Of course they're true. But what do you mean by "true"? Scientists use a
different definition, and this is where the apparent contradictions arise.
Science is forever tentative and can only deal with the physical data it has at
hand. It's been very useful and I wouldn't want to do without it, but you can't
get teleological (purpose-related) or transcendent (things having to do with
spiritual matters) from it. I'm one of the strongest defenders of the scientific
method here, probably, so don't get me wrong, but I also know its boundaries.
But I like your answer, Paul. One thing I found that helps is an odd suggestion,
perhaps, but it's to learn a second language. Unilingual people often take for
granted that translation is simply a matter of selecting a word in the original
language, A-ish, and looking for the corresponding word in B-ish, the target
language. But when you actually learn B-ish, you find it's not that simple.
Learning a foreign language is also learning a foreign (literally) way of
thinking. I mean just look at English -- at all the misunderstandings that can
arise between speakers from different countries from Britain to Singapore, US
army brat to US valley girl.
To me science and religion are like different languages. There are limits to that
metaphor, so don't take it too literally, but it's kind of how I view it, or try
to explain it. Perhaps weakly. [Self-promotion alert] I have an essay on my
website with my thoughts on the differences. In fact, Stephen helped me with the
title, because I'm not fluent in Italian, and I wanted a take-off on Galileo's
famous (and probably apocryphal) statement, eppur si muovo (and yet it [the
Earth] moves). I've called my essay eppur si riconciliano:
By the way, there are illustrations in the essay, but I've found that with some
browsers they don't show up. My apologies if they don't, but I don't know enough
about HTML to fix the problem.
Paul Osborne wrote:
> >Maybe the scriptures really are just an ancient collection of
> >Hebrew folk talks. Is that possible?
> Well, I've put all my eggs in one basket in the which the scriptures are
> true. However, it seems that symbolism plays a major part in the stories
> told of the Bible which could make what we think is reality as something
> totally different. I don't know John. I just try to believe. I try to
> have faith but I don't have any interest in trying to be perfect in this
> I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and have felt the awesome power of
> the Holy Ghost tell me it's true. I believe in Joseph Smith just as much
> as I believe in Christ. To me, Jesus is no more the Savior than Joseph is
> a prophet and they both are equally true. Take one away and they both
> collapse together.
> The scriptures on the other hand are open to continuous interpretation
> because they have many abstract concepts that need further explaining.
> I'll be very upset to learn that the earth was not universally flooded as
> I believed or that the 6,000 year plan was not so. I don't like believing
> in untruths. I want the truth and nothing but the truth.
> Paul O
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> Visit www.juno.com
> /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
Guns donít kill people; people with guns kill people
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///