I'm glad you found it relevant. I was thinking in terms of a more physical basis for the mind-body problem.
As regards my approach of trying to understand the scripture in terms of science, there are two primary reasons which drive my quest: 1) Quran claims repeatedly that it is explained in detail [ http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/03/explained-in-detail.html ] 2) Quran 62:5 states that: 'The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah . And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.' [ http://islamawakened.com/quran/62/5/ ] I am a Muslim and I have the Quran. I must study it earnestly, if I am to understand and benefit from it. If I do not study it, then it is my own loss. I know and have mentioned it on my blog that this is an initial exploratory study into the factual accuracy of the Quran. The reason I put it online is so that whoever can may benefit from it. As Quran 36:70 states the purpose of the Quran is: 'To warn whoever is alive and justify the word against the disbelievers.' [http://islamawakened.com/quran/36/70/ ] Samiya On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:22 PM, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:30:25 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> And this is interesting because? > > > Duplication can be seen as a kind of asexual reproduction. That we see > biological phenomena related to this is perhaps not surprising, but > removing what we may hold to be the "sexual material level" from > reproduction and succession of individuals and generations, weakly confirms > a platonic intuition of things. And that is part of Jesus' PR machine. > > When it comes to Samiya's page there is a mixing of scientific > facts/observations from a wide variety of fields (which itself is already > arguably problematic) with, as Samiya has indicated repeatedly, a perhaps > overly literal interpretation of personal theology. My worry is the usual > one concerning such mixing: that universally recognized facts are used > improperly to justify theology, when most people on this list would > recognize the common problem with that: it's how people are often > manipulated. Milking of unrelated truths is perhaps better evidence for a > lack of faith in the concerned areas and attitudes, rather than "sound > theological proof" which is closer to misunderstanding theology. > > Pairing scientific jargon and theology doesn't suffice: the > scientist/mystic has to provide evidence of *how* the different areas of > study can be reconciled, if they can be brought into the same framework of > assumptions/hypothesis/definitions/theory. Then theology can be practiced > with a critical, scientific mindset, without falling into ideological > traps, but this isn't easy. > > The questions are comp related. I don't know why you *wouldn't* find it > interesting as somebody who has written on duplication in comp context, > even if you don't buy Samiya's take. PGC > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
