The difference is that the Big Bang is by necessity bound by the laws of the universe, and as of yet there is no known law that will allow for the Big Bang as a self creating phenomena.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I may be off base here, but from what I understand about the big bang theory, the physical laws of the universe didn't exist until the first few nanoseconds after the "big bang" occured. Before that, I believe it is accepted that the whatever existed then bore no resemblance to the universe as it currently exists. There is no know law allowing for the big band as a self creating phenomena because it happened during a time before the physical laws of this universe. Like your theory of god, the big bang occured outside of time, space, and physics.
I assume you are speaking of the Old Testament apocrypha. Catholics do indeed venerate the apocrypha, and I don't know enough about them to comment authoritatively. I also do not know on what they base their support of the books. I withdraw my statement, but must at least make the point that they are not accepted by a large portion of Christians and Jews.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Vetus Itala was the first Latin translation of the Bible. Its Old Testament was based on the Septuagint, the translation from Hebrew to Greek done in Alexandria, Egypt. This version also included several late books that had been written after Alexander the Great, thus written in Greek instead of Hebrew. All subsequent Bibles were based on that until Martin Luther excised those that had been originally written in Greek. The Jews never really accepted them for a couple main reasons. They appeared at a time of intense Jewish nationalism, and Greek was the language of the Gentiles. Additionally, the New Testament was written entirely in Greek, so with the growing schism between Christians and Jews in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Jews just didn't really want to associate with anything written in Greek. The Apocrypha were adopted as canon at the Council of Nicea (IIRC), but referred to as "Deutero-canonical" - meaning they are canonical, but secondary. Catholics have a different set of books which they refer to as "Apocrypha" - Protestants call them "Pseudepigrapha". (And we wonder why people get confused?)
There is also a whole other set of writings of New Testament Apocrypha which are quite interesting. There's at least a half a dozen other Gospels running around, as well as several letters from "Paul" (actually someone else writing in Paul's name long after he was dead), Acts of various individual Apostles, and lots of other correspondence and other writings in the early church. None of it is considered Authoritative (which is why it is not canonical, of course) but it is fascinating to read. Early Christianity was much more diverse and theologically free-wheeling than later Church historians would like us to think.
I may be off base here, but from what I understand about the big bang theory, the physical laws of the universe didn't exist until the first few nanoseconds after the "big bang" occured.</strong><hr></blockquote>
An idea not in keeping with any observed laws or processes of nature, and thus in a strictly scientific sense cannot be accepted as a hypothesis. In any case it is not science, as there is no evidence or possible test of the event. The theory of the suspension of physical laws has no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the uneducated.
[quote]<strong>There is no know law allowing for the big band as a self creating phenomena because it happened during a time before the physical laws of this universe. Like your theory of god, the big bang occured outside of time, space, and physics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which means that there is no possible way for a species bounded by space time to reasonably reach either conclusion, which is the point that was originally made by Matsu.
.... so of course you have been taught and conditioned to think in those terms. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume.... nothing. My "conditioning" would be more akin to a none domesticated animal. I believe with certainty what I can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. And yes our senses are limited.... but they are comprehensive, covering maybe mediums. I use my experiences to interpret what others put forward for me in print, television, conversation.... not being able to observe what they are talking about directly. What are you warning me about? I would warn you.... but theres nothing to worry about like I said. No concern of mine if you waste your precious time. Actually, I think you could be using it to help others and you probably do... churches are good for organizing people to help others. Hmmm, I dont know. I do know that I don't believe, don't want to, would like you not to, but dont think (much)less of you for believing. I guess, let me pose a question to you...
What would a world without religion be like? Would people have any less reason to do the things they already do?
<strong>An idea not in keeping with any observed laws or processes of nature, and thus in a strictly scientific sense cannot be accepted as a hypothesis. In any case it is not science, as there is no evidence or possible test of the event. The theory of the suspension of physical laws has no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the uneducated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I certainly hope you're not calling me uneducated. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
I could also say that the theory of god has "no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the undeducated," but that'd be pointless.
I'm not the best person to argue this, but I do know that at the extreme macro/micro realms of science, laws of observation break down, and it becomes impossible to test theories like the big bang. Quantum physics, anyone? At those extremes, all that is possible to do IS theorize, and in that sense, science and religion both require the faith to accept them.
Anyway, my point wasn't to argue about the big bang, but more to say that your reason dismissing it in favor of the Chrisitain theory of creation isn't exactly air tight.
[quote]Which means that there is no possible way for a species bounded by space time to reasonably reach either conclusion, which is the point that was originally made by Matsu.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>I assume.... nothing. My "conditioning" would be more akin to a none domesticated animal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possibly, though you have still been conditioned by our culture and society. What is it about a wild animal that gives it a sense of right and wrong? You have spoken of helping people, but doesn't that fly in the face of the principle of survival of the fittest? If they are too weak to help themselves, why bother?
However in a sense you are right, though you probably don't agree with me. God created every person with an inherent knowledge of good and evil, one of our distinctions from the animals. If you have an intuition of what is right and wrong then there must have been a source. Some will claim that these ideals evolved, but the aid of a weak member imparts no evolutionary advantage. Our sense of morality and fair play is the very antithesis of evolution.
[quote]<strong>What are you warning me about? I would warn you....</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is dangerous not to recognize the sources of our actions and beliefs, whether social, cultural or divine. I just do not happen to believe in objectivity.
[quote]<strong>What would a world without religion be like? Would people have any less reason to do the things they already do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that depends on what you mean by religion. Religion can be defined as the moral belief system that a person subscribes to, but I don't think you mean that, because there is no possible way for a sentient person to have no moral code, be it good or evil. If you mean no organized religion, then we would probably be a very early iron age civilization. As much as we westerners would like to forget it (some of us) the search for knowledge about the Christian God was the basis for all of our institutions of higher learning. People learned to read so that they could read the Bible. All of empirical science is based on the assumption that God exists and that His universe is therefore knowable. In the last century and a half or so the definition of science has shifted radically, but its basis is evident.
<strong>An idea not in keeping with any observed laws or processes of nature, and thus in a strictly scientific sense cannot be accepted as a hypothesis. In any case it is not science, as there is no evidence or possible test of the event. The theory of the suspension of physical laws has no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the uneducated.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm definitely not a physicist, but from what I understand, this is not a fair statement. The Big Bang is a theory, and that theory is consistent with certain observations. It is testable, i.e., subject to falsification. There are observations that could be made, such as with the Hubble, or with super colliders, that would be inconsistent with the theory, and the theory would have to be revised.
And I believe there are several different variations of big bang theories out there, each with different implications and predictions, and evidence may be able to separate the good theories from the bad.
In any case, it's certainly not just a theory that was somehow given to the uneducated masses to mollify them, as you seem to suggest.
<strong>Well, I certainly hope you're not calling me uneducated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all, I was speaking about the general US public. You only have to watch PBS for a while to see exactly the kind of drivel that is being handed out as fact, even after it has been rejected by even the scientific community that first spawned the ideas.
[quote]<strong>I could also say that the theory of god has "no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the undeducated," but that'd be pointless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would agree with you, and I don't think I ever argued otherwise. I simply stated that I chose the theory that best fits my experiences.
[quote]<strong>your reason dismissing it in favor of the Chrisitain theory of creation isn't exactly air tight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Early Christianity was much more diverse and theologically free-wheeling than later Church historians would like us to think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No argument here. One has only to read Paul's letters to see how quickly strange beliefs were adopted by the early believers.
<strong>I'm definitely not a physicist, but from what I understand, this is not a fair statement. The Big Bang is a theory, and that theory is consistent with certain observations. It is testable, i.e., subject to falsification. There are observations that could be made, such as with the Hubble, or with super colliders, that would be inconsistent with the theory, and the theory would have to be revised.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is consistent with certain observations. But it is not testable directly, we can only test what we believe the results would be. It is non-falsifiable in the sense that the theory is plastic enough to be molded to any evidence. The Big Bang theory clearly violates the principles of dispersion of matter, so what do we get? The theory was revised to be a "lumpy" big bang. Order cannot come from chaos, so what do we get? A highly ordered explosion. Galaxies do not contain enough matter to exist within the Big Bang cosmology, so we get the hypothetical and undetectable "Dark Matter". The observed universe is in direct violation of the conservation of angular momentum, if the universe resulted from a Big Bang. They haven't come up with a
"solution" to that one yet. There is as of yet no postulated trigger for the Big Bang. The Big Bang is by no means accepted by astronomers or physicists without question.
Physicist Ernst Fischer writes:
". . . warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von WeizsäckerÂ*Â*. . . namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield."
Halton Arp, an astronomer with the Mount Wilson Observatory writes:
"Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a 'big bang' has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing ... In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.'
Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes:
"The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of timeÂ*. . . This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream 'natural philosophers'. But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives."
Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists:
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. ... The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."
The point is that the Big Bang theory is taught as complete fact, implying that there are no problems with the theory at all, or if there are that science will overcome them. There are, in fact, tremendous problems, none of which have shaken the faith of the believers of the Big Bang.
So we have another full-bore, armour-plated, all-guns-blazing Christian on these boards. That's two more than I expected. I'm not going to get into a pointless theological debate with you, Fluffy, but I'd just like to ask you this question: if you appeared in court, what evidence could you offer that any of this is true, even slightly, even at all?
<strong>if you appeared in court, what evidence could you offer that any of this is true, even slightly, even at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
None that would be accepted, I'm sure. However, given time to prepare, I would have to start with the knowability of truth, the nature of truth and the philisophies of postmodernism, skepticism, agnosticism and mysticism and how they influence modern thought. That moderns no longer seem to believe in an absolute truth is the first hurdle. I would attempt to make the court aware of the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. Next comes the uniqueness of the Bible and the monotheistic religions, then examination of the archaeological and historical evidence for and against the reliability of the Old and New Testaments. I would examine the historical person of Jesus and then make the case for His divinity both through Judaic and secular sources.
If you are talking about scientific evidence against evolution, that would be a different matter, and require a different approach.
I have no desire to go into these evidences more thoroughly. I did it once before on this board and it went nowhere, and I am slightly chagrined that this discussion has wandered into the realm of origins once again.
<strong>The point is that the Big Bang theory is taught as complete fact, implying that there are no problems with the theory at all, or if there are that science will overcome them. There are, in fact, tremendous problems, none of which have shaken the faith of the believers of the Big Bang.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure how any of that addresses my point that the Big Bang is a genuine scientific theory, not some propaganda, as you implied. Your list of discrepancies and arguments about the data reinforces my point that it is a scientific theory open to debate and testing and competing observations.
This is essentially the same argument creationists use against evolution - "look, even your scientists can't agree on everything. That proves that you guys don't know what you're talking about." But that is the very strength of science - its openness to revision based on new data.
If I can try to distill this down, some religious people say: "science is no different from religion, because science-believers have faith just like God-believers. There's no proof for the Big Bang, yet you still have faith in it. That's just like our belief in God."
But your citations show that we are totally willing to modify or reject our theories when new empirical information comes in. (In fact, I thought I saw a report on the news just recently that someone made an observation that suggested the Universe is actually not expanding. Wouldn't that be a shock to the system if replicated.)
