issues of sva dharma change according to circumstance.
issues of santana dharma don't (obviously)
Science could be superstitious too
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
issues of santana dharma don't (obviously)
Yes, because I was looking for an accurate scientific example, not something that could be skewed.
You complain when you think I was going to ask him, you complain when I don't ask him...
Have you gone off your medication?
Except that for all practical intents and purposes, it's hard, and all too often, impossible, to tell which is which.
While you are safely ensconced in your tree. Or armchair.
I revise my statement -
much of the least self-correcting religions (not all obviously) are also somewhat self-correcting. If that weren't the case the protestant reformation would not have occurred. RELIGIOUS people fought other religious people for the control of their own, more personal, more humanist, religious expression. Later on the witch-burners and "angry god" movement of protestants had to be turned into such things as the "jesus people" movement of the 1970's, which had adapted to ideas more amenable to a humanist perspective than the ideas and practices of hundreds or thousands of years previous. When the hindus stop using the caste system, which they will eventually do, that religion will self-correct (this is of course coming from the perspective of a person who believes in equal rights). (of course there is the possibility that the middle class the west has fought so hard to create will die out before that happens, in which case I can't predict the same evolution.) It MIGHT be ok to say some of this religion was correct, and the way people do it has changed, but it is more accurate to say the religion has evolved, because the way the religion is interpreted evolves along with human societal evolution. Thank God.
If religion takes longer to self-correct, that is reasonable, since the questions involved are not as clear as those asked of science. Science is also BASED around changing perspectives away from non-valuable ones as much as it is around finding perspectives that should remain solid over long periods of time, whereas religion doesn't push for that as much, so the progress will be slower because of that as well.
additionally on a different note -
Scientists often use animal testing to prove theories, or even to test beauty products. What does science say about which tests are humane, which tests are important enough to show that we should use inhumane methods to gather results, which tests should be disallowed? i would suggest that people think about that idea before they come out with the proposal that science teaches us "why". Is a test ethical when it provides enough data? When it is done on a monkey instead of a criminal? When it is done on a rat instead of a monkey?
much of the least self-correcting religions (not all obviously) are also somewhat self-correcting. If that weren't the case the protestant reformation would not have occurred. RELIGIOUS people fought other religious people for the control of their own, more personal, more humanist, religious expression. Later on the witch-burners and "angry god" movement of protestants had to be turned into such things as the "jesus people" movement of the 1970's, which had adapted to ideas more amenable to a humanist perspective than the ideas and practices of hundreds or thousands of years previous. When the hindus stop using the caste system, which they will eventually do, that religion will self-correct (this is of course coming from the perspective of a person who believes in equal rights). (of course there is the possibility that the middle class the west has fought so hard to create will die out before that happens, in which case I can't predict the same evolution.) It MIGHT be ok to say some of this religion was correct, and the way people do it has changed, but it is more accurate to say the religion has evolved, because the way the religion is interpreted evolves along with human societal evolution. Thank God.
If religion takes longer to self-correct, that is reasonable, since the questions involved are not as clear as those asked of science. Science is also BASED around changing perspectives away from non-valuable ones as much as it is around finding perspectives that should remain solid over long periods of time, whereas religion doesn't push for that as much, so the progress will be slower because of that as well.
additionally on a different note -
Scientists often use animal testing to prove theories, or even to test beauty products. What does science say about which tests are humane, which tests are important enough to show that we should use inhumane methods to gather results, which tests should be disallowed? i would suggest that people think about that idea before they come out with the proposal that science teaches us "why". Is a test ethical when it provides enough data? When it is done on a monkey instead of a criminal? When it is done on a rat instead of a monkey?
You're assuming that in religion, "self-correction" means shifting toward a more liberal, humanist perspective.
But is that really "self correction" or is just plain change into something else - in which case, the notion of "self-correction" does not apply anymore?
"Self-correction" would be a movement toward greater consistency.
In the case of Christianity, this would mean stoning pagans and not having abortions.
But is that really "self correction" or is just plain change into something else - in which case, the notion of "self-correction" does not apply anymore?
"Self-correction" would be a movement toward greater consistency.
In the case of Christianity, this would mean stoning pagans and not having abortions.
Talk about delusional denial...
uhh... It can and has. It's called Emergence.
You clearly have not clue one what evolution actually shows, do you? No idea- you're running with some assumptions.
I suggest you do some learning here: http://www.talkorigins.org/
on the contrary, with proper definitions, its practically impossible to confuse them ....
Last edited:
Saint
Valued Senior Member
Yes, and it has been repeated in the lab on many levels and in a variety of ways for the last thirty years or so. In fact one scientist went about it unconventionally and showed it in arctic conditions!
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12227424
Emergence is more than theory- it's principle. It's the same reason that ice makes a snowflake, by the way. That the chemicals and conditions lead to the necessity that the chemical reactions will occur is principle.
And, "it's just a theory?"
You have no idea what makes a theory, do you? If you had said, "It's just a hypothesis," I might understand. But a theory is supported by evidence.
A theory is never, "just a..." It's hard science.
Ask Fraggle Rocker to define the word for you in the Help with English thread.
Saint: Whether you believe in a higher power or not is fine. But dismissing reality in order to believe in it is not fine. Perhaps you should ask whether or not you can maintain your belief in a Higher Power even while accepting sound science.
"Proper" according to whom, which particular theism?
what is designated by the birth and death of the body isn't simply a matter of opinion ...
or even a cell from a fruit flyplease make a working human brain first
Not exactly from a fruit fly but will this satisfy you LG?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984.html#
Last edited:
What? Really? Are you that intent on denial?please make a working human brain first
Very well, I'll introduce you to my son, of whom I can describe very accurately just how he came to being, no God needed.
Saint
Valued Senior Member
from scratch, make a human brain and put it into the skull of a dead body to make it alive,
then i will believe u r God.
I never claimed to be God. There is no God- how could I claim to be God?from scratch, make a human brain and put it into the skull of a dead body to make it alive,
then i will believe u r God.
But here's the clincher, you're acting as though something like this has happened which proves a God.
Problem is- that has never, ever happened.
It took 4.5 billion years for us to show up on the scale. So where's this God planting human brains in skulls?
not anymore than urea synthesis from the 1800's
That is dna synthesis applied to an already existing (living) cell.
Big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes ...