Re: Questions for the Next Manifestation

Kent wrote:

<<To extend my comparison with relativity and physics, there is a lot
of
discussion in that area about prayer and sacrifice as well. I am sure
physicists think and wonder about karma, fasting and the influence of
prayer. But it is not the concern of their vocation.>>

I'm not sure how extending your analogy helps. Do you think we're all
here for our vocation?

<<For example, in Some Answered Questions 'Abdul'-Baha named five
spiritual powers. No one else I know of in history has referred to
five such powers except 'Abdu'l-Baha. Is this a call to Baha'is to
take up arms and re-write the sciences of psychology and sociology
according to an infallible Witness?>>

This is a straw man argument. Who in our Faith is taking up arms
against science? Also, you are creating false problems between
science and what 'Abdu'l-Baha said. I have my master's in
psychotherapy, so I have studied many models of human psychology.
Some of these models contradict one another; others build on things
other people have said, adding extra things to them. It's all very
fuzzy, at best. There is no consensus. It is not an exact science.
I don't see anything in what 'Abdu'l-Baha said that requires Baha'is
to take issue with psychologists, or anything that psychologists would
take issue with.what 'ABdu'l-Baha said. 'Abdu'l-Baha gives some
interesting points to think about.


Kent:

<<It is my contention, clearly stating that contention for the
umpteenth
time, that the Baha'i Faith is not about the answers to scientific
questions.>>

I don't think that the point of the Baha'i Faith is to teach science.
It's to teach about spiritual reality. There are spiritual principles
found in nature. 'Abdu'l-Baha expounds on these. Baha'u'llah was
talking about the creation of the Universe from the perspective of
God. It may be intriguing, but scientists still need to figure it all
out. 'Abdu'l-Baha's talk about evolution added something that
scientists would be incapable of doing -- the spiritual element. He
said that we were always human in potential and we always had souls.
No scientist could possibly confirm or deny this. It isn't science.
It's the sort of thing that one has to take on faith, or reject on
faith. But it certainly all makes a great deal of sense to me, and
I'm quite happy to discuss it with anyone who is interested in doing
so. Those who aren't interested can start their own threads talking
about the subjects which interest them.

All best wishes,

Suzanne




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Expelled....Liberals Exposed....
    ... science or the way scientists think. ... this fanatic faith in your religion of "science" does NOT make ... Religion, at least some of them, ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Fallout 3 no longer banned in Australia
    ... based on the axioms we've accepted from science. ... changed its mind many times through its short life & each time it's refined ... Faith is not just about finding some truth in order to invalidate ... are so many scientists with differing or even opposing POVs on this topic, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> Scientists are very good at interpreting the data they collect. ... >>> But science is correct when it talks about missing data. ... What is your faith based ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Expelled....Liberals Exposed....
    ... science or the way scientists think. ... this fanatic faith in your religion of "science" does NOT make ... Religion, at least some of them, ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Evolutionhas been of no use to mankind...
    ... Concentrate on real science in the health ... >> faith hinders scientific thought one more time, ... I believe this involves more than just teaching the facts of Nature as ... genetically engineered by scientists who use the evolutionary ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading