Dear Steven
Are you aware of the work of Unger and Smolin where they argue for the
evolution of laws?
The Singular Universe….THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME
Cambridge University Press, November 30, 2014.
Synopsis
This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of nature. We
As a person who does a lot of talking within, I must suggest that even
spirituality is a high-flown term. My notion of it is more in the spirit of
Jesus' evocation of Abba who is after all the one he recommended we address
in the only prayer he ever is known to have recommended, presumably written
Let's see if I can do better :-)
1. and 2. I understand your point. However, I have argued that the elder
Peirce's "re-conceive" religion as science. It is certainly the case that
Comte rails against religion but Benjamin says "wait" science needs to
explain *everything* as one universe including
o~o~o~o~o~o~o
Aristotle • There Is No Science Of The Individual As Such
o~o~o~o~o~o~o
“Scientific Knowledge Is Of The Universal”
“No Scientific Knowledge Of The Individual”
o~o~o
Thanks for your reply - which raise more questions.
1-2)You state that points 1 and 2 -'are deliberately ambiguous to allow
inclusion of existing religions'. But this doesn't answer my question which was
that you seem to have merged the nature of religion (and religious knowledge)
with science
1. and 2. are deliberately ambiguous to allow inclusion of existing
religions. Obviously, not all religions are scientific.
3. The definition is mine and I include the universal "basis of experience"
(per my work) whose effects are unity in structure; i.e., the causal reason
sense and response for
There is no future for religion not merely because it cannot be
scientifically validated but because religions are by definition a
plurality of separate faiths most of whom claim universality, an
impossibility in itself.
There is a scientifically validated future for spirituality which can and
doe
Steven - I have a few questions:
1) You wrote: "religion as science or science as religion". With this rejection
of the differentiation between religion and science - how do you define this
new approach? My understanding of religion is that it rests on a priori axioms
that are outside of the re
