<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Her point is that it isn't *science* that provided you
> with this meaning; science can't tell you whether it's
> all just random or if there's something at work behind
> it."
>
> Good point. I have to think about this more. I use evolutionary
> theory as a sort of big picture reframe for my life, but I guess
> that is not the science that is providing the perspective. It is
> my use of the ideas in a psychological way.
Sure. That it looks awful damn random as far as
science can tell doesn't (and cannot) rule out
randomness as a design element. So it's a matter
of personal preference. The randomness that science
sees does not dictate that one exclude the
possibility of some ultimate design; one is free
to believe either that there is or that there
isn't (or to leave the question open, of course).
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
