Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
I didn't intend any such thing; show the actual post & I'll explain what I meant or apologize.
I'm the one that owes you an apology. Somewhere down the line in this thread (probably overnight) I swapped your identity and a similar but different posting title in my memory. Let me review my mistake here and get back to you.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.Numbers 31:17-18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Part is true. People certainly pray less and people certainly don't believe they need exorcisms, when they probably do. What I don't think is that Jesus would pray less if He were here today nor do I think He would perform fewer exorcisms.
Average Percent of body's glucose burned up by the brain = 70%
Average Percent of body's nutrients consumed by the brain = 25%
Not implying anything; just saying....
You are so right!
Indeed, I've said the same thing myself many times on these threads. To say that scientific knowledge can trump and replace superstition is hardly a revelation. At one time, only a couple of hundred years ago, pretty much every phenomenon was explained as direct supernatural intervention. The weather, disease, conception, tectonic action, germination. Now we know better. These things have natural explanations (which does not deny the possibility that a deity created the rules make the natural clockwork go). As an example lightning was explicitly believed to be the wrath of God by many religions. Evil to to attempt to deflect the power of God's manifest wrath with a lightning rod. Yet the cathouse with a lightning rod would be spared while the neighbouring church without one would be struck. God seemed to weak indeed, if His manifest will could be deflected by $1 of metal. Perhaps God was not personally directing every lightning strike after all. Religion is weakened by such conflicts whenever it fights the conclusions drawn by science. Physical evidence is a powerful persuader.
Reminds me of Galileo and the Catholic church and gravity. One of the things I learned in school when I was being taught how evil religion is.
I have never heard that said on these threads. Numerous top scientists and engineers are and have been religious. However science can only be meaningfully conducted by leaving Holy Writ at the laboratory door.
Exactly my point. So the premise of science is, "Nothing is supernatural so lets see what is really happening here".
poster.Credibility++;
Perhaps when you complete that opus, it will shed light on an interesting question: Did Bill Clinton teach her how to be so dishonest, or did she teach him?
Actually, what really got Galileo in trouble was his lampooning of the Pope in his writings. The scientific dispute was simply a tactical line of attack once the political catfight began.
Even here it is sometimes posted that Catholics are "anti-Christian" and they will all burn in hell.
In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.
Anti-Science philosophy alert.
I think we are now frantically agreeing with each other. It doesn't mean that scientists themselves have to reject the supernatural. Its just that they can only ever make scientific progress by assuming that currently inexplicable phenomena have a natural explanation.
Let's say we can see a man walking on water. Perhaps His ability to walk on water is supernatural. We train our scientific instruments on him/Him and we cannot detect any natural trick. No strange quantum fields made by advanced alien technology, no trickery or wires, the water just seems to support him. We can speculate that He is indeed the son of God, or we can reserve judgement pending further information or increments to human scientific knowledge. Science can form no conclusions about such matters. It can only say, "not yet understood".
Uh, the terrorists are using "God" as their reason for trying to wipe us off the face of the earth. Islamists are pushing ID into American and Muslim schools.
Actually I misread what you said. I don't agree. I would word it as follows, "Science can only investigate the natural, so let's see if we can use science to understand what is happening here."
Science definitely doesn't say "Nothing is supernatural". Science has nothing to say at all about the supernatural. Science is the study of the natural.
At a low ange and at a distance, this would look like "walking on water". I am sure that Jesus had this technology.
Introductory ElectromagneticsDot and Cross Products, Line Integrals of Vector Fields,Gradient of a Scalar Field,Divergence and Curl,,Coulomb's Law,Gauss's Law,Electric potential ...
members.tripod.com/llovesumi/menu.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
LOL, I like that statement.
It doesn't mean that scientists themselves have to reject the supernatural. Its just that they can only ever make scientific progress by assuming that currently inexplicable phenomena have a natural explanation.
No I'm not saying anything about scientists. We can no more separate the religion from the scientist than from the politician. Note: I consider atheist a religion, fwiw.
Let's say we can see a man walking on water. Perhaps His ability to walk on water is supernatural. We train our scientific instruments on him/Him and we cannot detect any natural trick. No strange quantum fields made by advanced alien technology, no trickery or wires, the water just seems to support him. We can speculate that He is indeed the son of God, or we can reserve judgement pending further information or increments to human scientific knowledge. Science can form no conclusions about such matters. It can only say, "not yet understood".
Good mental exercise. So much more useful than responses like "Ice, or bugs", and much appreciated. I'm able to follow your thought and I'm with you 100 percent again but I'd only have to add, that the "not yet understood" part would remain forever. The abilities of science to understand the natural world will continue to increase but they will never cross that line into the supernatural. I guess all I've been trying to say is that since science can never cross that line, to me, it is atheistic rather than agnostic. It starts out with there is no supernatural and it is unable to ever get past that. Maybe to some definition of agnostic and on some technicality this well seem to be more agnostic to many. So at that point it's perhaps only a semantics discussion.
"I guess all I've been trying to say is that since science can never cross that line, to me, it is atheistic rather than agnostic."
And that just shows you don't know what the words atheistic and agnostic mean.
"It starts out with there is no supernatural and it is unable to ever get past that."
No, it does no such thing at all. This has been explained to you over and over. The supernatural is simply not capable of scientific examination. That is NOT the same as saying that the supernatural doesn't exist.
"Maybe to some definition of agnostic and on some technicality this well seem to be more agnostic to many."
Is there another definition of agnostic other than the accepted one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.