I agree much of science has generated a great destruction of human and animal kind. All the way from the development of the club to the sword to the atom bomb. It even pervades to the use of physical and chemical means to kill the unwanted e.g the accidental pregnancy, the old and infirm and those who don't look and speak as we do. Millions have died through the application of scientific developments, but in the same breath millions of lives continue to improve through the discovery of what God has made. I suspect that if mankind would only embrace His admonition to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." that the scientific discoveries would be beneficial not destructive as you well point out.
R Terry Ellis
DescriptMED, LLC
Get Done, Go Home!
Tour The Chart!
Actually the worst fault of science was to invent paper so that religous propaganda could be passed on.
Here's an experiment ... science again.
Take a room full of people of all different religions. Now ask them to vote if they believe any of the others has the "true" religion. They can not vote for their own religion.
What do you think the result will be??
Graham http://www.synapsedirect.com/ Synapse - the EMR for smart users
gchiu: Actually the worst fault of science was to invent paper computers so that religous EMR propaganda could be passed on. Here's an experiment ... science again. Take a room full of people of all different religions EMRs. Now ask them to vote if they believe any of the others has the "true" religion EMR. They can not vote for their own religion EMR. What do you think the result will be??
Actually the worst fault of science was to invent paper computers so that religous EMR propaganda could be passed on.
Take a room full of people of all different religions EMRs. Now ask them to vote if they believe any of the others has the "true" religion EMR. They can not vote for their own religion EMR.
CCHIT ?
gchiu: Actually the worst fault of science was to invent paper so that religous propaganda could be passed on.
Gosh Graham, I am sorry someone has wounded you so badly that you feel this way. You have a very closed mind on this subject. I would blame it more on the inconsistencies that you point out so well. I am sure all the things that "religious" people have done that is obviously hypocritical does close your mind. Such a shame.
gchiu: Here's an experiment ... science again. Take a room full of people of all different religions. Now ask them to vote if they believe any of the others has the "true" religion. They can not vote for their own religion. What do you think the result will be??
I agree you will have great controversy and there will be no agreement. Unfortunately there are ideas of exclusion of other "faiths" if one ascribes to something different. For Christians, any faith that denies Christ is in error. So, I get your point and concede.
However, this isn't really a part of this particular discussion. I, as a surgeon, depend on science to answer certain questions that do not have to exclude belief in God. For those who are believers, science can work very well within the confines of God's creation - to certain points. It is when our great minds that have been made "mad by their much learning" begin to deny that He exists because they have gotten so full of science that they can't be filled with anything else that this discussion is born. I contend that God created all that we can sense. Science can explain some of it and it continues to theorize and investigate to learn more. Science answers lots of questions, is necessary and should not be derided or degraded by those of faith unless scientists begin to do just what many do: 1) Deny God's existence 2) Take credit for God's creation 3) belittle people of faith who, many by the way are very well educated - self included - because of their belief (I have experienced it.) and not lastly 4) Manipulate God's creation beyond what those of faith would believe would be moral - in my case I would be against human cloning and am very much against abortion.
Science and religion should be able to co-exist and not be at odds. But, as long as uneducated (about God) scientists and uneducated (about the good side of science) believers exist, there will be no peace on this issue.
Go see the movie. I am certain you willfind fault. One premise of the movie is how those in the scientific community want to squelch any reliious belief...just as you echo...ain your comment about the development of paper.
R Terry Ellis: Science and religion should be able to co-exist and not be at odds. But, as long as uneducated (about God) scientists and uneducated (about the good side of science) believers exist, there will be no peace on this issue.
They're never co-exist because religion is basically anti-science.
heh. saw this on the net.
reminded me of this thread.
I added Chuck.
Chuck who? Not Chuck Norris!
Oh, and a short scientific essay on god from Victor Stanger
Chuck D.
Charles Darwin.
I saw the movie Sunday.
