> 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.
I'm not saying that science should incorporate religions views into science
but for scientists to say "we don't offer opinions on religion because it
does not affect our study. In the case where religious beliefs affect
funding, for things like stem cell research, as an example, we present our
case and point out that in this case a certain faction or religion is
opposing research that we believe will benefit humankind to a great degree,
and leave it to you who make laws to find the appropriate division between
church and state that is for the benefit of our fellow citizens and the
people of the world.
And to add that "there are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus,
Siks and many many others who believe that God gave man a brain (or used
evolution to create) and that it is not in the glory of god to deny help to
humankind. A tree should be judged by its fruits, many of us believe and the
fruit of research with stem cells can be great while the fruit of protecting
unfertilized eggs that will eventually be destroyed is much less.
> 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.
>
>
>
