I dunno. I've always looked at the whole thing like:
Religion: the study of WHO & WHY the universe was created. Science: the study of HOW the universe was created. I mean, this "God" could of waved his (rather big) hands and used the manufacturing process of "the big bang" to get the job done. For example. What I'm getting at is that... Science & Religion .. they don't have to conflict with one another. My friend from college used to always say... "RELIGION ... IS SEARCHING FOR "GOD" SCIENCE ... IS SEARCHING FOR "THE TRUTH" AND IF "THE TRUTH" IS "GOD" THEN THE TWO WILL FIND THE SAME THING." This is such a cool discussion group!! Good job Keith!! :) Curtis > >If debating some of the basic science of energy is > very much on-topic, > >then I don't see any way to avoid bringing up > philosophy and religion. > > You're quite right, and I was aware of the > contradiction in my own posts. > > >I may personally look down upon clinging to the > idea that the Bible > >(or some other religious thought) is pertinent to > cosmology physics > >discussions in 21st century society, but others may > not. > > There's a blurred area between physics and > metaphysics where it's > hard to distinguish the two, and maybe foolish to > try. Harmon talked > of the physics of Tao, or is it the Tao of physics, > and many > physicists take that seriously. You can see why - > they're different > angles on the same thing, and when that "thing" is > so slippery to > grasp, it helps to consider every angle you can. > Dreams are not > exactly rational, the stuff of Jungian psychology, > the spirit, and > perhaps metaphysics, but Niels Bohr's famous model > of the atom came > to him in a dream in which he was sitting on the sun > with all the > planets whizzing around on strings. Not the only > such case. I think > any strict division here would be a false one, and a > subtraction. > > The problem seems to arise at one step removed, in > the overlap > between metaphysics and sectarian religion, where > seeking for truth > becomes a futile argument over The Truth, a clash > between opposing > convictions. I think we all ought to try and avoid > this. Nothing can > be gained by it. > > >I guess I > >can build a list of email filters, though that is a > double-edged > >sword. > > Indeed. > > >I suppose a line that can be drawn here is to point > out that if > >sometimes the science of energy is going to come > up, that the Bible > >and other religious texts are discredited as good > sources of > >scientific physics thinking, and so are generally > not pertinent on a > >specific scientific level. But there is no hope of > convincing too > >many others of that, or of getting them to respect > that, so I wouldn't > >bother to try personally. I'd just ignore them for > the most part. > > But it quite quickly gets right out of hand. > > >Further, there are other nuances to such matters, > such as the > >philosophic and psychological issues that come up > on political > >strategizing, as well as in discussing the issues > around science and > >its history. Since religion is a subset of > philosophy (at least as I > >see it) I don't see a quick easy to way to > delienate here. > > No. It has to be case by case, I guess. > > >Anyway, this is a great discussion group, though > obviously I am not up > >to the hardcore chemistry discussion. > > I think most of us aren't, but some of us are, and > they don't seem to > mind if the rest of us sit at their feet. We can all > learn from each > other - except where overheated arguments start to > form a vortex that > distorts healthy discussion. > > >I'd rather have it that folks > >go over the line, since it's hard to find > integrated thinking or > >attempts at it, and then I can just filter out what > I don't want to > >respond to. But that's just my $.02 and I haven't > been here that > >long. > > Very good deal for only 2 cents, you sell yourself > short. :-) > > I'm very glad you like the group. You've been here a > while, and > you've contributed much, it's as much your group as > anybody else's. > > I think most people are pretty sensible, they know > how to behave, > they moderate themselves, they draw their own line, > and that's > usually good enough, and why I don't want to lay > down any rules. I'd > much rather have it get out of hand now and then > than constrict the > thing to prevent transgressions and stifle > discussion in the doing. > > Have to do something though. So let's try this then: > NO RELIGIOUS > WARS! By order. (Think that'll work, for now?) > > Regards > > Keith Addison > Slightly baffled moderator > > ===== Join the Revolution! http://thincnet.com/revolution9/downline/vdownline.html?9107 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
