# Randi tackles religion vs. science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857 "2003-07-25T13:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/121 "2003-07-27T13:32:57Z")
I’ll call **Collounsbury** ’s “tedious and obnoxious” and raise him “fatuous in the extreme”. I’m quite content to call myself an atheist. Atheists calling themselves “Brights” is the most laughably ego-inflating nonsense I’ve heard since the Pre-Raphaelite circle that called themselves the Souls. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/122 "2003-07-27T13:53:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*(b) Galileo: I refer DCU to this book review: [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E6D6123DF932A25754C0A9659C8B63](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E6D6123DF932A25754C0A9659C8B63) \*\* So what? Any controversial book will have a smattering of bad reviews. I cited to other sources as well, one of which was apparenlty accurate enough for the Australian Skeptics Society. And I agree that Rowland goes a bit too far in his argument: in my view, Galileo’s mistake was not claiming that there was a single explanation for natural phenomena, but rather his claiming that he had proved his single explanation was necessarily the correct one when, in fact, he hadn’t. As I’ve said, the Galileo affair was not a shining moment in church history; the church’s conduct was in many ways shameful. But it isn’t as simplistic or as black and white as the children’s story version makes it appear. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/123 "2003-07-27T13:55:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*That site is more than kind to the Church. It would be more accurate to say that the astronomers could discuss any possibility as long as it was considered as a mere convention or computational method. It didn’t matter if you calculated the movements of the planets with a method that assumed the Earth or the Sun was the center of all movement, as long as you didn’t claim that the Earth might not actually be at the center. \*\* Dude, it was _your cite_. Is any of this getting through? _Your own cite contradicts your position_. :rolleyes: Now, do you have any citations for what you asserted in the above-quoted paragraph? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/124 "2003-07-27T14:03:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **Dude, it was _your cite_. Is any of this getting through? _Your own cite contradicts your position_. :rolleyes:** Dude, no it doesn’t. That cite says that the Church would not permit the presentation of a heliocentric model as the truth. I’ve read many accounts that quite clearly stated that the Church would tolerate the theory – and those who held it – as long it was presented as a method for calculating the motions of the planets only and not as a meaningful claim about the solar system. That’s it – I’m starting a thread. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/125 "2003-07-27T14:15:51Z")
**Dewey,** I don’t agree with your characterization of Randi’s essay. To repeat the same excerpt from it that I used to start this thread: > [@](#): > > Since religion shows up as a part of so many arguments in support of other fantastic claims, I want to show you that its embrace is of the same nature as acceptance of astrology, ESP, prophecy, dowsing, and the other myriad of strange beliefs we handle here every day. I think Randi would agree that we can’t prove that gods don’t exist. I think he is saying that rational people should apply the same logic, investigation and skepticism to religious matters as they do to science in general. The science that is responsible for all that is good (and bad) in the world today. So by “religious matters” I don’t mean to include topics that are philosophical/theological only, beyond the realm of science, like “Does God exist?” But there are numerous questions that CAN and SHOULD be examined scientifically, but rarely are, at least by religious organizations. And non-religious orgs, like CSICOP, seem to politely shy away from such examination. Example: the [Long Day of Joshua.](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_083.html) If you accept it as just a myth, of course no testing is possible other than an anthropogical inquiry as to where the story came from. But there are serious people who claim it actually happened. Now we enter the world that science can tackle – doesn’t this story imply the earth suddenly stopped spinning, then started again, and if so, what is the evidence for that and how likely is it to have happened? Another example. The bible gives the ages of many patriarchs as much greater than people live today (Abraham, Methuselah). If you believe these numbers are intended to be accurate, science can tackle the veracity of those claims: do we have any other evidence that people lived that long, based on bones, mummies, external historical references, etc.? > [@](#): > > _From Beverly Hills attorney Edward Tabash, in [an article originally published in the Wall Street Journal](http://www.2think.org/hii/ufos.shtml)_ > > **Salvation by UFO? Or maybe you prefer talking snakes** > > The suicides of 39 members of the Heaven’s Gate sect, motivated by the belief that their deaths would result in their salvation by a spaceship tailing a comet, has prompted condemnation by followers of conventional religions. Christian ministers warn that salvation is possible only through Jesus and not through astrally hitching a ride on a flying saucer. It is important, however, to take a rational look at all supernatural belief systems and to retain critical thinking even when one’s own beliefs come under scrutiny. > … > [snip] > … > Believers in conventional religious dogma conveniently ignore that most of the alleged miracles stopped at least 2,000 years ago…Humankind has always had a problem with irrational supernatural believers. Whether it is through salvation through UFO or salvation through some invisible and unproven god, it is time that we, as a rational beings on the threshold of the 21st century, begin to reexamine all of superstitious beliefs, be they those of New Age sects or those of conventional religion. Without the scientific examination of religion, we have only faith to support religious tenets. Pretty much the same situation as astrology, dowsing, ESP and Heaven’s Gate. