Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:03:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
Subject: Re: Of course there are (no) revolutions in religion!


        

Hugh Rodwell jibs at my notion that paradigmatic "shifts" in science do not
have their counterparts in the world of religious belief and asks:

>If this is true,  how come there are so many different religions,  with
such diverse historical and social roots? 

Hugh,  it is a fallacy to ontologically compare revolutions in science--the
radical realignment of forces leading to a new and permanent change (which
is universal) in which the way phenomena is viewed by intelligent
beings--and the constant breaking away and re-forming of various cults,
sects,  religious orders,  etc.,  throughout the ages.    One is
progressive,  the other stagnant and reactionary.    Humankind does not
possess one scintilla more of empirical religious knowledge than it did when
our ancestors knuckle's grazed the greenwald,  in spite of a plethora of
"discoveries" and "revelations" concerning the Almighty and his Word,  Plan,
Kingdom,  whar-have-you. In fact,  the opposite is true.   Each increase,
each advance in humanity's stock of scientific knowledge has served to
undermine and make ridiculous the claims and entreaties of religious doctrine.

A notable example of a scientific revolution would be Newton's concept of
universal gravity (ca. 1679-85),  the basis of the Newtonian revolution is
science.    In correspondence with Robert Hooke,  Newton discovered a new
way of analyzing planetary motion,  which he then used to solve the problem
of the cause of planetary motions in ellipses according to the laws of
areas.   He was not,  apparently,  fully cognizant of the consequences of
his earlier discovery until his papers were presented to the Royal Society
in 1684,  following a visit from the astronomer Edmond Halley and the
presentation of his paper on the problem of forces and planetary orbits.
It was only after a turgid period of discussion and debate that Newton's
tentative theories on the gravitationaly relationships within the solar
system began to take shape.    It would change forever earlier theories of
planetary motion which in time were junked as hopelessly out of date.

The point is that revolutions in science--subject always to the reasoning
abilities of mortal men and women--must of a necessity be
cataclysmic--having a seminal impact on the way phenomena is viewed and
analyzed--and permanent.     In Newton's case,  it would be unthinkable to
return to the scientific beliefs of pre-1685 after the "revolution" of
Newton's discovery.    Hugh's religious "equivalents" can make no such
claim.     Claims and counter-claims of God's Will,  Purpose,  Higher Laws,
etc.,  are regurgitated again and again in the most superficial manner,
reflecting not new evidence or research,  just changes in the society from
which they emerge.    They provide the historian with important clues to
civilizations and the class structure with which they develop; they are of
no practical value.    

As for claiming that they are somehow analogous to the development of
scientific knowledge,  it is a poor argument indeed.                 


Louis (G)



        



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---