Jim wrote:
> >Rick Adams wrote:
> >There's a major element that everyone seems to be missing in
> this attitude
> >toward such degrees--religion!
>
> Yer ole nemesis, eh?
No--a statement of fact.
In many religions, including several flavors of Hindu religion and Tibetan
Buddhism, astrology is regarded as a way of understanding the mind of
Brahman (essentially treating it as a Roman Catholic might view a study of
the Trinity). To assume that it is valid to teach divinity in the Western
sense, but ignore an equally important aspect of major Eastern religions is
pure ethnocentrism and religious bigotry, not science.
Again, if it is valid to study divinity or other religious topics related
to Christianity and to award degrees in those areas, it is EQUALLY valid to
do so with topics related to Eastern religions instead. I'm not attacking
religion--I'm attacking the idiotic idea that only Christian beliefs are
worthy of academic study; that isn't science it's superstitious prejudice.
> >How many people who think the idea of a degree in "astrology" is stupid
> >simultaneously support the concept of one in "divinity," "theology," or
> >"Christian Philosophy?"
>
> Are we raising our hands? Mine’s up.
Then you clearly demonstrate intolerance for the religions of others, an
attribute totally inappropriate to academia.
> So, are you suggesting we not study whatever you mean by “Christian
> philosophy” (sounds like an oxymoron) simply because it cannot be
> verified scientifically? A religious ideology that many people
> believe in, find use in, and might benefit from a more adequate
> academic analysis thereof.
Replace "Christian philosophy" with "astrology" in the above paragraph, and
ask yourself the same question. I'll go along with either answer you
provide, since my only argument is that either ALL major religious beliefs
(including, btw, those of pagans and other unpopular religions) be included
in the definition of "academically valid" studies--or that NONE of them are.
> Well, one difference I see between astrology and Christian
> religion is that you can scientifically debunk astrology,
> because its basic premises are flawed. If I remember my
> occultic knowledge, is not astrology seriously flawed because
> it adheres to the old myth of geocentrism?
And Christianity ISN'T flawed?
Let's see:
1. According to Genesis, the order of creation is: 1:1-heaven and earth;
1:3-light; 1:6-firmament (which later is converted into heaven); 1:9-earth &
seas (at the same time); 1:11-plants; 1:14-the sun, the moon, the stars;
1-20-animals; 1-26-humans (made out of soil, btw, according to 2:7).
2. According to Joshua, Chapter 6, the walls of Jerico were knocked down by
the sound of trumpets and voices.
3. According to Exodus, Moses was able to work real (versus stage) magic in
which he caused plagues of locusts, staffs to turn into serpents, and the
Red Sea to part so he could walk between the walls of water.
4. Let's not forget Noah and his ark on which two of every animal alive
today were transported (try that with a MODERN supertanker!), Jonah who
lived comfortably inside the stomach of a whale (think "digestion"), turning
water into wine, and other similar events chronicled as the absolute truth.
Sounds a "bit" flawed by modern scientific principles to me! Off hand, I
have a LOT less trouble believing that the tidal influence of the moon at
the time of conception could have an ultimate influence on the adult than I
have in believing that plants came into existence before the Sun--don't you?
Please, no rhetoric about the Bible being symbolic--either it's absolutely
true, and thus accurately depicts the relationship of humans to the Universe
(in which case science is completely wrong) or it is untrue and represents a
combination of folklore, mythology, and Jewish history (in which case
Christianity is based on false premises: that the Christian God exists in
the first place and that the Bible represents truth).
Again--either BOTH should be treated with equal respect as legitimate
topics for academic study--or NEITHER should be.
> I'm not sure how you're tying astrology to religion. I’ve never
> met a single individual who held to it as a religion, but as a
> science. How does astrology qualify as a religion? What are
> its moral teachings? What is its concept of a god or salvation
> or anything else generally associated with religious teachings?
What on earth do those have to do with it's validity as a subject of study?
