jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (321 posts)

Religion and Science--- Complementary or Exclusionary?

  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being guided by metaphysical thinking. The same thinking that is now influencing many modern day physicists (both theoretical and experimental) who are trying to unify quantum field theory with Einstein's theory of gravitation.

    It is of course true that philosophers and artists (of the religious and non-religious persuasion) have written  volumes( books and papers) about quantum mechanics and gravity theory, whereas scientists are now only beginning to explore the reality embodied in quantum field theory.

    What I am proposing is that acquiring a comprehensive picture of the physical world requires the combination of physics and philosophy/religion or to some extent, art.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That isn't true at all. If you're going to argue in favor of God, you should try to be honest about it rather than putting together a pack of lies. It's people like you who give religion a bad name.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Encephalo:
        What pack of lies are you referring to?

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Scientists aren't driven by metaphysical thinking as they are by the scientific method., which precluded metaphysical thinking long ago. No need to make up stuff to defend God.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @encephalo:

            I think you need to refresh your memory bank regarding Newton's and Einsteins's approach to  the empirical model.....lots of imaginative/metaphysical  thinking there, that are not  entirely/purely   based on the physical/material.  Einstein himself said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge.".... and I think Newton would agree completely to that assertion.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, there was thinking about the physical stuff, that's about all. Imagining how things can work using gedanken is not the same thing as metaphysical thinking.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Really?
                Meinard  Kuhlmann, the noted physicist and philosopher had this to say about the topic that we are discussing: "Metaphysics (or philosophy, or religion) supplies various competing frameworks for the ontology  of the material world, although beyond questions of internal consistency, it cannot decide among them, Physics, for its part, lacks a coherent account of fundamental issues, such as the definition of objects, the role of individuality, the status of properties, the relation of things and properties, and the significance of space and time."

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sounds like he really likes to philosophize about stuff, good for him. Doesn't sound much like a physicist, though.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @Encephalo:

                    You might want to Google Prof. Kuhlman, who, if I am not mistaken has  dual degrees in physics and philosophy, and has done professorial/research work at the universities of Oxford, Chicago and Pittsburgh.

                2. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

          2. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Encephalo:

            And BTW, God does not need to be defended..... for what kind of a Supreme Being would He be if  He needs me, a mere mortal, to defend Him. Now belief in God....that should be defended.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I might agree with that, but I wouldn't agree to go to such lengths defending ones beliefs by sacrificing their integrity.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Encephalo:
                My original  post was neither intended to be a defense of my beliefs, nor did I sacrifice the integrity of those beliefs by suggesting that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You might find the suggestion abhorrent because your prescription for being a good Christian does not include being able to conceptualize the idea (not a radical one, to my thinking) that belief in God could be informed by empirical  observation and methodologies or vice-versa.

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Which part isn't true?

    2. MasGnosis profile image61
      MasGnosisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The problem is that it is okay to be wrong in science but not in religion.  You can not work hand in hand with someone who is always right even when they are wrong.  Religions have been wrong about the Earth being flat, the center of the universe, and has killed countless people for "witchcraft" while science in all cases has found the truth.  This is a general statement but overall this is what the relationship between religion and science has been throughout history.  Until religion can accept that what they have believed in for thousands of years may be wrong then they are like oil and water.  You can't seek out the truth is if you want to believe lies.

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's also not quite true. Science, or people who honestly believed they were doing good scientific work, has produced plenty of bad stuff, including alchemy and the racial theories that eventually lead to T4 and the gas chambers.

        Religious people have made plenty of bad choices, but like science, most people who are truly seeking God go through a process of trying to see what is true and what isn't.

        And if you're going to say that the people who produced the junk science weren't 'real' scientists, then congratulations! Scientists as well as religious people can fall prey to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy!

      2. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @MasGnosis:
        The Catholic Church and other branches of Christianity have long concluded and  accepted the fact  that their  perception and  interpretation of the material/physical world was erroneous , and that science should be given sole/ultimate purview of that aspect of human endeavor. So to keep dredging historical factoids about how malevolent religious leaders were   during the times when they thought they have the sole responsibility  of interpreting the physical world, .......just does not cut it as debating points.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So organized religion and religious leaders do not browbeat the public with their personal interpretations of what God has done in the world?

          As in declaring that homosexuals are "self made" and it is a choice rather than genetic, you mean?

          As in declaring that creationism is a scientific theory, useful is describing the beginnings of the universe?

          As in declaring that a zygote has a soul and abortion doctors are therefore murderers?

          As in declaring that the evolution of one species into another is impossible - that only god can create a species and that He does it in one shot without intermediate steps?

          I suppose that if you think all these are true (as most religious leaders do) that "malevolent" hardly describes forcing other people to accept them.  To those that already know better, however, "malevolent" fits quite well.  Nor will those people quite accept that religious leaders leave describing the physical world (genetics of homosexuality, perhaps) to science.  Not with the constant bombardment from religion that only they have all the answers.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The zygote does have a soul. As soon as the egg and sperm come together there is a flash of light in the astral world and a waiting soul is attracted by it and enters the union. So I have heard and believe. It is more likely to be true than not.
            God did not make homosexuality, the individual did... If not in this life, the last. An individual can always get over it if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately they mostly don't. Habits and desires are hard to change or shed.

            1. JMcFarland profile image94
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Are.  You.  Kidding.  Me?!?!

              You have GOT to be joking.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly. Did I miss the joke here?

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCJ_PXsLY-xu1FNIZLB6qgEix6ybhUr8JwyCl7EvYWjT067qPa5Q

            3. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You have "heard" there is a flash of light in a non-existant astral world (where photons are highly unlikely to exist anyway) and it is therefore true.  And somehow decided that it is "more likely" true than not, having zero evidence to support such a claim other than the statement from some charlatan.  You even go so far as to maintain that a soul enters the zygote; a soul that is undetectable by any method known to man and thus cannot be tested for.

