explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,198
She has also renewed very considerable funding for the Chaplains in Schools program.
We should not imo be placing people in our schools who are proselytyzing religion.
It has less to do with any noble ideals and more to do with covering all the voter bases. Everything is political.
I agree. Do you still think Ms Gillard is on the right track?
It is not outsdie the realms of science at all. Religion is a fairy tale and at sceince a psychosis.
Immateriality, as implied and defined, is nothing.
We do not know about beginnings, in my belief there was no begginning and there is no end. Though the universe and beyond is expanding at the moment no one knows what was before.
Philosophy is reasoning on probabilties which often leads to new science and understanding.
Sprituality is no more than belief.
As long as it's taught as philosophy and not hard facts I'd agree. Teaching kids Genesis as how the Universe was created and understanding right from wrong lacks some credibility these days.See your point Julia but do think that all fields of study should be introduced at the school level. From my experience religion is a good start to philosophical concepts or questioning outside the realms of the concrete/here and now.
We don't know the motivations behind the texts, and they are subject to much study.
Put simply, Religion, much like philosophy attempts to explain "why", is most cases. Science directly deals with "how".
Science, or rather natural and material sciences cannot deal with spirituality. It IS outside the realm of science, as are many other aspects of life. To a subject more relevant - how does material science deal with immaterial mind? They can't, so they invoke that the mind is merely the sum of its parts, that being the brain. The mind, at the moment, is outside the realm of material sciences. They cannot deal with immateriality.
Immateriality is not only an aspect of mind, but of the fundamental properties of the Universe.
1. Everything that had a beginning, had a cause.
2. The Universe has a cause.
If Natural selection be true, that being the driving force that "chooses" the best traits, then that in itself is a bigger miricle than walking on water.
Personaly, when it comes to the philosophy of creation and beginnings, I believe in evolutionary targets.
LostMyShirt;677205]And this is where you have failed.
1. We do not know in totality of beginnings, but we know of beginnings. It has already been established that our reality had a birth.
2. Immateriality is not nothing. "Nothing" is indefinable, as it is impossible. Immaterial simply means it is made up of non-matter. Example; The law of gravity is immaterial, as are laws of logic etc.
3. Your belief of a beginningless and endless Universe has already been toppled by modern science. If anything your "belief" IS indeed faith based due to your belief being contrary to consensus and evidence.
4. Spirituality is a concept that cannot be materially verified with the CURRENT scientific dogma. As is the mind, fundamental Universal properties, Laws of nature etc.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth". There is no denying the beginning, and the creation.
Your belief of an eternal reality is not only contrary to evidence, consesnsus and science itself; it is also contrary to philosophy - and not even Modern philosophy.
I do not wish to devaluate your methodology of thought, but it would be benifitial to take a look at all things as a third person. You can see there are several points of reconsiliation, as well as points of conflict.
The bottom line of my original posts was to demonstrate that there is no war between Science and Religion. This is a myth, and Lennox does a good job at explaining it.
I've been reading the recent posts on this thread with interest and have noticed a recurrent theme where posters describe science as being distinct from religion.
Science happens to be one of my favourite religions.
Anyone who cares to perform an objective investigation into the history and development of many of our modern day branches of science will almost certainly discover that many have religious origins (i.e. chemistry/alchemy, surgery/chirurgery. astronomy/astrology, mathematics/numerology etc.).
So those (myself included) whom choose to subscribe to scientific viewpoints might want to be just a little more appreciative of the true pioneers (i.e. those religious zealots throughout history whom were "faithful" enough to make explorations/investigations into the unknown). After all these were the true pioneers of one of our most popular modern day religions, that religion that we call science.
It is a methodology for doing things and knowing things. The complete opposite of the methodology used by religion.
Do not confuse bad science, which there is some of, with science as it is meant to be.
Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644807-muslims-declare-jihad-on-dogs-in-europe
I seem to recall reading about a plan to "safeguard" against suicide bombers by tethering dogs at the entrance to potential targets. If dogs are so unclean, being splattered with a mutt's bits on their way to those personal virgins would be a sure deterrent and send the terrorist quickly in the other direction. Which is where they belong anywayMuslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644807-muslims-declare-jihad-on-dogs-in-europe
I've been reading the recent posts on this thread with interest and have noticed a recurrent theme where posters describe science as being distinct from religion.
Science happens to be one of my favourite religions.
Anyone who cares to perform an objective investigation into the history and development of many of our modern day branches of science will almost certainly discover that many have religious origins (i.e. chemistry/alchemy, surgery/chirurgery. astronomy/astrology, mathematics/numerology etc.).
So those (myself included) whom choose to subscribe to scientific viewpoints might want to be just a little more appreciative of the true pioneers (i.e. those religious zealots throughout history whom were "faithful" enough to make explorations/investigations into the unknown). After all these were the true pioneers of one of our most popular modern day religions, that religion that we call science.
Do you feel like telling us about what you believe in, young-gun?everyone has to believe in something, i know i do, and by no means do i think im right.
Do you feel like telling us about what you believe in, young-gun?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?