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/126 "2003-07-27T14:25:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Scientists also believe that the world is more than what their senses can perceive. The difference between religious people and scientists is that scientists have standards of evidence and reasoning. > > If a phenomenon can’t affect the material world, how do we perceive it? If we can discuss it and make claims about it, it must affect the physical world in some way, if only through our bodies.\*\* You contradict yourself between these two paragraphs. If scientists (religious skeptics, really, since many scientists are, after all, religious) believe the world is more than what we can sensorily percieve, then they are abandoning materialism. But if they only believe in things that demonstrably affect the world in a physical way, then they do not believe in what they cannot sensorily percieve. \*\* > [@](#): > > Are we trying to learn about the universe, or merely the human experience? If God exists only within subjective human experience, then God is a creation of humanity, not vice versa.\*\* To which I can only respond “not necessarily.” Again, it all boils down to the degree of credibility you give subjective experience. The existence of God cannot be proven, but it can be felt – religious discourse is less about materialistic empiricism and more about shraed spiritual experience. \*\* > [@](#): > > If you could just offer us a means to determine when someone’s actions are motivated by “genuine religous feeling”, we could begin to put your suggestion into practice. \*\* You can’t have it both ways. If religion cannot claim the arts and culture because other factors were at work, then neither can religion be saddled with atrocities because other factors were at work there as well. Randi is aburdly inconsistent on this point. \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s the point – they _preserved_ knowledge. It takes “scientific” thought to generate new knowledge, which indeed religious organizations occasionally did. And those Islamic scholars derived their work from earlier Greek findings – in fact, they were essential in preserving knowledge that the Western world had lost. Until they fell into a Dark Age of their own…\*\* The point is that religion has served to advance the boundaries of mankind’s knowledge, and that it has served to protect that knowledge from destruction, when others were disinclined to do so. That much is incontrovertible. \*\* > [@](#): > > Ah, so you’re a “salvation through works” person, eh?\*\* No, I’m just answering Randi’s parade of horribles \*\* > [@](#): > > And if religion is on the side of right as often as the side of wrong (as if anyone here is qualified to judge what’s right and wrong), what makes you think it can do any better than chance?\*\* Any institution can be (and have been) put to good or ill. That doesn’t mean all institutions are worthless. \*\* > [@](#): > > Isn’t whether it’s an accurate way of looking at the world the important issue here? (You’re also putting yourself into the category of people Randi complains about: those who pity rationalists because their worlds are so dull. They have no idea of how wonderful rationality can be…) \*\* Randi deserves my pity. Anyone who isolates joy in a child’s smile to a few chemical reactions in the brain really is living in a cold and sterile (but not dull) world. Human beings are more than just animals that can build stuff; reducing things like joy and beauty and love to mere biology misses much of the point. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/127 "2003-07-27T14:32:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > So what? Any controversial book will have a smattering of bad reviews. The review raises issues. Your dismissal with this is not terribly enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/128 "2003-07-27T14:34:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Musicat \* > \*\*I think Randi would agree that we can’t prove that gods don’t exist. I think he is saying that rational people should apply the same logic, investigation and skepticism to religious matters as they do to science in general. The science that is responsible for all that is good (and bad) in the world today. > > So by “religious matters” I don’t mean to include topics that are philosophical/theological only, beyond the realm of science, like “Does God exist?” \*\* I think you take an overly charitable view towards Randi’s essay. He clearly dislikes religion in all its forms, and clearly is opposed to _anything_ that can’t be materialistically proven. His essay is not just an attack on religious claims of supernatural influence on the material world, but an attack on the very concept of faith itself. FTR, I am no fundamentalist, I agree that much of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) is metaphor designed to teach particular lessons rather actual history, and I support investigation into Biblical events to determine the degree to which they comport with the historic and scientific record. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/129 "2003-07-27T14:40:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*The review raises issues. Your dismissal with this is not terribly enlightening. \*\* The review doesn’t contradict anything that has been said in this thread. Perhaps you’d like to make a specific point rather than vague allusions? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/130 "2003-07-27T14:41:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*The review doesn’t contradict anything that has been said in this thread. Perhaps you’d like to make a specific point rather than vague allusions? \*\* No, I have other axes to grind. I found your discussion inadequate, however I am not moved to engage it. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/131 "2003-07-27T14:48:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*No, I have other axes to grind. I found your discussion inadequate, however I am not moved to engage it. \*\* Why even bother to post then? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/132 "2003-07-27T14:54:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > [Randi] clearly dislikes religion in all its forms, and clearly is opposed to _anything_ that can’t be materialistically proven. His essay is not just an attack on religious claims of supernatural influence on the material world, but an attack on the very concept of faith itself. Granted. But you say that as if it’s a _bad_ thing. Faith didn’t design the computer you are sitting in front of. > [@](#): > > _From [Edward Tabash](http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/shb/tabash_12_3.html)_ > There is no rational basis for providing religious dogma with its own special exemption from harsh criticism. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/133 "2003-07-27T14:57:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Why even bother to post then? :rolleyes: \*\* I introduced the reference, my sole other comment was a brief one on your reply, I found it inadequate. Mere passing commentary. I should say I am sorry if it offends you, but I am afraid that would be a lie. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/134 "2003-07-27T14:58:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **You contradict yourself between these two paragraphs. If scientists (religious skeptics, really, since many scientists are, after all, religious) believe the world is more than what we can sensorily percieve, then they are abandoning materialism. But if they only believe in things that demonstrably affect the world in a physical way, then they do not believe in what they cannot sensorily percieve.** That’s about the quality of argument I’ve come to expect from you. I can’t perceive radio waves with any of my senses. I can only perceive certain effects that are consistent with the existence of such waves. Scientists have no problems accepting that the universe is full of things their senses can’t detect, but they can detect their effects on things we can detect. If a hypothetical phenonemon doesn’t affect things we can detect at all, how can it be said to exist? It can’t – it’s not needed to explain anything, and it makes no difference to our universe at all. There’s no contradiction – it’s only that your understanding is too limited. > [@](#): > > \*\*To which I can only respond “not necessarily.” Again, it all boils down to the degree of credibility you give subjective experience. The existence of God cannot be proven, but it can be felt – religious discourse is less about materialistic empiricism and more about shraed spiritual experience. \*\* I agree – it’s a social construct, like cultural traditions. And, of course, since the human mind is part of the universe, things that exist in the human mind exist in the universe. But we have no reason to believe that these human beliefs have anything to do with the set of all things that interact with each other and us. > [@](#): > > \*\*The point is that religion has served to advance the boundaries of mankind’s knowledge, and that it has served to protect that knowledge from destruction, when others were disinclined to do so. That much is incontrovertible. \*\* Others were disinclined to protect knowledge during the Dark Ages because western European civilization had sunk into a morass of superstition, religious dogma, and ignorance. > [@](#): > > \*\*Any institution can be (and have been) put to good or ill. That doesn’t mean all institutions are worthless. \*\* What do you mean, “worthless”? Aren’t we debating the validity of faith as a means of knowing, not whether religious people feed hungry orphans? > [@](#): > > \*\*Randi deserves my pity. Anyone who isolates joy in a child’s smile to a few chemical reactions in the brain really is living in a cold and sterile (but not dull) world. Human beings are more than just animals that can build stuff; reducing things like joy and beauty and love to mere biology misses much of the point. \*\* But it _is_ biology. Just as it _is_ physics, and chemistry, and psychology. [sigh] ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/135 "2003-07-27T15:14:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*I introduced the reference, my sole other comment was a brief one on your reply, I found it inadequate. Mere passing commentary. I should say I am sorry if it offends you, but I am afraid that would be a lie. \*\* Gee, that’s ever so helpful. Thank you for that useful and meaningful contribution to the discussion. :rolleyes: “I think you’re wrong, but I’m not going to tell you why.” ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/136 "2003-07-27T15:18:34Z")
He’s already told you why. You ignored the explanation. **Dewey** , you’re not a Catholic by any chance, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/137 "2003-07-27T15:28:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*I can’t perceive radio waves with any of my senses. I can only perceive certain effects that are consistent with the existence of such waves. Scientists have no problems accepting that the universe is full of things their senses can’t detect, but they can detect their effects on things we can detect. > > If a hypothetical phenonemon doesn’t affect things we can detect at all, how can it be said to exist? It can’t – it’s not needed to explain anything, and it makes no difference to our universe at all. > > There’s no contradiction – it’s only that your understanding is too limited.