              You claim a homosexual can "get over it" as if there was something to get over.  Again in the face of all scientific evidence, leaving only the beliefs of religious leaders who have decided that because of some scriptural verse written into the bible during deliberations of the council of Nicaea.

              You make my case very well; religious people, whether leader or follower, most definitely describe the natural world from within their belief system, AND require that others accept that description as true.  (Otherwise there would not be such a legal fight by religion against gay marriage OR abortion).

              Thank you for the help, although if you would support the idea that such a thing is malevolent (think of the gays intentionally being hurt) it would be appreciated.

            4. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              lol lol lol lol

              Sorry. I couldn't help myself.  I've read a lot of silly things on this site, bit that one is going to be hard to top. Bravo.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thats because you have no evidence of the astral world or what goes on there.
                -too bad.

                1. JMcFarland profile image94
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  that's because there IS no evidence of the astral world or what goes on there.

                  Why don't you provide some and solve the problem?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have my sources which I believe are credible but you would not. So, I shall not even try. 
                    No one has scientific proof of when the soul enters the zygote. However, It stands to reason, it is when the union of the egg and sperm occurs. Where does an ant go after it is squished? There is no proof that it goes to the astral realm, but where else would it go?  Then the little ant entity reincarnates into another ant egg or if it happens to be ready, the egg of a higher life form, say a spider....
                    Believe me, there is much traffic coming and going from earth to astral plane and vice verse.
                    What is the evidence of electromagnetic energy? You sure can't see it directly.
                    In the same way, you can't see the astral realm of existence!

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You know, I'd have simply rolled my eyes at the statement, if you hadn't added the drivel about homosexuals. Shame on you for claiming something so ignorant is fact on an astral plane.  May the fates help us if there is such an obtuse existence outside of this one.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You go girl. I like it when we agree.

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Everything can be created through thought, depending on the spiritual evolution of the soul.
                    Jesus talked about His "Father's house" as a place where there are "many mansions" and no marriage. So I have read.

            5. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              UMMMMMMMM... Give me a few minutes to process this and come up with something diplomatic to say



              The issue a lot of Christians face (Yes I am guilty of this as well at times) is that we take things we hear and believe them without checking the information out for ourselves.



              Then the evidence you have should be sufficient enough to satisfy everyone.





              .........Let me be silent on this one. I'm sure there are a few that will address this

            6. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You just made that up didn't you? Come on, admit it.


              I guess you are an expert in this field as well. Funny though that all the other experts say the opposite, Even the one who tried to change others admit they were wrong.

              Please say something else, I really could use another laugh. However some may say your second thought was hurtful, I would be one of them.

              Oh, and thanks for making Wilderness's point.

            7. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Are you familiar with the scientific facts of human sexual orientation including the evidence for genetic and epignetic formation of sexual orientation?

              Do you really believe sexual orientation is a choice or the result, apparently, of some bad karma?

          2. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Wilderness:
            Browbeating?...; forcing?...;  homosexualist self-making?...; .creationist theorizing?.....zygotic spiritualizing ? ......species dis-evolutionizing?

            Man,  you are giving these religionists  more credit than they deserve.... and to think they could not even deal with the simple matter of abusive clergymen.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Who do you think is making the statement that a zygote has a soul?  The atheists of the world?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Wilderness:

                I think the sarcasm missed your antenna entirely.

      3. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Masgnosis:
        "...science in all cases has found the truth..." is hardly a believable statement. Scientists  themselves  would find that amusing and bemusing.

        Religion, when science was not quite dominant yet  in explaining the material and physical world, tried to fill in the blanks, but as we could discern from historical records, it was a disaster, for general knowledge in general but most specifically for the people who were affected adversely by the  fanatical way the religious leaders of the those time tried to impose their false perception and  interpretation of the physical world.

    3. maryaliceyoung profile image60
      maryaliceyoungposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      complementary for sure!

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago
    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Psyche:

      NOMA as proposed by Gould  seems to resolve the "supposed conflict between science and religion". The operative word being :"supposed"

      From my perspective there should never be any conflict ( supposed or otherwise) between science and religion because at the end of the day, both aims to find TRUTH in Homo Sapiens... the reality of his existence,  (and of the world around him) and  his final destiny. The basic underpinning  of  science  is that it delves with the empirical model of finding the truth of the material world; the basic tenet of  religion is that  emphasizes the truth about the spiritual underpinning of that material existence. The veracity of each other's basic underpinning (science), and basic tenet(religion),  as well as the validity of their role in human affairs  are neither oxymoronic nor sophistic.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "...both aims to find TRUTH in Homo Sapiens..."

        No they don't.  Science may (and usually does) try to find truth, but religion seeks to find an answer that satisfies some of the few observations it makes (while ignoring others) plus the emotional side of Homo Sapiens wants and desires.  Actual truth is strictly secondary.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @wilderness:
          It is beyond my comprehension that your view of  homo sapiens in general and religion  in particular is tinged with  nihilism.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Elucidate, please.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image80
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @Wilderness:

              According to my balancing scale, a tinge of nihilism is equat to a ton of  pessimism.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Still don't see that either one has anything to do with recognizing that science deals with reality while religion deals with individual and personal perceptions of reality and the specific results of those perceptions in people.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Religion deals with "perceptions" of reality? I guess so. See below. I took out  "Nope" before it was permalinked.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What does it deal with in that case?

                  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    - religion deals with actual real time tuning into (perceptions of) metaphysical realities.
                         Actually, wilderness is exactly right, now that I looked up the word, perceptions! 

                    My point is this: Science and Religion are both science based. LOL  I know that is not understood. The Source of our true Selves is real and one can really tune into (perceive) It.
                    So I understand.

                2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @Wilderness:
                  Religion in the context of this specific OP is a generic term which I meant to imply as the personal ( and not the institutionalized) system of beliefs, attitudes, and practices that has for its basic underpinning, the service to or worship of God or the Supernatural.

