Hi Santosh and Fr. Ivo, Goanet has some well-recognized experts, even if some Goans do not recognize them and others are indifferent to them. We should use these experts to help the rest of us expand our knowledge. We should be the "inquiring minds that want to know". Hence non-experts instead of opining should be inquiring.
While most physicians are trying to understand and help the body, Dr. Helekar needs to be complimented for working to do the same for the mind. From his writings, it appears much progress has been made in our understanding of the workings of the mind. Fr. Ivo needs to be complimented for his masterful knowledge of religion (with references) and an in-depth understanding of how science gets interpreted. Fr. Ivo too informs us that much progress has been made in our understanding of god and religion. The wanna-be experts on god and religion, just melted away trying to dialogue with Fr. Ivo. Individuals refer to how things (culture, society, religion) were done 14th -19th century. I would like to point out that, medical treatment for many diseases during this time-period consisted of "bleeding the patient, followed by drinking a glass of urine to regain color". This is not humor. Many experts today believe that the therapeutic bleeding that President George Washington underwent for his illness, was the main cause of his death. Hence the Goanetter who quotes / relies on ancient facts and events, suggest that the author has failed to keep up with current information / thinking on the issue being discussed. The 'Expert' criticizing areas of their own filed, should / would offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Most non-experts expressing a critical opinion are merely being "over the top", hoping to sound intellectual. I have a special name for that.:=)) Anybody who quotes antiquated facts, outside the discussion of history, fall into the category of 'engaging in demagoguery'. Reading these posts is not worth the time and certainly does not call for a response. Their post exposes the shallowness of the writer. Constructs / models are conceptual visualizations of arm-chair experts. They are helpful to explain the facts which have occurred. They have little standing to predict the future with any certainty, unless it is a continuum of the past. One person's assumptions on which the construct is built is as valid (on invalid), as another person's fanciful assumptions. Albert Einstein's own theories, based on hard science and peer-reviewed mathematical formulas, dismissed the occurrence of a "Big Bang" or the presence of "Dark Energy" - today's accepted facts. i.e. his calculations led to the reverse conclusions like supporting the "Steady State" theory of the origin of the universe. Religion in addition to being a science of philosophy and other fields, has long since, moved to an area of "living the belief" in a practical world. My criticism of atheists on this forum is: More often than naught, they make incorrect / wrong / antiquated statements on religion against which they make very intelligent arguments. Responding to their post is to buy-into their false underlying premise. On a personal level, I see many situations where science will find it difficult to explain. Not infrequently, I will see a patient I have treated with advanced cancer, who with overwhelming statistics is supposed to live for about 4 months. Yet, the patient is alive three years later, without cancer. I could say their survival was because of the radiation that I administered. Or would I rather say (to myself), as this patient embraces me with gratitude that, "this is a 'miracle patient'; and I am glad that I was an instrument in God's hand"? Is this Religion VS Science? Or is it Religion AND Science? You kow what this supurlo Goenkar thinks.:=)) Kind Regards, GL ---------------- Santosh Helekar I think Gilbert is right. The scientific views of a religious man who does not know much about science are worth very little. The same is true for the religious views of a scientist who does not know much about religion. But in a secular forum religion and science have equal value. Both are equally subject to criticism. Secularism, first and foremost entails fairness and justice, and equal treatment of religion and non-religion. ------------------- Fr. Ivo da C. Souza My aim in writing in this Forum was to tell not to meddle in the field of Bible and Theology and attack Christian Faith in the name of Science. This is a secular Forum, open to all, where nobody should attack Religion in the name of Science, without an adequate knowledge...
