Re: Legal, religious, scientific...
- From: "Kent Johnson" <kent@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:35:45 GMT
In my mind, science is a methodology, a process, a way of uncovering
relationships, aspects and attributes of the phenomenal world in which we
Revelation, on the other hand, is proclamation or explanation or
illumination of relationships, aspects and attributes of the rational world.
There are relationships between the two. I see similar patterns, usually
expounded in allegory, between the phenomenal and the rational.
Thanks for bringing this up.
"Orthodox Being" <Orthodox.Being@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
The bottom line is that Science in itself is a form of revelation, to be
read and understood with the other Revelations, with capital 'R.'
"Kent Johnson" <kent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Last night I started reading the meat in my newest Newsweek magazine andstories
came across a story which asserts that the genus Homo contained so many
different species that it should be considered the human "family bush"
rather than a tree, but only Homo Sapien remain today.. To Baha'is, this
begins to vindicate the religious assertion that humanity is not
from the apes, and may one day explain how this worked, mechanically.
When we think of religious truth we often come across conundrums like the
assertion that humanity did not descent from apes, and stories of Adam
Eve, Babel, Creationism and many more. Most often we relegate such
to being completely allegorical, although we don't know which allegoriesother
precisely we should apply these stories. Not many of us dare to suggest
that these stories are true, though many of us will admit as much with
like-minded individuals, and will endlessly discuss the possibilitiesthese
stories hold to refine our ideas of truth.make
It started me thinking of how science is overstepping it boundaries to
assertions that are not theories. Global Warming is a prime timeto
as Darwinism is at times. It seems to me that such assertions use facts
make arguments, like legal arguments, but convincing you, the judge, isnot
the aim of science.to
Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is a good example of using science to
validate a legal argument. The point of the "Truth" is to convince, not
add to scientific knowledge. To convince it is perfectly fine to ignorethere
data that does not validate your argument, (that's the job of the other
side)but to add to science it is not. If the science is faulty then
is no point to the scientific argument, and there seems to be universalcalling
acknowledgement that there are serious flaws in the scientific arguments
presented in "Inconvenient Truth".
But to even say so brings the ire of the main stream, responding by
anyone who questions such things kooks and creationists.truth
In any case the point I am trying to reach is that we need to look at
with clear eyes, without passion that can color our thoughts and compel
to use legal arguments to convince even though we are aware of scientific
evidence to the contrary.
In effect what I am saying is to investigate truth independently.
- Prev by Date: Re: Legal, religious, scientific...
- Next by Date: Re: Baha'i marriage
- Previous by thread: Re: Legal, religious, scientific...
- Next by thread: Re: Legal, religious, scientific...