My argument is that religion is about faith and authority (the Bible), and science is about observation and theory testing. Science is not another religion. Science and religion are opposites - two diametrically opposed ways of understanding the world.
<strong>But this is a circular argument You are saying that an omnipotent God decided that those who commit "sin" (whatever that is) could not be with Him (and is God really a "him"?) so God decided to pay the penalty he himself had decided was necessary. Why not set up a universe without this cumbersome concept of sin and sacrifice being necessary in the first place? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually no it is not. God wanted us to choose Him. And the universe was setup perfectly to begin with, but He gave man choice so that man could truly love God. Is lover relaly love if you are just programmed to do it and have no choice in the matter? I don't think so.
Go back to the Garden of Eden. God gave Adam full reign over all the beasts birds and plants. Adam gave up that right to Satan when he succumbed to temptation, ate the Fruit, lied to God and hid from God. As penalty creation was cursed and death was introduced (the penalty for sin). Jesus became the "second Adam" and he reclaimed all that God had given to the first Adam by his life and subsequent death and resurrection. God made it right for us because we could not do it ourselves. We just have to accept it first. Not a circular argument if you look at all the facts.
<strong>So we have another full-bore, armour-plated, all-guns-blazing Christian on these boards. That's two more than I expected. I'm not going to get into a pointless theological debate with you, Fluffy, but I'd just like to ask you this question: if you appeared in court, what evidence could you offer that any of this is true, even slightly, even at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What would be the point? You have religion versus science in your mind. The Big Bang, unhelped or created is a viable theory in many peoples minds because those smarter (not wiser necesarily) say it is so. Then you have a group of "religious people" who say God did it and have their Bible and convictions to back them up. Neither side has first hand knowledge or was there when it all occured and neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong on these boards. However you know that in a court that the religious view stands no chance in a human court. Like it or not, the bias is there.
I assert now that when you die you will know and not before then.
<strong>But your citations show that we are totally willing to modify or reject our theories when new empirical information comes in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The entire point of the citations is that despite the evidence arrayed against the theory and despite the questions and opposition of colleagues, it is not modified in any real way. It is still believed and promoted, despite its flaws. The opposing evidence is ignored, not examined. The point is that they really have no choice. The universe was either created or not, and most scientists have already decided that it was not, despite any evidence that may arise.
[quote]<strong>My argument is that religion is about faith and authority (the Bible), and science is about observation and theory testing. Science is not another religion. Science and religion are opposites - two diametrically opposed ways of understanding the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. However, the truth is absolute... belief does not change what actually happened. In that sense, science and religion converge or, more specifically, science and the correct religion converge. By examining the claims each religion makes and comparing it to what can be observed, it should theoretically be possible to determine the correct religion.
This is not possible in practice because although science may be devoid of religion, scientists are certainly not. The religion that most scientists have currently wedded themselves to is naturalism, the faith that nature is self creating and sustaining. It is an old religion, but it is not science. It does not affect most of the work that is performed, but it does affect the current interpretation of past events. We need look no farther than the conduct of the scientific community (embodied in the NEA) in this country to see this religion at work. No teacher is allowed to question the current scientific dogma in schools. Evidence that may contradict that dogma is not allowed as part of the curriculum, and it may not be suggested that the evidence for naturalism is anything less than complete. If it is discovered that a teacher holds beliefs that conflict with the established naturalistic religion, that teacher can be fired unless he keeps those beliefs and the evidence for them to himself. Research in universities that may challenge the current naturalistic beliefs is discouraged, and it normally does not receive sufficient funding due to its scope. Several universities do not permit students who accept creation to receive advanced degrees. In short, the status quo is enforced with the zeal of true believers, not scientists.
If you choose to believe in the infallibility of those who have become our high priests, be my guest. I most certainly do not.
<strong>However, the truth is absolute... belief does not change what actually happened.
...
If you choose to believe in the infallibility of those who have become our high priests, be my guest. I most certainly do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think all those quotes you have from scientists openly criticizing other scientists and theories suggest something very different from an infallible high-priesthood. It suggests a very competitive enterprise, where theories are subject to constant criticism from others in the field.
When some new theory comes along that better explains the observations, the old theories will be abandoned. Einstein's theories are a good example - they explained some existing data better, and they also generated unique predictions that were later subjected to empirical test.
Much less dramatic examples of this happen just about every day in science - are eggs bad for you or good? Are ulcers caused by stress or by bacteria? Should doctors recommend cigarettes, as they used to? Science is entirely willing to abandon its theories as new observations come in. That just doesn't sound like an infallible priesthood to me.
I agree with your dislike of relativism and post-modernism, though. It's the anti-scientific position of the current times, IMO. They say there is no truth, that science is just a white male enterprise, it's just another product of the culture, etc. So it's interesting to hear someone from a religious perspective criticize both the post-modernists and the scientists. They've always seems to be at opposite ends to me.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion, and I look forward to further responses. I feel like I'm too old for discussions like this, though - it gives me a headache anymore. When I was 18, I could go all day.
We need look no farther than the conduct of the scientific community (embodied in the NEA) in this country to see this religion at work. No teacher is allowed to question the current scientific dogma in schools. Evidence that may contradict that dogma is not allowed as part of the curriculum, and it may not be suggested that the evidence for naturalism is anything less than complete. If it is discovered that a teacher holds beliefs that conflict with the established naturalistic religion, that teacher can be fired unless he keeps those beliefs and the evidence for them to himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah. What you are describing, I think, are the effects caused by the little known, and often unspoken of, fifth horseman of the apocalypse: politics. And neither science nor religion are immune to its influence.