                  The problem with you and Rad Man is that, as usual, you are conflating the generic  perception of  "religion", with  the  institutionalized  one  i.e. Catholic Church or other organized religious groups.

                  I any case, I still would argue, that even in the case of organized or institutionalized religious groups, specifically as directed against  the Catholic Church, or the Fundamentalist movement by you and Rad Man, their  methodology of expressing and defending  theirs belief systems as it comes under attack from all sorts of precincts do not involve manipulation in as much as strictly speaking, to manipulate means to achieve control via deceptive, unfair, and insidious ways.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    We can appreciate their efforts at being Dogma Police.
                    However, the crusades were way back in time... During darker times. Haven't we come a long way since then?

                    In defense of the majority of today's Christians:
                    They ...
                    Are against unjust killing of any type.
                    Are against abuse of all types.
                    Are kind to their neighbors as to themselves.
                    Accepting of others no matter the differences.
                    Are charitable to those in need.
                    Benefit from reading the Bible.
                    Are kind and loving to their children
                    Strive to educate their children well.
                    Are cooperative with civil institutions.
                    Are cooperative with governmental institutions.
                    Accept scientific discoveries as truth.

                  2. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "...their  methodology of expressing and defending  theirs belief systems as it comes under attack..."

                    The "attacker" in the crusades was religion.

                    The manipulators in the fight against gay rights in California were the religious, entering a state not their own to influence and manipulate the voting process they could not participate in themselves.

                    The people requiring myth be presented as factual on our money were not secular, just as those erecting religious icons on public property are not.  Manipulate the people with a constant barrage of religions words and pictures.

                    The people trying to influence our children by presenting myth as science in our schools are not secular.  Manipulation at it's worst, of our youngsters incapable of reasoning yet.

                    The people standing on street corners and exhorting everyone to believe a myth or burn in hell are not the non-believers, trying to manipulate others to believe a myth as fact.

                    Now you may or may not view these people as "organized" and you may or may not view their actions as "unfair" or "deceptive".  Neither is relevant, however; people are individuals before they are organized and manipulation does not require that the specific actions be either unfair or deceptive.  Just skillful and effective, which they most certainly are.

                    Nor does a single one of those examples have anything to do with "defending" a belief system; they ALL have to do with manipulating others to accept those beliefs as truth and thus expand, not defend, that system.

  3. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    Gould doesn't know what he's even talking about.

    Science (true science, not fake science) and religion (Christianity) goes hand in hand.   Both are a history of the world and mankind.    Not only are they not separate;  they are inseparable actually,  because the Bible explains true science and true science will back up the Bible's account of creation and etc.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So, how does the Bible explain ring species, atavisms, animal hybrids, cosmic expansion, heliocentrism, and homo erectus?

      Pro-Tip: All of the above are indisputable, and any attempt to do so will be met with derisive laughter.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Zelkiiro:

        We leave the nitty-gritty of scientific desertation and exploration  to those whose empirical antenna are so much  more attuned to the material and the physical.

        The Bible on the other hand is basically the history of a people whose storylines or narratives are told in metaphors, encoded in mythology,  that  then, in most instances, produces golden nuggets of literal truths.

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why does it need to? The major point of the Bible is to explain God and how we can be reconciled with Him. String theory is fascinating and neurobiology is also but they don't tell us how to be right with God, so why do they need to be in the Bible?

        Or do you subscribe to the (fallacious) idea that if the Bible doesn't literally describe everything then it must literally be untrue?

    2. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The late Stephen J Gould had a pretty good idea of what he was talking about.

      He is saying that the individual can reconcile these two domains in their own life.  But they should not butt heads as institutions in the public domain. 

      What in that proposition do you disagree with?  It is basically what Jesus said about rendering under Caesar.

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you have to create falsehoods about God? Is it not enough for you to accept God on a personal level that you have to say things like that? To me, that is just desperation and seems to show you really have no faith in God. Who cares if science and religion aren't compatible? Why would it matter to those who have faith in God?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Encephalo:
        Sorry to tell you this but you are barking at the wrong tree. Try directing your arrows and darts  to the atheists and secularists on Hub Pages.  There are so many of them here , that I don't think you would have any difficulty recognizing their anti-religious rants.

        1. JMcFarland profile image94
          JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So Christians should only challenge and attack non believers and the dreaded "secularists"?  That hadn't happened since, I don't know, EVER.  Christians have been attacking each other ever since christianity began, and since no one can agree on what a "true" Christian is (although coincidentally it often seems to be other Christians who agree with everything that the person calling themselves a true Christian believes) and there are over 40,000 denominations, all of whom believe themselves too be right, your protest seems futile.

          Should believers not point out mistakes in other believers and only go on anti-secular/humanist rants?

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you're saying that all 40,000 denominations are convinced that only they are right and would exclude all others from being "Christian" if given a chance.


            Because that's certainly not my experience.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know, how many times have I heard that Catholics aren't really Christians? Maybe not from you but from others.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, I'm not saying that it never happens, and it happens more within some groups than others and it happens to some groups more than others as well. But it's still not true to make it sound like there's some kind of internecine war among different denominations at all times.

            2. JMcFarland profile image94
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              no, certainly not all.  But I would doubt that you would consider Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians.  Baptist say that Catholics aren't true Christians.  A lot of Catholics return the favor.

              How many times have you seen it personally on these forums?  One Christian telling another that, because they have a difference of opinion, the other person is not a "true Christian"?  Some are infamous for it.  How many times have you heard someone tell me that because I'm now an atheist, I was never a "true Christian" to begin with. 

              The problem is that no one knows exactly what a "true Christian" is.  They just all have their own bias and their own opinion about it.  Christianity wasn't originally a unified religion either - the earliest Christians had a WIDE variety of beliefs, and the Christianity that you see today would not even be recognizable to the majority of the early christians in the 1st and 2nd century.  Hell, for that matter, SCRIPTURE would not be recognizable to first century christians.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                **Raises hand**

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  **Raises other hand**

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, as I said to Rad, that is most certainly true. And I have defined what a 'true Christian' is (according to the Bible and early church thinking, so it wasn't something I just came up with) and did immediately face some (not a lot, but some) hostility from those who think that more of the peripherals and secondaries need to match exactly with their view.

