Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:45:01 -0500, clare wrote:
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.
And with that one sentence you've shown how much you do not
understand. You denigrate scientific theories which, as have been
pointed out to you and others time and again, result from a great
deal of testing to see if they hold up. Then you and Michael base
your arguments on a book that has nothing to support its claim to be
the "Truth" but your belief.
I might have missed it because I stay a bit away from these threads, but I
did not see where scientific theory had been denegraded. What I did catch,
was an argument that suggested that too much faith - or trust, if you will,
can be placed in things that are labeled as scientific. Since all of this
stuff involves people and not pure truth as administered by God, or pure
science as principles dictate, there is room, and plenty of room for error
on both sides. Neither side can lay a claim to an absolutely uncorrupted
methodology or knowledge. In the end - ya lays yer money down and ya takes
yer chances...
BTW, have either of you read the bible books that were thrown out by
Jerome because they didn't agree with his beliefs? Or the ones Luther
threw out because they disagreed with his? Or the one Joseph Smith
added? How about the version edited by Thomas Jefferson? Amazing how
the "revealed Truth" changes over time, isn't it?
I am a believer in the Bible and I have a faith in God that I try to let
steer my otherwise not-so-godly personality. That said... these are
extremely valid and valuable points, worthy of consideration. Having gone
through a few phases in life and realized that the fervor of my youth was
replaced by the wisdom of my age, I've simply come to the point of admiting
that the more I know the more I don't know.
FWIW - I figure that if there is a God (as I believe there is...), and he's
so doggoned big and powerful, and so smart, and so capable, and so perfect
(etc., etc., etc...), then there is now way on God's green earth that I am
going to be able to understand the vastness of those qualities - in other
words... I cannot understand him enough to make a statement that "this is
the truth..." with any degree of absolute conviction. These days I look at
those things in a more relative sense. I believe what has been revealed to
me, what I am currently able to understand, and I don't pretend to put
boundries on such a powerful being by restricting him to what I can
understand at the time. I've just seen too many growth adventures in my
life (both in the realm of faith and in the realm of "worldly things"), to
presume that I'm that freakin' smart anymore. You may not be able to teach
old dogs new tricks, but you can show them something different about the old
tricks.
I wonder why I bother with these threads but then I remember that if
just one person reads this and questions his beliefs because of it,
whatever the conclusion he comes to at least I've encouraged him to
think about them.
I'm not big on questioning beliefs. I'm big on growth and awareness. But -
that's my schtick. I believe that having beliefs is more valuable than
questioning beliefs - and I'm a rebel of sorts. Why should a person
question their faith? Faith is a good thing. I'm more concerned for blind
acceptance of things - sort of the open head, pour in thoughts concept.
Whether one believes that our brain comes from God or not, I do believe we
have the obligation to examine things, using that brain. One either side of
the arugment. Regardless of whether we are talking about faith, science, or
the positions in the kamasutra, today's knowledge is a steppingstone to
tomorrow's increased understandings. I just don't try to fool myself into
believing that I have it all figured out.
--
-Mike-