<strong>Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion, and I look forward to further responses. I feel like I'm too old for discussions like this, though - it gives me a headache anymore. When I was 18, I could go all day.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, and debated whether or not to delete my previous post. In the end it just turns into a shouting match anyway. Besides, the original topic of Satan seems to have fallen along the wayside...
I will have to agree fully on most of your points. Science is, by and large, a great institution. It is only the origin sciences that I have a problem with, due to the afforementioned bias that I see. Perhaps you don't see it, and that's fine. Most scientists (maybe 99.9%) are honestly trying to do their best to further knowledge within the confines of their field, and I respect that. But I still don't buy the "objective" bit.
[quote]<strong>Ah. What you are describing, I think, are the effects caused by the little known, and often unspoken of, fifth horseman of the apocalypse: politics. And neither science nor religion are immune to its influence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mostly true, which is why the founding fathers tried so hard not to allow an established religion. But I suppose there is no escaping it.
I agree. However, the truth is absolute... belief does not change what actually happened. In that sense, science and religion converge or, more specifically, science and the correct religion converge. By examining the claims each religion makes and comparing it to what can be observed, it should theoretically be possible to determine the correct religion.
This is not possible in practice because although science may be devoid of religion, scientists are certainly not. The religion that most scientists have currently wedded themselves to is naturalism, the faith that nature is self creating and sustaining. It is an old religion, but it is not science. It does not affect most of the work that is performed, but it does affect the current interpretation of past events. We need look no farther than the conduct of the scientific community (embodied in the NEA) in this country to see this religion at work. No teacher is allowed to question the current scientific dogma in schools. Evidence that may contradict that dogma is not allowed as part of the curriculum, and it may not be suggested that the evidence for naturalism is anything less than complete. If it is discovered that a teacher holds beliefs that conflict with the established naturalistic religion, that teacher can be fired unless he keeps those beliefs and the evidence for them to himself. Research in universities that may challenge the current naturalistic beliefs is discouraged, and it normally does not receive sufficient funding due to its scope. Several universities do not permit students who accept creation to receive advanced degrees. In short, the status quo is enforced with the zeal of true believers, not scientists.
If you choose to believe in the infallibility of those who have become our high priests, be my guest. I most certainly do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The very essence of science is to try to describe everything we see going on around us by completely natural phenomena. Science does not say there is no God, merely that you can't say "God did it" as a summative theory to explain your observations. Everything must be above board, verifiable, and repeatable. This is where "God did it" becomes untenable - God does not choose to answer our beck and call to perform on cue. He works in His own way, behind the scenes, at His own pace. He typically shows Himself in miraculous, one-time events that are not repeatable - thereby requiring faith to accept what has happened, rather than logical deduction. So if I am planning on manufacturing sulfuric acid, for example, I'd better have a pretty good theory on how to make it that does not require God to intervene for its success, or I'm going to look pretty foolish.
So if this is what you want to call "naturalism", then science is guilty as charged. Science makes no pretenses of having the Absolute Truth. We make a series of hypotheses (models, if you will) that explain what we see. As new observations are made, the hypothesis may be confirmed by the mounting evidence, or it may be completely disproved. More commonly, it is usually found that the model was too simple, and needs to be modified to fit the new data. The real value of these models, though, is in their predictive power. Testing the hypothesis gives direction for research - "If the hypothesis is right, then if I do x, I should observe y." The ultimate goal of this is not Truth, but Usefulness. If a hypothesis is good enough that it explains everything we observe that is related to it, and gives us a chance to predict the outcome in advance of observations not yet made, it is extremely Useful. Whether or not it is True is irrelevant. This is actually the real problem with Creationism - its backers claim it is True, which scientists deem meaningless. The scientists look at it and ask, "Is it Useful?" and the answer is a resounding "NO" because it has no capacity for prediction in it (or if it does make predictions, they are universally found to be incorrect). It is a "God did it" theory, which holds no water in science.
This approach to acquiring knowledge, for whatever philosophical problems you may have with it, has proved to be extremely powerful. It is based on the philosophy that the Universe is inherently understandable - that Nature is not capricious, it is regular, repeatable, and orderly. That if human beings ask the right questions in the right way, we can get the answer to virtually any riddle the Universe poses. In over 400 years it has proved itself time and again as a reliable way to solve some of the knottiest problems the physical world has thrown at us.
Science does, however, have its limits. The old credo is, "If it can't be measured, it's not Science" (which is basically true). We all know there are scores of phenomena that cannot be quantified, and probably never will be. These are inherently beyond the scope of science - they are in the realm of the philosophers and theologians. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God - He is beyond measurement and cannot be quantified. Science will never be able to prove or disprove His existence. A good scientist knows where the line is where the evidence stops and speculation begins.
Religion, too, has its limitations. In the Middle Ages, the teachings of Aristotle were incorporated into Church doctrine. This produced a huge number of decrees about how the Church said the world worked - like sailing south of the Equator would make your boat burst into flames. That flat things float and round things sink, regardless of density. That the Universe is composed of concentric crystalline spheres which turn on their axes daily. Galileo Gallilei was the first to bear the Church's wrath for declaring that many of these "official teachings" were nonsense. With time, the Church learned to avoid weaving tangled webs of theology that made firm pronouncements about how the world was based strictly on their own reasoning. Empirical observation beat them every time. So religion's role is to help us explain the unexplainable, to help us grasp the supernatural, and to keep us aware of a power greater than all of us.
Thus, religion and science are not diametrically opposed to each other. They are actually complementary. Each provides a valuable method of understanding the world as we experience it - both natural and supernatural. As long as each sticks to its own domain, they are like the two wings of a great bird, supporting us between them. It is only when Science starts trying to dictate about the Supernatural world or Religion starts trying to dictate about the Natural world, that they get into conflict.