\*\* Oh, bullshit. I understand that there are plenty of physical phenomena that can’t be observed directly. But the fact remains that there are physical means of indirectly observing them. That secondary observation counts as sensory perception. In short, you’re doing an end run around my point by reading “sensory perception” to narrowly mean only direct observation. Grow up. \*\* > [@](#): > > I agree – it’s a social construct, like cultural traditions. And, of course, since the human mind is part of the universe, things that exist in the human mind exist in the universe. But we have no reason to believe that these human beliefs have anything to do with the set of all things that interact with each other and us.\*\* I disagree, but as I’ve noted I can’t prove it empirically. God can’t be proven but can be felt. Either you feel religious stirrings or you don’t. Simple as that. If you believe empiricism is the only road to truth, then there is little point in discussing spiritual matters with you. \*\* > [@](#): > > Others were disinclined to protect knowledge during the Dark Ages because western European civilization had sunk into a morass of superstition, religious dogma, and ignorance. \*\* Right. It’s all religion’s fault. That whole “crumbling of the Roman Empire and devolution into squabbling fiefdoms” had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Point of fact: but for the church, much knowledge would have been lost during the Dark Ages. If the church had not existed, mankind would be worse off today. \*\* > [@](#): > > What do you mean, “worthless”? Aren’t we debating the validity of faith as a means of knowing, not whether religious people feed hungry orphans?\*\* Randi seems to think it appropriate to note where religious people have slaughtered their enemies. I think it equally appropriate to note in response where religious people have fed hungry orphans. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/138 "2003-07-27T15:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **He’s already told you why. You ignored the explanation.** No, he didn’t, and no, I haven’t. He said “here’s a book review that raises issues, and I disagree with you.” I noted the review did not contradict anything in this thread, and asked him to be a bit more specific. He declined. He hasn’t specified any particular issue for dispute. He’s just said he thinks I’m wrong without bothering to tell me why. \*\* > [@](#): > > Dewey, you’re not a Catholic by any chance, are you? \*\* No, I am not. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/139 "2003-07-27T15:37:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Oh, bullshit. I understand that there are plenty of physical phenomena that can’t be observed directly. But the fact remains that there are physical means of indirectly observing them. That secondary observation counts as sensory perception. \*\* Very well. So is God part of the material universe or not? Humans are part of the material universe, and if God affects humans (and presumably other things), then subjective perception is also sensory perception. Which way do you want it? Does faith go beyond the “material” world or not? > [@](#): > > \*\*In short, you’re doing an end run around my point by reading “sensory perception” to narrowly mean only direct observation. Grow up. \*\* You seem to be unable to take these principles and derive conclusions from them. See above. > [@](#): > > **I disagree, but as I’ve noted I can’t prove it empirically. God can’t be proven but can be felt. Either you feel religious stirrings or you don’t. Simple as that.** Then God can’t be part of the world, or it wouldn’t matter whether one person perceived it or not. > [@](#): > > **If you believe empiricism is the only road to truth, then there is little point in discussing spiritual matters with you.** Who brought up belief? Empiricism is just the name for examining the universe, which is what we’re trying to find the truth about, right? > [@](#): > > \*\*Right. It’s all religion’s fault. That whole “crumbling of the Roman Empire and devolution into squabbling fiefdoms” had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: \*\* The religious empires (including the Byzantine and Holy Roman) were just _so_ helpful, weren’t they? > [@](#): > > \*\*Randi seems to think it appropriate to note where religious people have slaughtered their enemies. I think it equally appropriate to note in response where religious people have fed hungry orphans. \*\* I believe Randi was discussing the ways in which religious people justify their actions – specifically, that it’s inherently opposed to the methods of science. Religion is used as an excuse and justification for whatever people want to do – pseudoscience is used as an excuse and justification for whatever people want to believe. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857/140 "2003-07-27T15:38:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*No, he didn’t, and no, I haven’t. He said “here’s a book review that raises issues, and I disagree with you.” I noted the review did not contradict anything in this thread, and asked him to be a bit more specific. \*\* Did you _read_ the review? Did you not notice the implications about the book’s claims? > [@](#): > > \*\*No, I am not. \*\* Huh. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randi-tackles-religion-vs-science/190857.md?page=8)