“… When religion tries to run roughshod over scientific proofs it proves itself to be the fantasy that it is.” – SD
Hey Slip!... For a little interjection here, I have not seen ‘religion’ run roughshod over science nor its proofs. I have seen ignorance do so though. As has already been said, until the more recent theologies of faith alone, most included a true empathetical connection with both the divine and science. The Vedas are of this nature. Zoroasterism was of this nature. The ancient Egyptian Religion was of this nature as was that of the Babylonians and Chinese and Greeks. On Aug 17, 7:36 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes for sure BB, the discoveries of the past began with hypothesis > without empirical support, just a simple idea. When religion tries to > run roughshod over scientific proofs it proves itself to be the > fantasy that it is. We can never shed the scars that religion has > ingrained in the world and it continually inflicts it's sharp edge > into the heart of humanity. All we need to do is live, enjoy life and > share all we have with each other, all and each among our planet. If > we could eliminate those that thrive on greed, wasteful self > indulgence and gratification, opulence without need and mindless > amassing of wealth we could all live in peace. They are the ones that > create the atmosphere of control over commodity for the sake of > wealth. Power in the world is measured by wealth and the sooner we > get away from that concept the sooner we can live in peace. This > insanity to create wealth at any cost, regardless of suffering, is > essentially the downfall of the planet. I only hope that after WWIII > we will see an end to it, but my doubts run high because of human > nature. People that strive for peace, for equality and for > humanitarian causes are too passive to make a real change. So it is > up to those in power to reach a new level of understanding, a new > level of compassion and reasoning. Dream on! > > On Aug 17, 9:02 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As a fish head, I would like to say that as long as one does not > > disregard legitimate science, or scientific method, you can be > > religious, or "spiritual" or whatever you like. If you are not > > interested in "testing" your beliefs? (when possible) I would say you > > are not interested in science. "Religious" has such baggage doesn't > > it? I think "spiritual" or some other new age word is better. But > > that is just another one of my fishy opinions. > > Einstein "seemed" to be open to the wonder of it all. Is that > > spiritual? Is having a belief without any evidence anti-science? Or > > does that exclude you from it? A hypothesis is a belief or suspicion > > without evidence isn't it? > > > On Aug 17, 6:49 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Will it ever be possible to meld science and religion? Religion is so > > > unscientific and science is so unreligious. > > > > BETHESDA, Md. — Newly sworn-in National Institutes of Health chief > > > Francis Collins, who founded an institute in May aimed at nurturing > > > the coexistence of science and religion, announced Monday he had > > > resigned from his foundation to focus on his research chief duties. > > > > "I want to reassure everyone I am here to lead the NIH as best I can, > > > as a scientist," Collins said, noting Internet and editorial page > > > concerns about Collins, as an evangelical Christian, leading a science > > > organization. > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-17-nih-collins_N.htm?csp=34 > > > > What say ye fish heads?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