Well, this has probably done nothing to soothe anybody, but hey - the Mac rumor mill is as dry as the Sahara (Sahara? did somebody mention that new IBM G3? ) so arguing over theology is probably the next best thing.
Comments
<strong>
The difference is that the Big Bang is by necessity bound by the laws of the universe, and as of yet there is no known law that will allow for the Big Bang as a self creating phenomena.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I may be off base here, but from what I understand about the big bang theory, the physical laws of the universe didn't exist until the first few nanoseconds after the "big bang" occured. Before that, I believe it is accepted that the whatever existed then bore no resemblance to the universe as it currently exists. There is no know law allowing for the big band as a self creating phenomena because it happened during a time before the physical laws of this universe. Like your theory of god, the big bang occured outside of time, space, and physics.
<strong>
I assume you are speaking of the Old Testament apocrypha. Catholics do indeed venerate the apocrypha, and I don't know enough about them to comment authoritatively. I also do not know on what they base their support of the books. I withdraw my statement, but must at least make the point that they are not accepted by a large portion of Christians and Jews.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Vetus Itala was the first Latin translation of the Bible. Its Old Testament was based on the Septuagint, the translation from Hebrew to Greek done in Alexandria, Egypt. This version also included several late books that had been written after Alexander the Great, thus written in Greek instead of Hebrew. All subsequent Bibles were based on that until Martin Luther excised those that had been originally written in Greek. The Jews never really accepted them for a couple main reasons. They appeared at a time of intense Jewish nationalism, and Greek was the language of the Gentiles. Additionally, the New Testament was written entirely in Greek, so with the growing schism between Christians and Jews in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Jews just didn't really want to associate with anything written in Greek. The Apocrypha were adopted as canon at the Council of Nicea (IIRC), but referred to as "Deutero-canonical" - meaning they are canonical, but secondary. Catholics have a different set of books which they refer to as "Apocrypha" - Protestants call them "Pseudepigrapha". (And we wonder why people get confused?)
There is also a whole other set of writings of New Testament Apocrypha which are quite interesting. There's at least a half a dozen other Gospels running around, as well as several letters from "Paul" (actually someone else writing in Paul's name long after he was dead), Acts of various individual Apostles, and lots of other correspondence and other writings in the early church. None of it is considered Authoritative (which is why it is not canonical, of course) but it is fascinating to read. Early Christianity was much more diverse and theologically free-wheeling than later Church historians would like us to think.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>
I may be off base here, but from what I understand about the big bang theory, the physical laws of the universe didn't exist until the first few nanoseconds after the "big bang" occured.</strong><hr></blockquote>
An idea not in keeping with any observed laws or processes of nature, and thus in a strictly scientific sense cannot be accepted as a hypothesis. In any case it is not science, as there is no evidence or possible test of the event. The theory of the suspension of physical laws has no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the uneducated.
[quote]<strong>There is no know law allowing for the big band as a self creating phenomena because it happened during a time before the physical laws of this universe. Like your theory of god, the big bang occured outside of time, space, and physics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which means that there is no possible way for a species bounded by space time to reasonably reach either conclusion, which is the point that was originally made by Matsu.
<strong>
You assume.....
.... so of course you have been taught and conditioned to think in those terms. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume.... nothing. My "conditioning" would be more akin to a none domesticated animal. I believe with certainty what I can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. And yes our senses are limited.... but they are comprehensive, covering maybe mediums. I use my experiences to interpret what others put forward for me in print, television, conversation.... not being able to observe what they are talking about directly. What are you warning me about? I would warn you.... but theres nothing to worry about like I said. No concern of mine if you waste your precious time. Actually, I think you could be using it to help others and you probably do... churches are good for organizing people to help others. Hmmm, I dont know. I do know that I don't believe, don't want to, would like you not to, but dont think (much)less of you for believing. I guess, let me pose a question to you...
What would a world without religion be like? Would people have any less reason to do the things they already do?
<strong>An idea not in keeping with any observed laws or processes of nature, and thus in a strictly scientific sense cannot be accepted as a hypothesis. In any case it is not science, as there is no evidence or possible test of the event. The theory of the suspension of physical laws has no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the uneducated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I certainly hope you're not calling me uneducated. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
I could also say that the theory of god has "no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the undeducated," but that'd be pointless.
I'm not the best person to argue this, but I do know that at the extreme macro/micro realms of science, laws of observation break down, and it becomes impossible to test theories like the big bang. Quantum physics, anyone? At those extremes, all that is possible to do IS theorize, and in that sense, science and religion both require the faith to accept them.
Anyway, my point wasn't to argue about the big bang, but more to say that your reason dismissing it in favor of the Chrisitain theory of creation isn't exactly air tight.
[quote]Which means that there is no possible way for a species bounded by space time to reasonably reach either conclusion, which is the point that was originally made by Matsu.<hr></blockquote>
Never questioned that for a second.
<strong>I assume.... nothing. My "conditioning" would be more akin to a none domesticated animal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possibly, though you have still been conditioned by our culture and society. What is it about a wild animal that gives it a sense of right and wrong? You have spoken of helping people, but doesn't that fly in the face of the principle of survival of the fittest? If they are too weak to help themselves, why bother?
However in a sense you are right, though you probably don't agree with me. God created every person with an inherent knowledge of good and evil, one of our distinctions from the animals. If you have an intuition of what is right and wrong then there must have been a source. Some will claim that these ideals evolved, but the aid of a weak member imparts no evolutionary advantage. Our sense of morality and fair play is the very antithesis of evolution.
[quote]<strong>What are you warning me about? I would warn you....</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is dangerous not to recognize the sources of our actions and beliefs, whether social, cultural or divine. I just do not happen to believe in objectivity.
