From: Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Christian Theology is a science > > > > How about Islamic Theology, Hindu Theology, > Zoroastrian Theology, Greek Theology or Egyptian > Theology? Are they sciences too? Which one of them is > right? > > *--In all religions there is a lot of good and valid. I am delving more into Christian Religion. Theology is a science.
> >It is anachronistic error to read the Bible and try > to >find errors in the light of modern science... > > > > Fr. Ivo, It is you who said Bible does not contradict > science, and that it contains immutable truths. In the > light of such categorical assertions it is logical for > anyone to conclude that you are claiming that it does > not contain any errors, even when viewed from the > modern scientific perspective. >*--It is wrong understanding. That is why I referred to your error of anachronism. I am repeating that Bible does not teach sciences. It is a book that speaks about the truth about God and his relationship towards humanity. It contains "immutable truth" about salvation of humankind, not about natural phenomena. It does not contradict science. > > > >While empirical Science deals with an aspect of > >reality, Religion deals with the ultimate meaning of > >human existence, in relation to the > >Absolute or God. > >> > Which religion has got the meaning right? Buddhism and > Jainism do not subscribe to a belief in a personal > god. > *--I am not discussing which is right or wrong. But the task of Religion is to give ultimate meaning of human existence and ethical values. > > > >In spite of studying empirical sciences, we still > >believe in God the Creator, Jesus the Word made > flesh, >miracles--including the Resurrection--and in > prayer. > > > > Most scientists don't. All Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists > and other non-Christians don't. > *--There are many who do believe. Members of different religions have their own relationship to the Absolute. > > > >Neurophysiology cannot explain the fact: when do > human >memory, consciousness, intelligence arise? > > > > Modern neurophysiology has shown that all of these > arise from the activity of the brain. We are learning > more about this every day. *--This is not so clear, as you claim, till today. > > > >Is the only reality material (brains in bodies)? > > > > It is the only physical reality of nature. > *--This is precisely the question. > > > >Can we speak of "soul", "spirit", "mind", "will"? > > > > Neuroscience has shown that they are all the products > of brain activity. When the brain dies, all of these > artificial constructs cease to exist. > *--The problem is whether the whole personality ceases totally. > > > >According to your 'scientific' approach, your mother > >died and has been reduced to ashes and totally come > >back to matter, together with the brain, following > the >first law of thermodynamics. > > > She was composed of matter and energy all along. She > lived a very good and happy life. Her loving > personality and her simple, wonderful mind were the > manifestations of the electrical activity of her > brain. In death all of that has ceased to exist. But > she will live in our memories with great fondness and > reverence, which in turn are manifestations of the > electrical activity within our brains. The replicas > of her genes will live on in her descendants. Her > legacy will survive for generations. What more can I > ask? > *--I do not question the goodness of your beloved Mother. Is it all? We believe in the bodily ressurrection. I have already told you why. I respect your belief, you respect mine. > > > >It is full reality of his love for humanity, it > cannot >be fantasy! > >....................Not every human experience is > >illusion. > > How do you distinguish between fantasy and reality? > How do you distinguish between illusion and reality? > *--What is fantasy? To what are you referring? You are taking statements out of the context and distorting them. > > > >Scientific method does not mean only physical > >experimentation. We can also feel the effects of love > >and faith. > > > > Do you know what the scientific method is? What has > love and faith got to do with it? Do lovers practice > the scientific method? >*--You cannot exhaust our experience by reducing it only to the empirical method. I have already explained it. We live our daily reality without applying your laboratory method. There are other 'scientific' methods to assess it... > > > >Religion means genuine, selfless love. > > > > So does religion also mean practicing the scientific > method? > *--If religion means living in faith, love, brotherhood, harmony and peace, we can surely apply the method of observation and introspection, and perceive how religion permeates and transforms the human personality... > > > >As it is clear from above, 'agnosticism' becomes > >intolerance, arrogance and pedantry, when it forgets > >its limits... It distorts the reality. > > > > ...you simply don't > understand what is meant by agnosticism. Who is more > intolerant and arrogant? One who says s/he does not > know (agnostic), or one who says s/he has knowledge of > immutable truths? > *--You have missed the whole point from my writing. I regret that agnosticism will not allow you to see more than what you want... Ivo da C.Souza