On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:51:17 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>SJ>It seems that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as long as
>>religion does not make any claims about the real world that science has
>>already arrogated to itself. But what is *science* doing pontificating
>>about our importance anyway? My tagline below is apt.
SB>Science and religion exist in the same reality.
Agreed. So like other disciplines they both can have their respective
primary domains but overlap on some things.
SB>They cannot conflict.
I just documented one conflict between science and the Christian religion!
SB>You are going to eventually fail
Susan would need to know that there is no God for her to be able to say
for certain that theists "are going to eventually fail" in their quest. But to
know that she would have to be omniscient, ie. God!
SB>to prove that your mythology is scientific
>fact and then you will be forced to find the *religious* message your the
>myths.
If Susan cares to define exactly what she means by these four terms
"mythology", "scientific", "fact", and "religious" maybe we could have a
meaningful debate on her statement above.
SB>the quote below is a bad misstep in a wonderful book. Peck's mistake is
>that he is commenting on something outside his area of expertise.
Peck is a scientist whose specialty is closest to the spiritual. Psychiatry
derives from the Greek works psyche which means "spirit".
He should be eminently well-qualified to comment on his fellow scientists
blind spot when it comes to matters of the spirit.
SB>Scientists *can't* "look at the evidence of the reality of God" because
>that is a *religious* persuit.
First, scientists are *human beings* who can "look at the evidence of the
reality of God" just like anyone else.
Second, I just pointed out that scientists pontificate on the importance of
humans, which is also a "religious pursuit". The fact is that materialist-
naturalist Science does not respect the very science-religion boundaries it
professes to believe in. The reason is because it does not really consider
that God could be *real* and therefore that at least one religion could be
*true*. What materialistic-naturalistic science wants is for religion to stick to
its reservation marked out for it by science while science retains the right to
enter that reservation at will!
SB>It would be like criticizing Peck, a
>psychiatrist, for not being able to program computers.
Not really. See above.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own
creation myths, and these are ours. They are probably more accurate than
any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to revision as
we find out more about the nature and the history of life. The best that can
be said for any scientific theory is that it explains all the data at hand and
has no obvious internal contradictions." (Wilson E.O., et. al., "Life on
Earth", [1973], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1975, reprint, p624)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------