                We could discuss Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but I doubt that was your point.

                Still, it's not like we're all at war with each other all the time.

                1. JMcFarland profile image94
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You have defined what a true Christian is according to your interpretation of biblical teachings and the proto-consensus of early christianity.  I would imagine that you discount and disagree with the same "heresies" that they did.  Do you not find that the slightest bit coincidental for your views today?  The version of the Bible that you have would not havebeen recognized as scripture at all, and all you have to go on is what won out in the doctrinal battles and was therefore preserved.  It want necessarily the first christianity.  It just win out in the end, and you choose to accept it as absolute fact, 2000 years later.  Have you studied the early variations of the church in any depth, Chris?

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not unfamiliar with the history of how the Bible came into the form it is today. No, I don't find it coincidental. I do find it ironic that the Bible that probably would have come into being were it not for the so-called 'witch hunts' of that time would, in fact, exclude even more people from being 'real Christians' than the one we know today does.

                    And lively debate and eventual consensus was one of God's tools. I don't know if you subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories a la Dan Brown, but the fact is that they are quite unlikely.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @JMcFarland:

            From my overarching point of view a "Christian" is anyone who subscribes to the behavioural tenets propounded  by Jesus Christ in his Sermont on the Mount specifically the beatitudes. Any disagreement among folks who call themselves "Christians" about anything else are all meaningless drivel.

            1. JMcFarland profile image94
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              and that's merely the opinion that you have.  Does that make it automatically correct - or is your opinion open to error and criticism like the opinions of others?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @JMcFarland:
                Opinions (in some quarters, are called "beliefs") are meant to fill the space between the material and the spiritual. As I have said in another forum, the world would indeed be empty without opinions or  beliefs. One's opinions or beliefs might be anathema to another, but that's just the way the world goes. The truth is never absolute nor ceratin , except  death and taxation.

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because the truth matters. In our own ways, that's what we all (or at least most of us) are attempting to get at. That science and religion wouldn't necessarily be at odds is a hypothesis worth exploring, and I don't understand why the test of faith would have to be the rejection of science. Since God created the world and all the physical laws that govern it, the desire to understand those laws would be both good science and good religion.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have never seen anything linking science, theories and facts to religious beliefs and God. One is based on direct observational evidence from experimentation and one is faith in the invisible. Science doesn't show that God created the universe and all the physical laws that govern it, that is only stated in Genesis.

          That says nothing of the direct contradiction from those who reject science, theories and fact in favor of biblical verses.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Without denying that there are indeed those people, there are also those who maintain a strong faith while not only accepting science but actively pursuing it. And a belief in Creation is not ipso facto a rejection of science.

            You forget or choose not to believe that religious people often have their own experiences. The fact that they cannot be replicated under laboratory conditions is not in and of itself proof that they aren't true.

            And you also forget or choose not to remember (or choose to interpret differently, I've seen this done) that many of the great scientists, including Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, were also men of great faith who pursued scientific discovery but did not see a conflict with their faith.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's fine that people with a strong faith are pursuing science but that doesn't mean they are compatible. It's also fine they have experiences, but isn't a reason, either. It's fine that some great scientists had faith. None of that is the same thing as science and faith being compatible. Look what faith did to Galileo, it got him locked up because of his science.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is, at best, a massive oversimplification of the situation.

                What got Galileo locked up was his ego. Yeah, he came into direct conflict with the medieval Catholic church, which was a genuine world power at that point. And yes, the men at the head of the church often overreacted to things. But it's also true that if Galileo (according to one documentary I heard) had simply waited for the process to move in due course, he wouldn't have been locked up.

                Now granted, that process would have taken many years. I am in no way actually taking the church's side on this one. But there were those within the church who were urging him to be patient and were ready to accept what he was saying.

                What I'm ultimately saying is that people who reach for Galileo as some great symbol of the clash of faith and science don't understand the situation on the ground at that time. The truth is both murkier and more mundane.

                Now if you want guys who got in trouble for their faith, try Martin Luther and John Knox...

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Right Chris, just be patient and don't publish your book that indicates that the entire universe doesn't orbit the earth, or we could have you killed or the very least confined to your house for the rest of your life.

                  This is the very reason we have secular societies, Christians held science back about a thousand years with that just be patient nonsense.

                  It would be like the church have someone executed because that wrote a book about evolution. We are talking about publishing a book here. Just hold off until the church says it's okay?

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, I didn't say that.

                    And that's not why we have secular societies.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Galileo's ego was never mentioned as a reason for his incarceration. Where did you get that notion?



                  Please show us this murky and mundane truth we are not privy to know?

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You are privy, I did show you, and you can investigate for yourself.

                    And that first one? Why would the church incarcerate him for his ego? No one who got in trouble ever had 'ego' listed as an official charge. Nice try, but you can do better.

  4. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Beautiful, AV.

    Science and religion are most assuredly complimentary.

    Science studies the products of creation -- the realm of physical reality which is one of continuity.

    Religion, in its purest form, studies the sources of creation -- the realm of timeless discontinuity.

    Between the two of them, both science and religion cover the entire gamut of existence.

    What muddies the waters between these two fields of study is ego and the products of ego like the bias built into skepticism (that of potent doubt), and the darker sides of skepticism, like unsupported dismissiveness and self-indulgent ridicule. These are found all too often in science -- as with the "Clovis first" dogma debacle, the shoddy behavior of scientists in reaction to cold fusion and arsenic-friendly microbes, and the fraudulent behavior of NIST scientists in avoiding the obvious implications of WTC7 free fall on 9/11.

