RE: What does Sam Harris mean by saying that religions are failed sciences?
January 23, 2024 at 12:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2024 at 12:57 pm by Anomalocaris.)
Anything that attempts to provide an explanation for nature event can be considered “pre-science”, in the sense it exploits the same cognative need for knowing the underlying reason in order to better anticipate, that is the also the reason for science. But that is the same as calling the doodle of infants who can’t speak “pre-writing”. However, to actually call religion “pre-science” and thinking it is the equivalent of infant’s “pre-writing” is to willfully disguise its most salient attribute.
The direct equivalent of religion is not the innocent doodle of an infant that could neither speak nor write. The direct equivalent of religion is an illiterate huckster who pretends he could write and charges his illiterate victims an arm and a leg for nonsense scribbles while pretending to write for them on their behalf. That is the most salient attribute of religion which its apologist will attempt to exploit every apparent opportunity to deny.
The direct equivalent of religion is not the innocent doodle of an infant that could neither speak nor write. The direct equivalent of religion is an illiterate huckster who pretends he could write and charges his illiterate victims an arm and a leg for nonsense scribbles while pretending to write for them on their behalf. That is the most salient attribute of religion which its apologist will attempt to exploit every apparent opportunity to deny.
