In message 
<[log in to unmask]>, 
Shawn Gordon <[log in to unmask]> writes
>The difference between science and religion is that science is 
>constantly changing what is "known" to be true, what is 'known" now is 
>quite different than what was "known" 50 years ago.  I saw John Kerry 
>on "This Week" on Sunday talking about Palin and he said "She doesn't 
>even acknowledge that global warming is man made, she might as well be 
>part of the flat earth caucus".  There are so many obvious problems 
>with that statement, and it makes me like her even more.
>
>Liberals want debate as long as it isn't questioning what they believe, 
>otherwise you must be silenced for having an opinion.

The difference between science and religion is that while scientific 
beliefs may change, the process by which these changes are established 
and validated is objective, well understood ,and universal.

And also that we don't actually *know* from science if anything is true; 
though we do have a pretty good idea about a lot of things that aren't 
true.

While religion doesn't change much, the process of arriving at religious 
truth is subjective, not objective, and so everyone can arrive at their 
own. Unless of course the one they were brought up in suits them just 
fine.

However, in religion, we can know *exactly* what is true, and with a 
stunning degree of certainty.

Only the fact that there are more religions than there are 
civilisations, each with differing, when not actually conflicting, 
'truths' and beliefs, and no way at all of establishing which, if any, 
is the 'one true path' is a fly in the ointment here.
-- 
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *