09 Nov 10
This site appears to be well-organised and works smoothly. It contains various docos including some scientific and "spiritual" ones. I share it here in the hope that some, with clear explanation, will catch up with what science does factually know to date. Science and spirituality is a regular theme in this forum.
http://documentaryheaven.com/from-big-bang-to-us-made-easy/
Imo...
People are quite able to hold a spiritual understanding of life AND respect science discoveries. The principal science-spiritual antagonists are on the one hand certain fundamentalist streams of Christianity. It is good for others to recognize, if they haven't already, that there are more reasonable, science-respecting Christian believers of a more modern liberal understanding of that path.
Another form of antagonist are the fundamentalist-type scientists that reach further than findings allow, who state, as fact, with equal unsupported fervor, reductionist and solely materialistic interpretations of the ultimate origins of existence.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by TaomanThat is simply not true. There are Christians who claim that they respect science, but when it comes to their religion, they do not. For example, the moment you accept that Jesus rose from the dead, you are disrespecting the science of Biology.
It is good for others to recognize, if they haven't already, that there are more reasonable, science-respecting Christian believers of a more modern liberal understanding of that path.
Sure, you can believe in a 'God of the gaps' who keeps shrinking as science progresses but that would be a rather odd religion.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo it is either or for you?
That is simply not true. There are Christians who claim that they respect science, but when it comes to their religion, they do not. For example, the moment you accept that Jesus rose from the dead, you are disrespecting the science of Biology.
Sure, you can believe in a 'God of the gaps' who keeps shrinking as science progresses but that would be a rather odd religion.
Kelly
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayIt can be religion where everything is possible, even rising from the death, walking on water, virgins giving births, and everything.
So it is either or for you?
Kelly
Or it can be science where the laws of nature and physics must be obeyed by all matter and forces.
It cannot be both, so - yes, it must be either one, not both.
Science and religion cannot be mixed.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYes. Either you respect the scientific process, or you do not. You cannot claim to respect it, but discard any results that don't fit with your religious beliefs.
So it is either or for you?
Kelly
I guess you could get away with saying "I respect the scientific process, but I respect my religion more", but the OP seemed to be implying that there are people whose religion is not in conflict with science - and I dispute that.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadLiberal modern Christians actually interpret the resurrection story mythologically. That is why they are regarded as heretical by fundamentalists. The same with many mythological stories in the Christian scriptures. I do think it then becomes an value-aesthetic opinion-fest, and its Christian mysticism that most attracts me most. Read up on Giordano Bruno, burnt as a heretic. There are others.
That is simply not true. There are Christians who claim that they respect science, but when it comes to their religion, they do not. For example, the moment you accept that Jesus rose from the dead, you are disrespecting the science of Biology.
Sure, you can believe in a 'God of the gaps' who keeps shrinking as science progresses but that would be a rather odd religion.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by Taomanwas intrigued by this quote from a poster on there,
This site appears to be well-organised and works smoothly. It contains various docos including some scientific and "spiritual" ones. I share it here in the hope that some, with clear explanation, will catch up with what science does factually know to date. Science and spirituality is a regular theme in this forum.
http://documentaryheaven.com/from-big-bang ...[text shortened]... , reductionist and solely materialistic interpretations of the ultimate origins of existence.
Its amazing how old our world is yet many still beleive in God and the mythology around gods yet science seems to prove outrank this idea this is a such great site im gunna come back here more often learn alot, have stumbled the site thanks.
yup if anyone needs some instruction, it has to be this guy!
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChoosing the undeveloped as an example of the developed is a non-sequitor.
was intrigued by this quote from a poster on there,
Its amazing how old our world is yet many still beleive in God and the mythology around gods yet science seems to prove outrank this idea this is a such great site im gunna come back here more often learn alot, have stumbled the site thanks.
yup if anyone needs some instruction, it has to be this guy!
The poster's heart, if not his words is the more developed to me.
But the arguments that involve concepts like the "heart" fall from the blocked ears of the Cynics.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by Taomanyes but why? for indeed as Paul states, if Christ has not arisen from the dead then our faith is certainly futile, he them quotes the Epicureans, 'If the dead are not to be raised up, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.” Without the resurrection scripture makes absolutely no sense and a Christians faith is certainly in vain.
Liberal modern Christians actually interpret the resurrection story mythologically. That is why they are regarded as heretical by fundamentalists. The same with many mythological stories in the Christian scriptures. I do think it then becomes an value-aesthetic opinion-fest, and its Christian mysticism that most attracts me most. Read up on Giordano Bruno, burnt as a heretic. There are others.
09 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Taomani never chose anything as representative of the developed, it was merely a point of interest used for its content rather than any insidious attempt at defamation, it was never intended to be reflective of the site itself, but now that you mention it. . . . well who can say, as for the intentions of the heart, are you yet claiming to be able to discern them? to read them so as to form an understanding, well well, how intwesting 😉
Choosing the undeveloped as an example of the developed is a non-sequitor.
The poster's heart, if not his words is the more developed to me.
But the arguments that involve concepts like the "heart" fall from the blocked ears of the Cynics.
09 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot by any chance, related in anyway to Alfred. N. Whitehead the renowned philosopher?
That is simply not true. There are Christians who claim that they respect science, but when it comes to their religion, they do not. For example, the moment you accept that Jesus rose from the dead, you are disrespecting the science of Biology.
Sure, you can believe in a 'God of the gaps' who keeps shrinking as science progresses but that would be a rather odd religion.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by TaomanVery unlikely, or at least not through the Whitehead surname. I can trace my ancestors back to the 1600s and most of their descendent's in the Whitehead line. They were mostly quakers back then.
Not by any chance, related in anyway to Alfred. N. Whitehead the renowned philosopher?
Of course when you trace your ancestry via the male line there is always the chance that the father was not in fact genetically responsible. 🙂
It is quite a common surname, I have come across several here in Cape Town.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust checkin. Quakers hold to a respected path - interesting.
Very unlikely, or at least not through the Whitehead surname. I can trace my ancestors back to the 1600s and most of their descendent's in the Whitehead line. They were mostly quakers back then.
Of course when you trace your ancestry via the male line there is always the chance that the father was not in fact genetically responsible. 🙂
It is quite a common surname, I have come across several here in Cape Town.
Just on people believing silly things. I focus more on the attitude and openess and readiness to be logical and explore, even though I may profoundly disagree with some of their belief system. Many early scientific discoveries were by men who still held a limited and incorrect view. We do not discount their discoveries and other sharings for that.
09 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadScientific process is blind to a lot of things, you are suggesting everything that cannot
Yes. Either you respect the scientific process, or you do not. You cannot claim to respect it, but discard any results that don't fit with your religious beliefs.
I guess you could get away with saying "I respect the scientific process, but I respect my religion more", but the OP seemed to be implying that there are people whose religion is not in conflict with science - and I dispute that.
be seen or measured isn't real or cannot be true? You are suggesting that if you
cannot see it, measure it, or put into a box so it can be understood by science it
automatically is false, and all that falls into the area cannot possibly be true and as
such make some of the conclusions you have reached in error?
Kelly