[quote]<strong>What would a world without religion be like? Would people have any less reason to do the things they already do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that depends on what you mean by religion. Religion can be defined as the moral belief system that a person subscribes to, but I don't think you mean that, because there is no possible way for a sentient person to have no moral code, be it good or evil. If you mean no organized religion, then we would probably be a very early iron age civilization. As much as we westerners would like to forget it (some of us) the search for knowledge about the Christian God was the basis for all of our institutions of higher learning. People learned to read so that they could read the Bible. All of empirical science is based on the assumption that God exists and that His universe is therefore knowable. In the last century and a half or so the definition of science has shifted radically, but its basis is evident.
<strong>An idea not in keeping with any observed laws or processes of nature, and thus in a strictly scientific sense cannot be accepted as a hypothesis. In any case it is not science, as there is no evidence or possible test of the event. The theory of the suspension of physical laws has no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the uneducated.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm definitely not a physicist, but from what I understand, this is not a fair statement. The Big Bang is a theory, and that theory is consistent with certain observations. It is testable, i.e., subject to falsification. There are observations that could be made, such as with the Hubble, or with super colliders, that would be inconsistent with the theory, and the theory would have to be revised.
And I believe there are several different variations of big bang theories out there, each with different implications and predictions, and evidence may be able to separate the good theories from the bad.
In any case, it's certainly not just a theory that was somehow given to the uneducated masses to mollify them, as you seem to suggest.
<strong>Well, I certainly hope you're not calling me uneducated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all, I was speaking about the general US public. You only have to watch PBS for a while to see exactly the kind of drivel that is being handed out as fact, even after it has been rejected by even the scientific community that first spawned the ideas.
[quote]<strong>I could also say that the theory of god has "no rational foundation other than to make what is clearly impossible seem at least reasonable to the undeducated," but that'd be pointless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would agree with you, and I don't think I ever argued otherwise. I simply stated that I chose the theory that best fits my experiences.
[quote]<strong>your reason dismissing it in favor of the Chrisitain theory of creation isn't exactly air tight.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And Vice Versa.
<strong>Early Christianity was much more diverse and theologically free-wheeling than later Church historians would like us to think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No argument here. One has only to read Paul's letters to see how quickly strange beliefs were adopted by the early believers.
<strong>I'm definitely not a physicist, but from what I understand, this is not a fair statement. The Big Bang is a theory, and that theory is consistent with certain observations. It is testable, i.e., subject to falsification. There are observations that could be made, such as with the Hubble, or with super colliders, that would be inconsistent with the theory, and the theory would have to be revised.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it is consistent with certain observations. But it is not testable directly, we can only test what we believe the results would be. It is non-falsifiable in the sense that the theory is plastic enough to be molded to any evidence. The Big Bang theory clearly violates the principles of dispersion of matter, so what do we get? The theory was revised to be a "lumpy" big bang. Order cannot come from chaos, so what do we get? A highly ordered explosion. Galaxies do not contain enough matter to exist within the Big Bang cosmology, so we get the hypothetical and undetectable "Dark Matter". The observed universe is in direct violation of the conservation of angular momentum, if the universe resulted from a Big Bang. They haven't come up with a
"solution" to that one yet. There is as of yet no postulated trigger for the Big Bang. The Big Bang is by no means accepted by astronomers or physicists without question.
Physicist Ernst Fischer writes:
". . . warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von WeizsäckerÂ*Â*. . . namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield."
Halton Arp, an astronomer with the Mount Wilson Observatory writes:
"Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a 'big bang' has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing ... In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.'
Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes:
"The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of timeÂ*. . . This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream 'natural philosophers'. But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives."
Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists:
"There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. ... The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."
The point is that the Big Bang theory is taught as complete fact, implying that there are no problems with the theory at all, or if there are that science will overcome them. There are, in fact, tremendous problems, none of which have shaken the faith of the believers of the Big Bang.
<strong>if you appeared in court, what evidence could you offer that any of this is true, even slightly, even at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
None that would be accepted, I'm sure. However, given time to prepare, I would have to start with the knowability of truth, the nature of truth and the philisophies of postmodernism, skepticism, agnosticism and mysticism and how they influence modern thought. That moderns no longer seem to believe in an absolute truth is the first hurdle. I would attempt to make the court aware of the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. Next comes the uniqueness of the Bible and the monotheistic religions, then examination of the archaeological and historical evidence for and against the reliability of the Old and New Testaments. I would examine the historical person of Jesus and then make the case for His divinity both through Judaic and secular sources.
If you are talking about scientific evidence against evolution, that would be a different matter, and require a different approach.
I have no desire to go into these evidences more thoroughly. I did it once before on this board and it went nowhere, and I am slightly chagrined that this discussion has wandered into the realm of origins once again.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
<strong>The point is that the Big Bang theory is taught as complete fact, implying that there are no problems with the theory at all, or if there are that science will overcome them. There are, in fact, tremendous problems, none of which have shaken the faith of the believers of the Big Bang.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure how any of that addresses my point that the Big Bang is a genuine scientific theory, not some propaganda, as you implied. Your list of discrepancies and arguments about the data reinforces my point that it is a scientific theory open to debate and testing and competing observations.
This is essentially the same argument creationists use against evolution - "look, even your scientists can't agree on everything. That proves that you guys don't know what you're talking about." But that is the very strength of science - its openness to revision based on new data.
If I can try to distill this down, some religious people say: "science is no different from religion, because science-believers have faith just like God-believers. There's no proof for the Big Bang, yet you still have faith in it. That's just like our belief in God."
But your citations show that we are totally willing to modify or reject our theories when new empirical information comes in. (In fact, I thought I saw a report on the news just recently that someone made an observation that suggested the Universe is actually not expanding. Wouldn't that be a shock to the system if replicated.)