    Perhaps it could be amazing that scientists don't immediately see the problem with their prized paradigm of investigatory approach (skepticism), but perhaps they are so inured to the use of skepticism that ego defends it's use as a natural consequence of self-righteousness found in ego. It persists perhaps because of a sophisticated form of Normalcy Bias, whereby ego self defends the illogical as logical and doesn't see the hypocrisy because of concurrent mastery of other forms of intellectual prowess -- assuming that skills in one area automatically translate to all areas. That is the nature of the blindness that ego bestows on all of its victims.

    But Fundamentalist believers are just as guilty of letting ego get the best of them. They deny science and, by doing so, risk falling into delusion.

    "Bliss ungrounded in physical reality is not bliss but delusion, insists the Jewish master," Bayha ben Joseph Ibn Paquda, an eleventh-century judge in the rabbinical court at Saragossa (Caesar Augusta), Spain (from Perle Epstein's 1978 book, Kabbalah, The Way of the Jewish Mystic).

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Excuse me: It is logical to assume that Science deals with how the Source of life crafts everything that lives. 
      Carry on.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Lone Star:
      Thanks for your always  well reasoned input. I was just wondering though if the quote from the Jewish Master should have read; "Bliss grounded in physical reality is not bliss but delusion..."

  5. habeeb rehman profile image59
    habeeb rehmanposted 3 years ago

    Is it right to separate religion form science? Which one is superior, Science or Religion!  Science has revisited its some of original thoughts in the past.  And divine principles are unchanged if it is proved to be revealed from the heaven. These lines may be teasers, and may increase my knowledge.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Which one is superior depends on the desired result.  If you want useful knowledge of the world around you that can be used to improve your lifestyle, science is necessary.  Religion has never provided any such knowledge.

      If you want to alleviate a fear of dying or want to feel loved, if you want a father figure where there is none or need guidance on morality, religion is the way to go.  Science has never provided any of that, although it has made a feeble effort on the morality issues.

      Science has changed, yes, just as religious principles have.  Christianity is almost unrecognizable from what it was 1500 years ago and Muslims are changing their basic beliefs as well (particularly in the treatment/attitude towards women).  Things change, often as a necessity to reflect a greater knowledge base of improved morality guidelines, and both have to change as well to keep pace.

      As there has never been a principle proven to be revealed from heaven (no heaven proven to exist, so nothing proven to be revealed from there), there is not a single religious principle that is sacrosanct, never to be changed.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        FYI The logic of atheists cannot deny the existence of God to those who believe in God.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course it can.  It will simply be ignored, is all. 

          At the same time, "logic" cannot deny the possibility of a god.  It can deny the existence of your god, but it is a weak argument, based on circumstantial evidence rather than facts and that, too, will be ignored rather than openly considered.

          Because, as I said, the theist isn't interested in truth and reality but in other things that take priority to them.  Not unusual - people deny hard evidence every day for things they want to believe, let alone a logical discussion without any factual evidence.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I believe that belief in an unseen God is legitimate and that religion does not exclude science. Science observes, reveals and explains to the best of its ability certain aspects of life including the chemical make-up of the elements, the reasons for the effects seen in space and the truth of life on various levels including molecular and subatomic, etc.  And I have been given the right to believe, (by my own authority,) that Everything that manifests is evidence of an Unseen Force which initiated life in the beginning and continues to manifest/maintain it on a constant level. Furthermore I have proof of God on a personal level, therefore No One can deny my belief in God. In all actuality our discussions are really  o n l y  about personal opinions and should be regarded (politely) as such.
            Every argument an atheist presents is very interesting.
            Every argument a theist presents is very interesting.
            We don't have to be surprised about the beliefs and opinions of others and we don't have to reveal opinions regarding their beliefs either. We can observe, reflect and comment based on our own thoughts, realizing them for their true worth.
            After all, what one's thoughts are based on, is entirely up to the sincere deductions of the individual. Proof is helpful but, in my opinion, not required.
            What you have to say, wilderness, is very interesting to me. However, I can't live, as you do, without a belief in an unseen force, typically referred to as God.  But, that's just me. Each to his own.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly.. nobody was trying to deny your belief in God. Nobody tries to dismiss or deny a belief. It's when that individual belief is presented as universal truth that the proof is requested and required. As long as a belief is presented as a belief, there is little to no problem (outside of a difference of belief)

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Am I guilty of presenting my beliefs as universal truths?  Sorry, if so. I will make sure to add, "as I believe."
                By the way, how come it is so hard for many to contemplate the possibility of reincarnation? (- which I believe to be a universal truth....even Jesus spoke of it.) Just because, presently, one has no proof of it? Why not at least contemplate the possibility. And there is a possibility based on the scientific fact that energy is indestructible. I have heard we (as energy beings or souls) come back to human forms through re-birth. And Yes, we are completely different and new beings.... but, the same individual essences from a previous incarnation.
                Why is this possibility difficult to entertain?

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry if I came across as harsh, but for those of us that believe and hold our beliefs as personal and not universal, it is extra important for us to make sure that not only that we keep it conveyed that our beliefs are our personal beliefs, but also to remember that we must be open to the possibility that we could be wrong because the universal truth has not been revealed yet.

                  Even if you add the words "as I believe", you will still face disagreement from many sides because, no offense, but we have no idea where your beliefs are coming from some of the time.



                  Well, the main religion that believes in reincarnation is Hinduism. Christians don't really believe in reincarnation because the Bible speaks of heaven and hell as final destinations. Same with Muslims and Jews. A lot of religions believe in a post- mortem paradise of some sort.. Atheists, of course, don't believe in anything beyond death

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Jesus spoke about reincarnation. it is in the Bible. I propose that the belief in reincarnation was a given during Jesus' time. Perhaps The (Catholic) Church got rid of the belief for their own reasons in history.  However, you are right, the important thing to focus on is heaven (within) and knowing how to avoid hell (without) in present time. 
                    PS I would say what my sources are, but the the tone set here is ridicule and mockery.  To protect them I will not give them out.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You understand that energy is stored in an even dead body right. It doesn't have to go anywhere. Humans needs to consume a lot of calories to maintain our level of energy use. It's thought human brains can't grow much larger because they will use to much energy even while seemingly in idle. When we consume chicken when convert the chickens energy to our energy. If it was as you'd say there would be a measurable amount of energy loss at death.

