On Mar 7, 7:31 pm, "AKA gray asphalt"
hotmail.spam.com>
wrote:> It should read, "whatever theory creates the most harmony among human beings
> while not interfering with science, religious belief, or any other human
> need, should be adopted."
>
> EG, a god that uses evolution as a mechanism for creation does not affect
> the study of science nor evolution specifically, so why create problems?
This might raise the point of truth vs. harmony: should we adopt
nonfactual views, compromising science to be at harmony with
nonscientific views, in order to attempt to satisfy everyone? The
advancement of scientific understanding will continually arouse some
upsets merely by conflicting with pre-conceived ideas that are not
100%% in alignment with what would later be known as fact.
Yet, should such pre-conceived ideas attempt to change if they claim
to be a higher truth which is 100%% without error? Ideally they ought
to, although astute readers generally squint, or interpret
symoblically, or grumble and move on, thus revered yet inaccurate
works can still attract a large following. However, those who read
literally will continually be upset, and will not reinterpret in a way
which contradicts the literal text. It is difficult, for example, to
hear the word "fundamentalism" and not imagine, reflexively, a bomb
going off somewhere, or a plane knocking down a building, or botched
wars, or hypocrites on TV, etc.
The ultimate harmonious view which pleases everyone is probably the
"different realities" view, that "on a certain level" a thing can be
true, but "on another level" (such as the physical level) other things
are true. Thus, one can be at peace with all contradictions (except
where levels get mixed, such as divine influence over physical matter
invoked by mortal request, introducing conflict). The other
possibility is the "we cannot know" view
-- since realms we cannot
observe are mysterious, we can believe whatever we want. That is, as
long as some fanatic is not taking away that right, to believe as one
wishes.
