ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/17/85)
>> ... Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical >> and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think >> you mean. > >Agreed. I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities, >religions conflict with science. Baloney! That's as silly as saying {physics, law} conflict with pure reason because {empirical deduction, normative assertions} cannot be logically deduced. Reason is useful to science, but that does not mean that science conflicts with reason because its ideas transcend purely logical thinking. Many efforts within religion have gone far to remove conflict with science (thereby purifying their spirituality by removing material constraints from their wisdom). Some have even eagerly sought out deeper revelations in the Creator's clearest word -- the creation we live in -- the universe itself. >> Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created >> the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. > >That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more >specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that >these laws still exist ...? What evidence do you have to support this? What evidence do you have for your own mind? Could you demonstrate its existence to a strict behaviorist? >If these laws are "orders magnitude above our present understanding", how >do you expect anyone to be able to figure out that they exist? What kind >of evidence could possibly support the existence of laws beyond our under- >standing? > >You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support- >able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you >mostly likely speak of). Remember ... if God created physical laws, he >must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones. If this is really >the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any >real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment. Science has already taken much that it needed from God, for example, the notion that the universe was created and is governed by absolute and immutable laws. No doubt, science will continue to raid religion again whenever it needs to. In the meantime, those who are unable to see that their vision is restricted by their pet methodology's definition of `observable' will continue to misunderstand religion. khronos ouketi estai -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)
>>> ... Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical >>> and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think >>> you mean. >>Agreed. I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities, >>religions conflict with science. > Baloney! [ELLIS] And to think, I was going to say "Bravo!" >>> Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created >>> the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. >>That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more >>specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that >>these laws still exist ...? What evidence do you have to support this? > What evidence do you have for your own mind? Could you demonstrate > its existence to a strict behaviorist? Excuse me (Michael seems to like to throw irrelevancies into conversations as if to make a "point"), but the previous author is absolutely correct. It IS quite an assumption. And given the texts used to support this notion, crafted by people thousands of years ago with even more anthropocentric and geocentric notions than those some modern day people still hold, it is a very poor assumption. (Bravo to Tim Sevener for his brilliant "Should We Teach Copernicanism in Schools" article, <731@whuxl.UUCP>.) >>You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support- >>able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you >>mostly likely speak of). Remember ... if God created physical laws, he >>must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones. If this is really >>the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any >>real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment. > Science has already taken much that it needed from God, for example, the > notion that the universe was created and is governed by absolute and > immutable laws. > No doubt, science will continue to raid religion again whenever it needs > to. The bogosity of this set of statements defies comprehension. Where has religion offered the notion of "absolute and immutable laws" by which the universe is "governed"? (As opposed to rules demanded by an autocratic god?) Where has science assumed that the universe was created by something willfully? > In the meantime, those who are unable to see that their vision is > restricted by their pet methodology's definition of `observable' will > continue to misunderstand religion. I wouldn't call it misunderstanding in light of those whose pet beliefs lead them to conclusions that they want to have about the universe first, regardless of either a lack of evidence for them or direct contradictions of them. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/25/85)
>> ... Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical >> and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think >> you mean. > >Agreed. I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities, >religions conflict with science. > Christianity doesn't freely recognize the magical? What about transubstantiation (i.e. the belief that the bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Christ)? What about praying over the sick to effect healing? What about the laying on of hands? What about talking in tongues? etc. etc. No supernatural entities? What about demons and angels? I think what you meant was the Christianity does not believe in the magic and supernatural entities that aren't part of the bible or church dogma.