            2. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You leave me very little to disagree with. 

              Everyone has a right to their beliefs, just not to enforce them on others.  You can believe in the unseen force all you wish to.  I DO draw the line when you say you have proof, even proof only to you.  That's because a subjective proof like that is proof ONLY that you wish to believe, not that there is anything to believe in, and an honest person understands that. 

              Should you, for instance, look at the world around you and decide that only God could produce it, that is not truly honest with yourself.  Were it about anything BUT a religious/spiritual subject you would never accept such proof - you know better - and it is thus dishonest.

              Yes, every argument a theist presents is interesting - except for those comments (not truly an argument at all) of "I believe because I believe".  A statement, in other words, without an argument to support it.  That quickly become dull and boring.  As a listener I do not believe and am thus uninterested in what you believe - only in how you come to that belief (I think we've had this conversation before?).  When you cannot tell me how that came to be, I quickly lose interest unless, perhaps, you are a part of my daily life.  A new coworker, maybe, that I will interact with often.

              "Sincere deductions" - this goes back to being honest with yourself.  Should you deduce that you believe simply because you wish to, that's one thing.  When you decide that you have adequate evidence to make a choice of belief, but obviously do not have true evidence, that's quite another.  I believe, for instance, in the idea of free will and choose that belief for no other reason than that it pleases me to do so.  Oh, I'll play some silly logic puzzle games with the concept, but it isn't proof and I know that.  I believe because I want to.

              Your last sentence is interesting.  You can't live as I do, without belief in a supernatural creature from another universe that watches you go to bed each night.  Now, that's fine, but do you accept that you believe because you cannot do otherwise?  That your belief is based almost exclusively on the hard wiring in your brain that needs such a belief whether true or not?  Do you accept that your "proof" is nothing more than a desire to believe, superimposed on a mostly irrelevant set of facts?

              If not, you might consider working on being more truthful with yourself.  IF, at least, it will not cause you mental anguish/harm to lose that belief.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                God is not a supernatural creature from another universe that watches me go to bed each night!  Do you presume I think so?
                Why?
                You have eyes to read. You never saw that explanation keyboarded by me ever. Why do you state such made up stuff???

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  To be fair, I don't think he was referring to you specifically. There are some Christians that believe that God directly intervenes in the natural world and as such he is watching us all, even when we are sleep. I don't think he meant any offense here

                2. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  God is not of this universe as he created it.  That means He is not a natural occurrence here and is thus supernatural by definition. 

                  As God created this universe, he cannot have lived in it before creation.  He must have another place to have lived in - call it a universe although that may be stretching the meaning of the word some.

                  God loves us and watches us at all times.  He is omniscient - knows everything - and can only do that by being cognizant of everything that happens.  Again stretching the meaning of the words somewhat, that means He is watching at all times.

                  At least that was what I was taught growing up in a very Christian household.  Should you have your own definitions of what your god is/does, and they differ radically from Christianity (He did not create the universe or is not omniscient) I do apologize.  You're right - I do not recall you having every made either statement.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    God is an omnipresent omnipotent energy force that created and maintains all life and motions of life. The reality of God is beyond our limited ability to intellectually contemplate. We can, I have read, perceive this Force directly through meditation.
    (This is very old news. yawn.)
    And that's what I believe based on Hindu teachings, Buddhist teachings and believe it or not, Christian teachings.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You think he made us in his image, but made us to stupid to comprehend him? Unless you don't think he made us in his image, in which case you can scratch the Christian teachings off your list.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        He did make it possible for us to perceive him. (Darshan: vision of light.) And for us to leave the body consciously. (Samadhi: ascending body consciousness,) ...if you want to believe ancient precepts from India's higher ages. To the yogi, God is bliss. (Jesus gives us a clue as to how to attain these  higher states of consciousness when he said," If thine eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light....") IMO

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I do believe that we are made in God's image. So, no, I do not scratch the Christian teachings off my list.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          do you take that as a physical or spiritual image?

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Or just mental - an intelligence above animal.  Or even emotional - ability to love perhaps.

            I wondered, too.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    God's image:  God's imagination.  So our "image" began with a thought which became a blueprint.  (Before we draw up plans for our dream home, we come up with an image in our minds of the home we want to live in.) Perhaps God came up with an image of the body/heart/mind he wanted us to have/operate. Then he came up with variations of that original body: dinosaurs, animals, birds, reptiles, fish... he even figured out a way for the manifestation of these "images" through a natural process of evolution on earth. Thats what I think/imagine based on my desire to believe that we were created in the "image of God." Makes sense to me. I also wonder if there were spiritual beings who "mated" with prehistoric cavemen...  surmising for sure.
    But, I have heard that when we die, we bring our blueprints with us to the astral realm.  We have light hearts, light bodies and all our organs etc. I know you can't believe any of this, wilderness, but it  is  an exercise in imagining possibilities.  Maybe that's what I do best. Sorry if it is boring to you or anyone else.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We use our imaginations for all kinds of things. I can imagine myself sitting on top of a rainbow or transported to the future or past, but it is simply my imagination.

      1. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Can you taste it??

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ...I don't know, Kathryn.  It sounds like you really have no idea of what you mean yourself by that term "made in god's image".  You talk of imagination, then bodies that are changed from His image to become something else entirely and still feel good that you are in His image. 

      Now we have hearts (meaning emotions, I presume, not hearts), bodies, organs, etc. made of photons, but have zero idea of what that means in reality.  You even imagine another place (that you can't find or describe) that has these photonic bodies housing photonic emotions - this after, I assume, recognizing that emotions and physical bodies are not similar in any way whatsoever.

