rational inquiry? If there is a purpose for religion in society in 
promoting human well-being as a social pattern, then it seems to me 
that science can study that and some day say what that purpose is and 
why it is or is not important.

Best,
Steve