Quote for the Day: Dennis Campbell

"Both science and religion share a common human trait or disposition, to seek meaning and patterns when none appear obvious from separate observations or experiences. “Abolishing religion” has the implication of somehow eliminating that normal human disposition that underlies science as well.

One distinct difference between an idealized scientific approach and religion is that science seeks to falsify it’s precepts, concepts or theories, while religion actively avoids such an attempt. For science, falsification is a goal and value; for religion it is a sin that may be punishable by all kinds of nasty happenings.

That suggests that the issue is not the creation of the concepts, scientific or religious, it is in the value conflict of falsification. Science says “question,” and religion says “accept.” In that sense religion is an authoritarian human creation intended among other things for control and constraint of the adherents." - Denis Campbell

So the question is one of Rigor and Critique. Those ideas that can survive the dog-eat-dog existence of peer-review and critique fit within the bounds of 'reason'. Those concepts that forbid or do not stand up to the scrutiny of peer-critique are probably too fragile to be considered 'monumental concepts'.