Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fastsix, Mar 19, 2014.
Ananias and Sapphira would disagree.
Az, everyone of them testified Jesus came back from the dead! Now if Jones or Koresh did that you may have a valid comparison, but they didn't, so you don't.
You have completely missed the point. How do we know the apostle testimony to be completely accurate? How do we know that the apostles were told Jesus came back and they wholeheartedly accepted this as fact, when it reality, it was a complete fabrication? And how do we know the Heaven's Gate people aren't in fact on the Mothership, as ridiculous as it may sound?
Truth is, we don't know. We can only accept things on faith alone. You obviously accept the apostle accounts as gospel. Others, including myself, have doubts. And a big reason I have doubts is there are plenty of instances of belief in the supernatural that make people do and believe some strange things. Heck, there are Branch Davidian survivors that still believe and are waiting for Koresh to be resurrected!
Did you know that the largest proponent of Intelligent Design/Creationism is based in Seattle?
Seattle also has the Mars Hill megachruch.
And not related to religion, but conservative politics - Bellevue (Seattle suburb) has the Second Amendment Foundation.
Even so, you really should limit the unGodly comments to Western Washington. Eastern Washington doesn't like it when you lump them in with us. It's all "real America" over there.
And it's all "Third Reich" in some places.
Secularist ideologues will relentlessly marshal stories of Hypatia, Galileo, Giordano Bruno and others -- all castigated or persecuted by church people who did not adequately grasp the principles I have been laying out. But to focus on these few exceptional cases is grossly to misrepresent the history of the relationship between Catholicism and the sciences.
May I mention just a handful of the literally thousands of Catholic clerics who have made significant contributions to the sciences? Do you know about Fr. Jean Picard, a priest of the 17th century, who was the first person to determine the size of the earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy? Do you know about Fr. Giovanni Battista Riccioli, a 17th century Jesuit astronomer and the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a free-falling body? Do you know about Fr. George Searle, a Paulist priest of the early 20th century who discovered six galaxies? Do you know about Fr. Benedetto Castelli, a Benedictine monk and scientist of the 16th century, who was a very good friend and supporter of Galileo? Do you know about Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, a Jesuit priest who discovered the diffraction of light? Do you know about Fr. George Coyne, a contemporary Jesuit priest and astrophysicist, who for many years ran the Vatican Observatory outside of Tucson? Perhaps you know about Fr. Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk who virtually invented modern genetics, and about Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, a 20th century Jesuit priest who wrote extensively on paleontology, and about Fr. Georges Lemaître, the formulator of the Big Bang theory of cosmic origins.
Can we please, once and for all, dispense with the nonsense that Catholicism is the enemy of the sciences? When we do, we'll expose the Seth MacFarlane telling of the story for what it really is: not scientific history but the basest sort of anti-Catholic propaganda.
31% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism, i.e the earth is only 6000 years old and man has been here in his present form since the beginning. I have no idea what percentage of that 31% is Catholic, but I bet the majority of that 31% believes the way they do, because of religion. For those people religion is the enemy of science.
That was then, now many Christians are anti-science.
But of course there will have been Christians at the forefront of science since science and philosophy grew out of a more religious world. The Age of Enlightenment however actually signified a breaking away not just from the Catholic Church, but even from purely religious explanations about life.
It would still stand to reason that some of those who do science might also still be religious, and that religions (not just Christianity, fwiw) have contributed greatly to science. But science in itself (and the scientific method that is its cornerstone) does not need religion to stand on it's own. So no a good case cannot be made for Christian science as science is a method that is independent of Christianity regardless of its roots while Christianity (or religion or faith or belief) relies on a different way of knowing.
When uncanny phenomenon happens, its uncanniness or synchronicity is perceived subjectively by the observer. The group sharing of this subjective experience however appears to add an a posteriori dimension to the observation. So I am not quite satisfied that the phenomenon can be classified as purely psychic.
Yeah, since Comte, the West has made a rigid distinction between metaphysical and "positive" knowledge, elevating scientific empiricism as the primary source of all knowledge. Pretty much anyone operating prior to that didnt make such strong distinctions.
Seattle is something of a megachurch hub. So are the Twin Cities.
That it does, but that dimension can certainly be a result of social psych processes that cause the internalization of belief in something that might have been witnessed. It's much harder to parse out that which might have been arrived at independently from what is influenced by others since humans often seek validation of their experiences, especially when it might be of a variety in which the witnessed phenomenon was ephemeral or when individuals were primed in some way to believe it prior to its alleged occurrence.
To go back to one of the original points about the Bible for instance. Given many of the stories were written well after the fact of their alleged occurrences, and by those already primed to believe in such things, it's hard to assess just how much those writers were influenced by other writers/others and their own beliefs.
It came from nothing apparently, but I'm not nearly smart enough to understand why.
Goto about 22 minutes in the video - the forum software won't let me link to a specific time.
Because I think the Universe is endless... and part of a continuum... with no begging and no end.
And our Big- Bang, imho, is one of quadrillions to the Googolplex happening in space, all the time, far too distant from us to see any of the light.
There is no outside of outside.... I can elaborate later if you must know my personal epiphany on this subject.
It's part of a well excepted theory of inflation... NOTHING NEW.
The video I linked to explains the thinking behind it. Here's the URL right to the relevant part - although it's still about 20 min long.
I don't think it so much proves that there can't be a god, since you could argue that god could exist outside of time and space, but these ideas do cause people to redefine what god is. I look at all the religions there are, and have been, and wonder how many times does god have to be redefined before we simply admit that we can't possibly know what god is.
Is the belief that there must be something behind all this, something intelligent and greater than our intelligent selves, just part of human vanity, or is it more like plain common sense that there must be something intelligent behind all this, and in particular behind the remarkable phenomenon of consciousness itself, which allows the question to even be asked?
I'm sure there must be some historical religious or philosophical theory or concept that's based in some way on this question (Anselm or somebody?), but I am not well versed enough in the philosophy of religion to identify it. But to me this question is the crux of the matter.
It is within the purview of science to establish how and when, and the "why" for theologians and other meditative thinkers.
Thanks for posting this clip, six. I watched it several years ago when Hawking first released it, and his topical book. Just now I finished watching it again - and certain portions yet again - and greatly appreciate how the theories Hawking speaks of so closely and amazingly match Judaism's metaphysical treatises on why God created and continually creates all existence.