My argument is that religion is about faith and authority (the Bible), and science is about observation and theory testing. Science is not another religion. Science and religion are opposites - two diametrically opposed ways of understanding the world.
<strong>But this is a circular argument
Actually no it is not. God wanted us to choose Him. And the universe was setup perfectly to begin with, but He gave man choice so that man could truly love God. Is lover relaly love if you are just programmed to do it and have no choice in the matter? I don't think so.
Go back to the Garden of Eden. God gave Adam full reign over all the beasts birds and plants. Adam gave up that right to Satan when he succumbed to temptation, ate the Fruit, lied to God and hid from God. As penalty creation was cursed and death was introduced (the penalty for sin). Jesus became the "second Adam" and he reclaimed all that God had given to the first Adam by his life and subsequent death and resurrection. God made it right for us because we could not do it ourselves. We just have to accept it first. Not a circular argument if you look at all the facts.
<strong>So we have another full-bore, armour-plated, all-guns-blazing Christian on these boards. That's two more than I expected. I'm not going to get into a pointless theological debate with you, Fluffy, but I'd just like to ask you this question: if you appeared in court, what evidence could you offer that any of this is true, even slightly, even at all?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What would be the point? You have religion versus science in your mind. The Big Bang, unhelped or created is a viable theory in many peoples minds because those smarter (not wiser necesarily) say it is so. Then you have a group of "religious people" who say God did it and have their Bible and convictions to back them up. Neither side has first hand knowledge or was there when it all occured and neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong on these boards. However you know that in a court that the religious view stands no chance in a human court. Like it or not, the bias is there.
I assert now that when you die you will know and not before then.
<strong>But your citations show that we are totally willing to modify or reject our theories when new empirical information comes in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The entire point of the citations is that despite the evidence arrayed against the theory and despite the questions and opposition of colleagues, it is not modified in any real way. It is still believed and promoted, despite its flaws. The opposing evidence is ignored, not examined. The point is that they really have no choice. The universe was either created or not, and most scientists have already decided that it was not, despite any evidence that may arise.
[quote]<strong>My argument is that religion is about faith and authority (the Bible), and science is about observation and theory testing. Science is not another religion. Science and religion are opposites - two diametrically opposed ways of understanding the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. However, the truth is absolute... belief does not change what actually happened. In that sense, science and religion converge or, more specifically, science and the correct religion converge. By examining the claims each religion makes and comparing it to what can be observed, it should theoretically be possible to determine the correct religion.
This is not possible in practice because although science may be devoid of religion, scientists are certainly not. The religion that most scientists have currently wedded themselves to is naturalism, the faith that nature is self creating and sustaining. It is an old religion, but it is not science. It does not affect most of the work that is performed, but it does affect the current interpretation of past events. We need look no farther than the conduct of the scientific community (embodied in the NEA) in this country to see this religion at work. No teacher is allowed to question the current scientific dogma in schools. Evidence that may contradict that dogma is not allowed as part of the curriculum, and it may not be suggested that the evidence for naturalism is anything less than complete. If it is discovered that a teacher holds beliefs that conflict with the established naturalistic religion, that teacher can be fired unless he keeps those beliefs and the evidence for them to himself. Research in universities that may challenge the current naturalistic beliefs is discouraged, and it normally does not receive sufficient funding due to its scope. Several universities do not permit students who accept creation to receive advanced degrees. In short, the status quo is enforced with the zeal of true believers, not scientists.
If you choose to believe in the infallibility of those who have become our high priests, be my guest. I most certainly do not.
<strong>However, the truth is absolute... belief does not change what actually happened.
...
If you choose to believe in the infallibility of those who have become our high priests, be my guest. I most certainly do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think all those quotes you have from scientists openly criticizing other scientists and theories suggest something very different from an infallible high-priesthood. It suggests a very competitive enterprise, where theories are subject to constant criticism from others in the field.
When some new theory comes along that better explains the observations, the old theories will be abandoned. Einstein's theories are a good example - they explained some existing data better, and they also generated unique predictions that were later subjected to empirical test.
Much less dramatic examples of this happen just about every day in science - are eggs bad for you or good? Are ulcers caused by stress or by bacteria? Should doctors recommend cigarettes, as they used to? Science is entirely willing to abandon its theories as new observations come in. That just doesn't sound like an infallible priesthood to me.
I agree with your dislike of relativism and post-modernism, though. It's the anti-scientific position of the current times, IMO. They say there is no truth, that science is just a white male enterprise, it's just another product of the culture, etc. So it's interesting to hear someone from a religious perspective criticize both the post-modernists and the scientists. They've always seems to be at opposite ends to me.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion, and I look forward to further responses. I feel like I'm too old for discussions like this, though - it gives me a headache anymore. When I was 18, I could go all day.
<strong>
We need look no farther than the conduct of the scientific community (embodied in the NEA) in this country to see this religion at work. No teacher is allowed to question the current scientific dogma in schools. Evidence that may contradict that dogma is not allowed as part of the curriculum, and it may not be suggested that the evidence for naturalism is anything less than complete. If it is discovered that a teacher holds beliefs that conflict with the established naturalistic religion, that teacher can be fired unless he keeps those beliefs and the evidence for them to himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah. What you are describing, I think, are the effects caused by the little known, and often unspoken of, fifth horseman of the apocalypse: politics. And neither science nor religion are immune to its influence.
<strong>Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion, and I look forward to further responses. I feel like I'm too old for discussions like this, though - it gives me a headache anymore. When I was 18, I could go all day.
I agree, and debated whether or not to delete my previous post. In the end it just turns into a shouting match anyway. Besides, the original topic of Satan seems to have fallen along the wayside...
