Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA07761 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:45:52 +0100 From: Philip Jonkers <P.A.E.Jonkers@phys.rug.nl> X-Authentication-Warning: rugth1.phys.rug.nl: www-data set sender to jonkers@rugth1.phys.rug.nl using -f To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Logic Message-ID: <995895798.3b5c29f6ad18f@rugth1.phys.rug.nl> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:43:18 +0200 (CEST) References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FBE@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <995887237.3b5c0885aa5c3@rugth1.phys.rug.nl> <3B5C1CF2.942CD75F@bioinf.man.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <3B5C1CF2.942CD75F@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.5 X-Originating-IP: 129.125.13.3 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> And (!) logic can exist within religion - it's just a behaviour after
> all, not a worldview.
Isn't it a twisted logic then? I mean the tenets of religion
obviously are metaphysical and therefore not rational. To
`explain' phenomena of the world using logic based on
shaky grounds is bound to ultimately run into inconsistencies,
contradictions or fruitless results. Again I refer to the fruitless
labors of Creationist science. Also you deny a possible
rational explanation if you adhere to religious explanation,
e.g. claiming something to be a `divine intervention' or
sticking to slogans such as `It was the will of God'.
People stay ignorant if clinging to such irrational sentiments.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 14:49:56 BST