--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> 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).

One common reconcilliation is to say that the Creator decided which cosmological
constants to use. Some values of those constants would definitely preclude any kind of
higher-level organization (life).

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi


Reply via email to