On Mar 10, 12:04 pm, "AKA gray asphalt"
hotmail.spam.com> wrote:>> 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.
That sounds like what science is supposed to do, by its discipline it
ought to avoid entanglements that in any way bias the results of
research that is aimed at discovering truths and providing accurate
and authoritative proof.
It is less easy to convince people of strong and zealous faith
adhering to literal words of religious texts, that they ought to back
off and become more harmonizing and tolerant. Science is becoming
powerful, and in some ways technology can have disagreeble effects.
Religions don't wish for their authority to be eroded, so it's easy
then for the "opposition" to want to push back. There has been
progress in this in recent centuries, enough so that a decent
situation exists, in spite of a few arguments here and there. We're
not going to get it perfect, but as far as harmony is concerned, we
are far from the dark ages.
>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
