Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!polard
From: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy,net.flame
Subject: Re: Penses
Message-ID: <5196@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 13:27:32 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.5196
Posted: Thu Apr 18 13:27:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 01:25:53 EST
References: <1655@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 18
Keywords: science religion
Xref: watmath net.religion:6685 net.philosophy:1668 net.flame:9351
Summary: 

In article <1655@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes:
>
>Is this not what science, and ALL thought is about.  Ergo, what IS the
>difference between a scientific and a 'religious' theory???  To put my
>old question again.
>                                    

It seems to me that the fundamental differences between "religious" 
and "scientific" theories is that religious theories attempt to deal with 
"private" experiences (people's inner relationships to the universe), 
whereas scientific theories attempt to deal with "public" experiences
("external" sense perceptions).  If this hunch is correct, it may explain why 
religious and scientific theories are often in bitter conflict.
-- 
Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard
N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions
of me, my employer, or any AI project.