Replies

The most foundationally honest and stable way to look at anything is in God's light. No matter the subject, this is the case. If it is the science of chemistry, astrophysics, quantum physics, meteorology, or the study of G.W. Carver's peanut, the question should be, "God, how is it that Your (peanut) is the way it is and functions as you have made it?" Quarks and consciousnesses too.

Hello Brother A! On the one hand, I can grant the truth of what you say here; on the other, I would suggest that putting religious consciousness in the forefront of scientific investigation will probably get you "science" that isn't science. Religion is not science, and vice versa. They are two separate domains -- complementaries -- both of which are necessary. And because they are necessary, they must be kept separate in order to preserve the integrity of their unique functions in human life. At the end of the day, a believer such as myself doesn't feel "threatened" by science; for science can only make its discoveries based on what is; and what is is what God made.

IMHO, Neils Bohr's quantum epistemology is a work of both astonishing grandeur and human humility. Effectively he is saying that science must not be in the religion business (presumably because if it were so engaged, it would "screw up," not only science, but religion, too). And the reverse is true: religion souldn't be in the science business, for the same reason.

I agree with Profs. Kafatos and Nadeau that there needs to be a dialogue between the two knowledge domains -- science and metaphysics. The two are integrated at a much higher level than either of them on their own level. And ultimately, that will be at the level of the religious consciousness, of whatever description. FWIW.

Thank y'all so much for including me in your discussion!

unspun: The most foundationally honest and stable way to look at anything is in God's light. No matter the subject, this is the case. If it is the science of chemistry, astrophysics, quantum physics, meteorology, or the study of G.W. Carver's peanut, the question should be, "God, how is it that Your (peanut) is the way it is and functions as you have made it?" Quarks and consciousnesses too.

betty boop: On the one hand, I can grant the truth of what you say here; on the other, I would suggest that putting religious consciousness in the forefront of scientific investigation will probably get you "science" that isn't science. Religion is not science, and vice versa. They are two separate domains -- complementaries -- both of which are necessary. And because they are necessary, they must be kept separate in order to preserve the integrity of their unique functions in human life. At the end of the day, a believer such as myself doesn't feel "threatened" by science; for science can only make its discoveries based on what is; and what is is what God made.

I prayed about this ongoing discussion the other day and the passage I was lead to in the Word is the following:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. - I Timothy 6:20-21 In the Spirit, I understand the meaning to be that we should stay true to the faith, engage science and at the same time, eschew scientific materialism.