I will have to agree fully on most of your points. Science is, by and large, a great institution. It is only the origin sciences that I have a problem with, due to the afforementioned bias that I see. Perhaps you don't see it, and that's fine. Most scientists (maybe 99.9%) are honestly trying to do their best to further knowledge within the confines of their field, and I respect that. But I still don't buy the "objective" bit.
[quote]<strong>Ah. What you are describing, I think, are the effects caused by the little known, and often unspoken of, fifth horseman of the apocalypse: politics. And neither science nor religion are immune to its influence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mostly true, which is why the founding fathers tried so hard not to allow an established religion. But I suppose there is no escaping it.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
<strong>
I agree. However, the truth is absolute... belief does not change what actually happened. In that sense, science and religion converge or, more specifically, science and the correct religion converge. By examining the claims each religion makes and comparing it to what can be observed, it should theoretically be possible to determine the correct religion.
This is not possible in practice because although science may be devoid of religion, scientists are certainly not. The religion that most scientists have currently wedded themselves to is naturalism, the faith that nature is self creating and sustaining. It is an old religion, but it is not science. It does not affect most of the work that is performed, but it does affect the current interpretation of past events. We need look no farther than the conduct of the scientific community (embodied in the NEA) in this country to see this religion at work. No teacher is allowed to question the current scientific dogma in schools. Evidence that may contradict that dogma is not allowed as part of the curriculum, and it may not be suggested that the evidence for naturalism is anything less than complete. If it is discovered that a teacher holds beliefs that conflict with the established naturalistic religion, that teacher can be fired unless he keeps those beliefs and the evidence for them to himself. Research in universities that may challenge the current naturalistic beliefs is discouraged, and it normally does not receive sufficient funding due to its scope. Several universities do not permit students who accept creation to receive advanced degrees. In short, the status quo is enforced with the zeal of true believers, not scientists.
If you choose to believe in the infallibility of those who have become our high priests, be my guest. I most certainly do not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The very essence of science is to try to describe everything we see going on around us by completely natural phenomena. Science does not say there is no God, merely that you can't say "God did it" as a summative theory to explain your observations. Everything must be above board, verifiable, and repeatable. This is where "God did it" becomes untenable - God does not choose to answer our beck and call to perform on cue. He works in His own way, behind the scenes, at His own pace. He typically shows Himself in miraculous, one-time events that are not repeatable - thereby requiring faith to accept what has happened, rather than logical deduction. So if I am planning on manufacturing sulfuric acid, for example, I'd better have a pretty good theory on how to make it that does not require God to intervene for its success, or I'm going to look pretty foolish.
So if this is what you want to call "naturalism", then science is guilty as charged. Science makes no pretenses of having the Absolute Truth. We make a series of hypotheses (models, if you will) that explain what we see. As new observations are made, the hypothesis may be confirmed by the mounting evidence, or it may be completely disproved. More commonly, it is usually found that the model was too simple, and needs to be modified to fit the new data. The real value of these models, though, is in their predictive power. Testing the hypothesis gives direction for research - "If the hypothesis is right, then if I do x, I should observe y." The ultimate goal of this is not Truth, but Usefulness. If a hypothesis is good enough that it explains everything we observe that is related to it, and gives us a chance to predict the outcome in advance of observations not yet made, it is extremely Useful. Whether or not it is True is irrelevant. This is actually the real problem with Creationism - its backers claim it is True, which scientists deem meaningless. The scientists look at it and ask, "Is it Useful?" and the answer is a resounding "NO" because it has no capacity for prediction in it (or if it does make predictions, they are universally found to be incorrect). It is a "God did it" theory, which holds no water in science.
This approach to acquiring knowledge, for whatever philosophical problems you may have with it, has proved to be extremely powerful. It is based on the philosophy that the Universe is inherently understandable - that Nature is not capricious, it is regular, repeatable, and orderly. That if human beings ask the right questions in the right way, we can get the answer to virtually any riddle the Universe poses. In over 400 years it has proved itself time and again as a reliable way to solve some of the knottiest problems the physical world has thrown at us.
Science does, however, have its limits. The old credo is, "If it can't be measured, it's not Science" (which is basically true). We all know there are scores of phenomena that cannot be quantified, and probably never will be. These are inherently beyond the scope of science - they are in the realm of the philosophers and theologians. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God - He is beyond measurement and cannot be quantified. Science will never be able to prove or disprove His existence. A good scientist knows where the line is where the evidence stops and speculation begins.
Religion, too, has its limitations. In the Middle Ages, the teachings of Aristotle were incorporated into Church doctrine. This produced a huge number of decrees about how the Church said the world worked - like sailing south of the Equator would make your boat burst into flames. That flat things float and round things sink, regardless of density. That the Universe is composed of concentric crystalline spheres which turn on their axes daily. Galileo Gallilei was the first to bear the Church's wrath for declaring that many of these "official teachings" were nonsense. With time, the Church learned to avoid weaving tangled webs of theology that made firm pronouncements about how the world was based strictly on their own reasoning. Empirical observation beat them every time. So religion's role is to help us explain the unexplainable, to help us grasp the supernatural, and to keep us aware of a power greater than all of us.
Thus, religion and science are not diametrically opposed to each other. They are actually complementary. Each provides a valuable method of understanding the world as we experience it - both natural and supernatural. As long as each sticks to its own domain, they are like the two wings of a great bird, supporting us between them. It is only when Science starts trying to dictate about the Supernatural world or Religion starts trying to dictate about the Natural world, that they get into conflict.
Well, this has probably done nothing to soothe anybody, but hey - the Mac rumor mill is as dry as the Sahara (Sahara? did somebody mention that new IBM G3?
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>