It's all about, "Freedom of Thought." Stein's premise is that the scientific community is suppressing such freedom, with respect to, "Intelligent Intervention", and offers proof of suppression, by interviewing, off an on camera, numerous scientists who have lost their jobs, or fear such action, as a result of speaking about anything but a Darwinian approach. This reminds me of the Global Warming fanatics who declare they are right and you are wrong and stupid for not agreeing with them, end of subject.
Chris Wilkerson, D.C. Carson Doctors Group TabletPCs in Medicine Editor-in-Chief www.MedicalTabletPC.com Home: www.Digital-Doc.com
I might suggest that both sides might want to read a book by Stephen Jay Gould - noted paleontologist at Harvard and an agnostic and long-time defender of Darwin. This book was written as Gould was dying of cancer, which might have caused some personal reassesment of life. Gould discusses a mechanism called NOMA or non-overlapping magesterium, which postulates that both religion and science can and should coexist but that when trouble arises it is generally due to trying to use religious thought to explain scientific principles and vice versa. It is a small book, but not easily read as it is dense (or maybe it is me that is dense, I guess).
This is not intended to suggest that this book is the last word (Terry we know what would be your source on that ) but I found the book discussing many of the conflicts in this thread in a reasonable and even-handed manner. The book is widely both panned and praised by both side in the Amazon review section - usually a sign that it is thought provoking. I have included a link and one of the reviews. Enjoy!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034545040X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
"Steven Gould treats the long-standing problem of the relation between science and religion in this book. The author explores the contemporary principle he calls NOMA, which is an acronym of Non-Overlapping Magisteria. A magisterium represents a domain of authority in teaching. The NOMA principle is that the magisterium of science and that of religion do not overlap, because the two magisteria cover different realms of empirical facts and moral value. This might seem to some readers almost self-evident. Describing the historical and psychological bases extensively, however, Gould elaborates the above concept so deeply and persuasively that even such readers will find the reading of this book rewarding. Especially this is a must read for those who are on either side of the debate of evolution versus creation in education. "
BTW Jason - the CCHIT line is an instant classic!
Well, I guess if I hired scientists, and some of them held deep religious views that gravity was just a theory, and the more plausible theory, and in fact the only explanation for the attraction of two masses, was that an omnipotent being willed each object together, then I too would have a hard time not firing them. This is the level of science we are talking about.
gchiu: Well, I guess if I hired scientists, and some of them held deep religious views that gravity was just a theory, and the more plausible theory, and in fact the only explanation for the attraction of two masses, was that an omnipotent being willed each object together, then I too would have a hard time not firing them. This is the level of science we are talking about.
I think Gould would say that you are overlapping your magesteriums.
Science would be used to explain why the two objects are attracted to each other (although my understanding is that with some of the recent advances in quantum mechanics even Newton's laws are getting a review) and an omnipotent being wouldn't enter into that calculation. Fire away if understanding the law of gravity is necessary for your position.
Who set-up and initiated the system to begin with, well that might be discussed in another magesterium.
>>Well, I guess if I hired scientists, and some of them held deep religious views that gravity was just a theory, and the more plausible theory, and in fact the only explanation for the attraction of two masses, was that an omnipotent being willed each object together, then I too would have a hard time not firing them. <<
According to my take on the movie, that is NOT what is going on at all. Darwinist's admittedly don't have all the answers, ie "Who set-up and initiated the system to begin with..."
Darwinist's interviewed said the beginning was, "The Big Bang Theory, Molecules on the backs of crystals and We just don't know." This isn't necessarily a religious issue at all. It's the freedom to offer other theoretical answers to unanswered questions.
No, understanding gravity is not necessary. Afterall the understanding is improving as science improves.
As for needing someone/thing to setup the position, the current cosmological view is that this was not necessary. The net energy in the universe is zero, and so the universe according to the laws of thermodynamics could well have arisen from nothing ... just a quantum perturbation. This was a zero information situation, and so any god that existed would also have no information regarding the creation of the universe.
As for Gould, most atheists/scientists are content to be left alone but those afflicted with religious fantasies are unable to leave science alone.