Re: Pilgrims' Notes


On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Poststructuralist wrote:

Douglas McAdam wrote:
> I'm taking this from my understanding of what the Master wrote in
SAQ.
> Also I seem to recall an article in the WO Mag by a scholar that was
titled something like Man, Distinctly Human.

I don't recall that article. Can you summarize it?

Hi Mark-
I do not recall the author except it was a woman. She claimed the
Writings say that man is distinctly human.

As far as science and religion are concerned my understanding is that
fundamentally both are in harmony and it is we who create the
disharmony. There is a quote saying "true religion" is in harmony with

"true science". Do we have true science and religion yet? I don't
think so but as time goes by and we become more spiritual then science

will improve and be able top prove the spiritual teachings of
Baha'u'llah.

So my view is to not take a stance either way, i.e. I don't see science

trumping religion or vice verse. It is best not to be absolute about
these things at this time for we are all in a very limited degree of
development.

regards,
doug

> Are you saying that science is absolutely correct in its theory of
evolution? Are we just highly evolved animals? Where does our
intelligence come from? Was it always there in mineral, vegetable and
> animal but it needed evolution to appear in humans?

I am saying two things: First, that I don't believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
directly discussing evolution (other than as an analogy for spiritual
involution). Second, that, even if I did believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
promoting a type of old-earth, or progressive, creationism, I would
not
give His comments scientific authority. Ideas, like the Virgin Birth

for
instance, can have scriptural authority without having historical or
scientific authority.

> I seem to recall the term "distinctly human" in an article in the WO
Mag. some years back. Course we can say that our understanding of all
> this is better now than when that article appeared. But then we
also
must admit our current understanding is temporary.

My understanding is that revealed religion and the sciences have their
own particular domains of authority, and that those domains should
remain separate.

--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: slavery and biblical literalism
    ... often a matter of not understanding ... falling short of an imaginary and simple-minded perfect archetype is ... Science wiped out smallpox and built the Hubble Space telescope. ... Science is not religion and religion is not science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: slavery and biblical literalism
    ... often a matter of not understanding ... falling short of an imaginary and simple-minded perfect archetype is ... Science wiped out smallpox and built the Hubble Space telescope. ... Science is not religion and religion is not science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pitfalls of science. . .
    ... our Universe. ... I embrace science. ... I would like to make the point that RELIGION has not brought wars. ... I would agree that science is a much more accurate search for understanding. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Pitfalls of science. . .
    ... our Universe. ... I embrace science. ... I would like to make the point that RELIGION has not brought wars. ... I would agree that science is a much more accurate search for understanding. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Oregon: Teacher Fired Over Bible References
    ... If religion has things to tell science, ... Recall that all the original ... "Evidence confirming an observation is ...
    (talk.origins)