PRAYER isn't a "religion," it's a religious practice--yet studies of the
effect of prayer on medical treatment, etc. are routinely accepted as valid
science!
I never claimed that astrology was a religion--I stated it was a religious
PRACTICE that is part of Eastern religions. Sorry if you haven't met anyone
with that view yet--perhaps the next time the Dalai Lama speaks in your area
you can take the time to meet some Tibetan Buddhist scholars--they ALL view
astrology as a part of their religion, in the same way prayer is part of
your own. The world has more religions than Christianity--simply because
Christians don't view something as religious does NOT make it secular.
> One day I’d be curious to hear from the atheists on their
> personal theories of how everything came to be.
Two words:
BIG BANG.
Or, if you prefer Quantum Mechanics:
PROBABILITY WAVES
> If not God, then what?
Physics.
> As always, you make a good point. The religious individual needs to
> accept that opening the door to his beliefs cannot allow slamming it shut
> on others, whether he likes it or not.
Here we agree. I'm perfectly comfortable with religious topics being taught
in our colleges PROVIDED they are identified as such instead of as
"scientific" subjects. In that vein, neither Christian beliefs (including,
of course, creationism) nor Eastern ones (such as astrology) should be
taught as anything but "religious studies."
> I do applaud you for your sense of fairness.
Thank you.
> By the way, I am curious how easily you see Christianity being debunked,
> given that much of it cannot be scientifically validated.
Take a very close look at the items I listed above re: Biblical teachings.
It's pretty easy to demonstrate scientifically that such things as the order
of creation given in the Bible, Jonah's experience, etc., are simply
impossible. But, because the entire Christian religion is based on the
fundamental claim that the Bible is accurate (if it isn't there is NO
legitimate reason anyone should accept its claims about the existence or
nature of a God), if those points (and, of course, many others) can be
demonstrated to be unsound it logically follows that the Bible is an
unreliable source of information, and simple scientific principles would
require that it be excluded as "proof" of anything. Yet without it, there is
no basis for Christian belief at all, and thus by disproving the accuracy of
the Bible, the entire basis of the religion is demonstrated to be invalid.
That's how.
> Doesn’t seem like
> much debunking or bunking is possible.
Sure it is. Ask any physical anthropologist, geographer, physicist, or
ethnographer and you'll have plenty of evidence of fallibility in the
religion. All that remains is personal belief, unsupported by any form of
evidence at all and contradicted by a vast range of scientific literature.
If it were any subject other than religion, you would be among the first to
agree that such a dichotomy could only be resolved by accepting the
scientific evidence that discredits the beliefs.
> By the way, did you know that in the book of Isaiah he describes God as
> sitting above the circle that is the earth? Can you imagine this
> religious nut teaching something like that? He claimed his knowledge
> came from God. Now we all know that in 500BC the world was flat...
It doesn't say "sphere" it says "circle."
Go to the seashore or to any area where the landscape is flat all the way
to the horizon. Look out. Does the world seem square or circular?
Is it tremendously surprising that someone viewing the world from such a
perspective (believe it or not, early peoples climbed mountains and saw the
horizon for quite some distance--and they were clearly able to view the
curvature) would perceive it to be a circle? Remember, also, that the
Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for some time--and that the circle was
considered the "perfect" form in that culture. Wouldn't a person
automatically assume his/her world was "created" in a perfect form?
> Not to mention “Job” – another religious nut. One thousand years before
> Isaiah was written the author of this book had the nerve to claim
> that the earth was suspended into space by nothing at all.
> Must’ve really irritated the scientific elite from the East who knew full
> well the earth was riding on a turtle.
It probably irritated them as much as the scientists who demonstrate
evolution irritate the creationists today, actually.
> "Almost every sect of Christianity is a perversion of its
> essence, to accomodate it to the prejudices of the world."
> -- William Hazlitt
And, therefore, all forms of Christianity currently practiced in the world
are perversion?
Ok, if you feel that way, far be it from me to contradict you. ;-)
Rick Adams
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
". . . and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone." --Fred Small