      While interesting, it does all sound as if you live in a dream world of make believe, without regard for fact or reality.  Presumably the rest of your life isn't like that - you don't work at an imagined job, and pay for your Big Mac with imaginary money - why this part?  Do you truly find it satisfying to imagine whatever you wish and call it truth, or do you recognize it as fantasy and simply enjoy the act of fantasizing sometimes like everyone else?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As I have mentioned before and it is backed up by the Bible...(in Corinthians 15, 26: "...for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal,"  there is the material world and the spiritual world.  It is my understanding that the spiritual (not seen) aspect of life exists as the animating force behind the physical (seen) aspect of life. 1 Corinthians 15, 49: "...as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."
             Yes, I imagined what I wrote but it is based on sincere deductions. I do live in a world based on reality of course, but I am not afraid to use my imagination... especially since it's a skill given to me by God. This skill happens to be located in the brain, which he designed as well. Yes, he brought the brain forth...with our cooperation/involvement through incarnations and evolution. The Way I see It. 
        PS Did you know that in Corinthians, Paul says we can go back to God in the twinkling of an eye? 1 Corinthians 15, 52: " In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.  And in 54: "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."
        - And in 26: " The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
        Interesting! I have heard that he was able to stop his heart, which is an advanced skill in Yoga. He claimed he died daily and yet he wrote what he wrote and continued writing, which is proof that he did not really die...which means that actually, his life was not dependent upon his body! And who taught him this advanced yogic practice? Who do you think? Jesus!

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I guess if it was written and included in a book a few thousand years ago we must believe it. The bible also describes how to beat slaves and when to kill children and even describes how to never show children affection.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            can you provide citations as I have bothered to do?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
              However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property,passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.

              Exodus 21:20-21 NLT
              If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.

              Leviticus 21:9 NLT
              If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father’s holiness, and she must be burned to death.

              Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NLT
              But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin.The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                -how about the "never showing children affection" one?
                Even in Corinthians there are some instructions about women wearing a covering over their heads and never speaking in church and in a marriage they are to pretty much serve the husband. These must be customs and practices during that time. I do not think they are to be applied to changing and changed times. Jesus came with a new way based on loving God. But I now bow officially out. Thanks for the regard you have given.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Deuteronomy 21:18-21

                  18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
                  19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
                  20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
                  21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

                  a.k.a. "If you're being a dumb shyte to your kid and he doesn't want to listen to you, take him to the town officials, lie your ass off about your kid's behavior, and engage in good old-fashioned God-sanctioned murder of the innocent!"

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How about a drunken husband? Oh, they probably didn't have drunken husbands in those days.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow! Way to put an entirely incorrect interpretation onto it! And adding the sort-of cuss word just adds that extra air of authenticity to make up for the lack of actually knowing what you're talking about!


                    Bravo!

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You misunderstand - I did not form the question clearly enough.

          We all use our imagination, and we all sometimes use our past experience/knowledge in conjunction with that imagination to come up with new answers. 

          The question is do we then accept the "answers" and "conclusions" of imagination as truth, or do we test them for truth prior to acceptance?  It seems as if you imagine things, things that agree with your past experience and/or knowledge and are thus accepted as truth.  I, on the other hand, won't do that but will test the things before accepting them.  Merely because an imagined "answer" fits with past experience doesn't mean it is true, at least not to me.  There could well be other answers - answers or conclusions that would indicate I was wrong in the first place, answers I didn't think of, answers that I discarded because it did fit at first glance. 

          You also confuse me a little; are you using "spiritual world" in place of "astral plane" somehow or this yet a second place we cannot detect?

          We have zero writings of Paul.  We have, at best, writings made hundreds of years after Paul's death, filtered through verbal/written reports of other men also reporting what they heard.  Plus, of course, the interjections and changes made in the council of Nicaea by men primarily interested in maintaining and growing their power base (particularly Constantine, who formed the council in the first place but believed nothing to be discussed).

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ...Well, someone wrote for him.  Okay, so he spoke what he spoke and continued speaking. And I am sure that what was recorded was fairly close to what he spoke of. At worst, a lot of the yogic practice he could have taught was left out. Darn... how I would love to know how Jesus taught meditation and other breathing and body control exercises he must have known!
            ...The astral is an aspect of the spiritual.   Jesus mentioned: " In my Fathers house are many mansions." I take this to mean spiritual areas where like souls hang out in between incarnations.
            ...I understand your question. But what would any of have to say or think if we did not use our ability to imagine and deduct some sort of truth for ourselves. I know I am just human.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, no one wrote for Paul.  In the final analysis they wrote explicitly for themselves, to maintain their power base, and claimed it was from Paul.  In some cases, claimed it was the actual handwriting of Paul, not even transcribed.

              You may imagine it was "fairly close" to what Paul actually said, but again don't seem concerned as to the truth of that statement.  It fits, you like it and it makes you happy - no reason to test it for veracity and truth.  We don't work the same...

              The astral is the Texas of the spiritual (US) country.  Got it.  Can we imagine (and believe in) a continuum of "countries" making up the "world", containing thousands or millions of spiritual worlds - God's resting place when He moves on - and so forth?

              It's fun to imagine sometimes.  What would I do with lottery winnings?  What if I could fly?  What if the sun went out?  But they are only for fun.  Other imaginings are useful - "What if I did this to a motor?  Would it have more power and use less gas?", but they need tested before they actually become useful.  While truth is almost always useful in some way it doesn't seem that you separate truth from imagination.  Do you?  Do you test your imagined "things" for reality, to check that they are actually true?

              Or forever wander a fertile imagination, never knowing what is true and what is not?  Different strokes for different folks; I am far more interested in truth than in feeling good, or happy, or comforted.  Others are different.

