Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!zodiac!joyce!sri-unix!garth!smryan
From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Ignorant assumption
Message-ID: <1311@garth.UUCP>
Date: 27 Aug 88 01:30:13 GMT
References: <19880820041348.2.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU> <1579@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan)
Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 21

>The way to analyse what a scientist or Christian would do now, given
>the absolute power enjoyed by the Inquisition, is to examine their
>beliefs.  Neither group are democrats, nor would they respect many
>existing freedoms.  Note that I am talking of roles of science and
>religion.  As these people live in democracies, the chances are that
>the values of the wider society will repress the totalitarian
>instincts of their role-specific formal belief systems.  Do not take
>this analysis personally.  The way to attack my argument is to
>demonstrate that scientific or christian AUTHORITY are compatible with a
>liberal democracy.

I feel you have made the distinction between Christians and Christianity
implicitly, and I wish to make it explicit.

The ideals of Christianity, tolerance, mercy, and love, would make an
excellent system. Western Christians, on the other hand, still tend toward
out German (cultural) ancestors. (I don't know about Eastern Christians.)

I do take issue that Christians are held in checked by the wider society. In
this country Christians are the majority: it is eternal internal conflicts
between the sects that holds things in checks.