Hi Lloyd and all,
I agree with you that we must not mix religion with the physical sciences. I think, I must have a different understanding of the word "science" to yours and this creates the misunderstanding. My understanding of the word "science" is according to the Oxford dictionary: "Systematic and formulated knowledge ....any branch of such knowledge, (political, moral, natural etc.) To my understanding religion is definitely a systematic and formulated knowledge that can be studied and that to that extend, it is a science. If one only uses the term science for the physical reality and does not include the spiritual and supernatural, than the term does not apply. However, that does not eliminate or negate the existance of spiritual and supernatural realities.
Yours cosvis.
Classifying what is clearly not science, as science, solves nothing__It merely conflates the desired diversity of being human, and having real esthetic human values...
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein
"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
"The tick-tick-tick of the caesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
You've got to be careful not to misrepresent what science is though. It's not limited to just communal physical observations. It's a manner/method of looking at things. If something is obviously true, then whether or not it happens to agree or disagree with someone elses conceptions doesn't alter it and similarly, just because something is commonly believed to be true, if there exists evidence that it is false, then it is at least not true in an absolute sense.
I think it also often occurs that people construct greater and greater complexity and details of explanations in attempts to "explain their way" around errors - it can be comforting to believe something is certain, but it this provides no real benefit, it may be better to go through some discomfort (which is just recognizing ones own misperceptions) and build something more solid, reliable and applicable to a broader range of experience (political conflicts oftentimes arise from people masking over viewpoints that are hypocritical and incompatible between people - masking over or ignoring the problems simply leaves those conflicts remaining and resolves nothing. Oftentimes those conflicts fester as well and it's generally better to resolve them, when possible, but it takes some mutual understanding and it can be difficult to resolve things in ones own life, much less see things from someone elses position, so these problems tend to remain)
Enough study unites all possible, necessary and honest views...
Body is produced more from the past to the future__Mind is produced more from the future to the past__The two directions of Time/Distances of matter in motion...
![]()
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein
"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
"The tick-tick-tick of the caesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
Truth seems to reveal itself in a large vision and then we take a few hundred years to fully understand that revelation, then another large vision comes along. It's that way in religion...a true prophet comes along and reveals a truth and the people try to come to a full understanding of that truth and then another true prophet appears and gives us the next piece of the puzzle....we might be running a little behind in our understanding.
It' that way in science too. Sir Isacc Newton and Albert Einstein are two examples of revealers of large visions of truth. I think science has almost come to a full understanding of these two large visions and is poised, and ready, for the next breakthrough. The problem is, there is a false prophecy that is confusing the truth and delaying the next large vision of the truth....The big bang theory of creation. That is not to say religion doesn't have its share of false prophecies... That's a pretty confused lot too.
I have done everything I can do, which has not been very much so far, to dispel the notion of a big bang creation. If we can let go of this false model, I'm sure Newton's and Einsteins big ideas will be fully understood in short order.
The next large vision, it seems to me, will be the big one that brings science and religion together on creation at long last. The big bang theory was hailed as that large vision, way back when, only because of false prophecies on both side.
It's like a perfect storm of truth is coming soon.
The second coming of Jesus
The realization of the T.O.E.
The end of the Myan calender
Global warming
All coinciding with a cosmic event that happens only only once every 26,000 years.
This is not a random coincidence. Somehow life is influenced by cosmic events and it's all part of the flow of creation.
jag
SteveA (07-27-2010)
Thanks, jag for your comments. I don't know if I can agree on all the specifics, but I've come to think it likely is true that there are "focal points" in time where things can change rather rapidly and it doesn't need to be on a global scale either, it can simply be ones own life though the manner in which the world around is perceived can change along with this (which basically results in the same thing).
Like a good song, story or even a joke, you can have a lot of recurring themes that might have previously appeared disconnected, come together during a period of transition.
jag (07-27-2010)
The scale of the cosmic event compared to the time of even our whole life is the point.
Dec.21, 2012, the winter solstice of 2012 has been a long time coming.
jag
SteveA (07-27-2010)
Again, it's hard for me to agree upon specifics, but I do think we've been coming toward one of those periods of change and it also appears a lot of people have shown up to watch the show.If it's Dec. 21, 2012, so be it, that works fine for me. (I'll have to pencil that one in ... hopefully, they'll stretch out the fun a bit. Maybe get a nice intro going
) Hey, I can't complain about the tease!
Enjoy,
Steve
jag (07-28-2010)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)