              An imaginary world (where I win the lottery) can be fun to visit.  For a while, but it palls quickly and boredom sets in.  It isn't real and without that it doesn't last long.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                ...what is real is of God. So, you maybe you actually believe in God but you call it, "what is real."  Thats good, we'll call God, WIR from now on. Agreed?

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No.

                  What is from imagination may or may not be real.  No way of knowing without testing.

                  God comes from imagination. 

                  Whether God is real or not is unknowable without testing; testing that due to the definition of God is not possible.

                  So no, neither God nor the things you attribute to God is necessarily WIR and we do ourselves and others a disservice by indicating it is.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay then, what is real is Life or all that is alive... are rocks alive? at the subatomic level they are, and since we do not imagine rocks, they are real. How is your pet, by the way?

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Is that because you were there or because that's what you want to believe?

  8. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    Do you really believe that claims of a presumed mutual exclusivity of science and religion iscderived entirely from secularism and atheism?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @mbuggieh:

      Entirely, being the operative word....I would say no. The idea of mutual exclusivity is a concept that was not originally proposed by atheists/secularists, (since one could never find any sort of original ideas coming from their precincts), but once they latched on to it, they  started to use it as one of their anti-religionist arguments.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you presume that to be secular is to be "anti-religion"?

        Is the converse true: Is to be religious to be anti-science?

        1. A.Villarasa profile image80
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @mbuggieh:

          Webster defines secularism as "indifference to or exclusion of religion".  Not anti-religion enough for you?
          I am religious in the sense that I believe in the existence of a Supreme Being (call Him God) who initiated the whole process of creation. I am also a man of science. I certainly don't feel conflicted/confused/contradictory  in any way.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            me either!

          2. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The only reason to feel contradicted is if you should choose to compare the methodology used to create a belief with that used to find knowledge.  And then only if you treat a belief as if it were knowledge.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              To interpret: Whomever does not feel contradicted, has not bothered to compare what determines a belief vs. what determines reality. If one does compare, one would feel contradicted, conflicted and confused.
              - what determines a belief?
              - what determines a reality?

              Hint: A belief is created through imagination, wishful thinking and dogmatic suppositions.
              Reality is not created, it is observable and explainable in theory and probability.
              Are we feeling contradicted yet, Mr. Villarasa?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Kathryn:
                Until such time that scientists could explain  or unravel the all too obvious contradiction  between Einstein's  relativity/gravity theories and quantum mechanics... I will continue to  bathe  in the Un-reality of Reality.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  oh! me too then.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I would love it if either of you could explain the obvious contradictions. lol lol

                    No wonder this religion causes so many wars. sad

          3. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Dictionary definitions are really useless in terms of any meaningful discussion.

            That said, if one embraces this dictionary definition, how does "indifference" and/or "exclusion" equate to hostility?

            Again, without referring to a dictionary definition, how is secularism anti-religion?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This one is a follower of Jesus. "Whoever is not with me is against me," is his mantra. Which is why his religion causes so much conflict of course. sad

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                ...only if you yourself buy into it. You can stay out of it. You don't have to go around making it worse.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah - right. All down to the guy who asks that you stop being so divisive. sad

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    you first.

            2. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Dictionary definitions are really useless in terms of any meaningful discussion."

              Absolutely.  If you make up your own definitions you will always be right and there can be no meaningful debate from anyone else.  Just two people mouthing words of differing languages at each other and with no communication at all.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Dictionary definitions are really useless in terms of any meaningful discussion."

                That sentence is up there with one of the top 5 WHAT things I've ever read in hub pages.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Pretty much!  Fascinating what you can read here - as if people turn off their brains before touching the keyboard.

                  Hopefully it just didn't come out the way it was meant - I've had that happen and then, going back and reading what I wrote, wondering just what I'd been smoking that day.

            3. A.Villarasa profile image80
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @mbuggieh:

              Noah Webster must be twirling in his grave ...  you just  slammed his beloved dictionary.

              Simply stated, when someone (or a group of  someone) excludes you from something be it  ordinary human interaction, and or extra-ordinary human intuition and perception, then he is being hostile towards you.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I strongly disagree that exclusion is an equivalent of hostility---and particularly when excluding religion from the public sphere in a country that has at its very foundation the separation of church and state in the form of freedom of---but also clear freedom from, religion.

                And I continue to maintain that dictionary definitions are useless---particularly if the user does not know which definition of the word he or she is using is applicable in a given situation.

                This reminds me of someone claiming that the word "interpret" means to give meaning as in an interpretive performance and then slams the Supreme Court for "interpreting" the constitutionality of laws because the word "interpret" means to give meaning through performance---as in a dance.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @mbuggieh:

                  Kindly remind me what Webster's definition is of the term "didactic" and "semantic". Oh I just recalled that you are not a big fan of the dictionary.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Dictionaries appear to be "authoritative but [they are] not. Somehow people think Webster is a kind of oracle. Certainly there is a lot of excellent scholarship that goes into the making of dictionaries. But if you want a real expert to support what you have to say about a particular subject, you probably shouldn’t quote a lexicographer."

                    [SOURCE: http://andyunedited.ivpress.com/2010/09 … onary.php]

                2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @mbuggeih:

                  Separation and exclusion are two different things. I totally agree that the church and state should be separate...temporal matters  being the sole purview of the state, and spiritual matters the sole purview of the church. Where they might touch tangentially is in the subject of  human interaction vis-a-vis  ethics and morals.

                3. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  dictionary definitions lose their validity only when there is a widely agreed-upon definition among large numbers of people that do not agree with the dictionary.

                  Example, dude. Back in the 20's, people didn't go "Hey, dude!" A dude was understood an easterner or city slicker who wanted a cowboy experience. Thus, they went to a dude ranch.

                  But good dictionaries update. And in a digital age, they do it frequently.

                  Otherwise, dictionary definitions are necessary so that everyone can understand what each other is talking about. Philosophical definitions are another matter, but dictionary definitions have value.

 
working