God(s), in their everlasting wisdom have left a tremendous amount of information on this Earth for us to study and to learn about their existence. Gods usually leave two "books" for us to read and learn about their existence: The Book of Scripture and The Book of Nature.
The Book of Scripture is any collection of religious texts and varies from religion to religion. These texts have been edited over and over again in throughout history. They are often ambiguous and can easily be interpreted differently.
The Book of Nature is everywhere around us, in plain sight. By studying this world which God(s) have left for us, we can, free from historical bias and human intervention, look upon God(s) through their most evident gift, creation.
Natural Scientists study God's work, learning in great detail what He/They in his/their wisdom created. By understanding our place within creation and creation's place within us, we can interpret God's will here and now from their active influence in this world, not from man-made/corrupted text.
Natural Scientists are like clergy, only studying the living will of God(s), and hence closer to God(s) than those who ignore God's living legacy.
1. The article--since I feel it is evident that Alliance himself did not write it, though he has failed to quote it--presents the classic "Church vs. science" viewpoint. Flawed from the very beginning.
2. This sentence is beyond ridiculous: "By understanding our place within creation and creation's place within us, we can interpret God's will here and now from their active influence in this world, not from man-made/corrupted text."
It's hogwash. How can we possibly determine how God is "actively influencing" this world by studying nature?
3. The article tries to make the case that, by studying creation, we can understand God's will "be closer to Him." This is akin to me saying that, by studying how a telephone works, I can understand Alexander Graham Bell.
4. "Natural Scientists are like clergy, only studying the living will of God(s), and hence closer to God(s) than those who ignore God's living legacy."
Again, this makes the faulty claim that anyone in organized religion ignores/disregards science. Furthermore, this very claim is invalidated by the sheer number of scientists that have taken it upon themselves to boldly proclaim that science disproves God--and those that try to combine science and religion, such as William Dembski, are treated with scorn and derision.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Re: Why scientists are closer to God than you are.
I think in many religions your post is absolutely accurate. If a religion disregards science, holding to some scriptural interpretation over the scientific fact, that religion is further from God than the scientist. If the religion embraces scientific fact, then it is closer to God than the scientist though, unless the scientist belongs to such a religion.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
--Einstein
Einstein's personal conceptionof religion was way out of the league of most people today. It was purely cosmic. The "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." quote is consitantly used by religious organizations to seemingly validate thier existance. However, they, as has been pointed out, dont know the context of the quote. They just hear religion, think "good" and plaster it up.
It sure is. Conversely, it is also often counter-quoted (again, taken out of context) by those who feel "religion," in any form, no matter what, is negative, that Science Alone (especially empirical science [insert regal trumpeting here]) saves the day. It doesn't. This is why I included context in my second post.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Dec 16th, 2006 at 04:24 PM
Wait, I don't get that. " t is also often counter-quoted (again, taken out of context) by those who feel "religion," in any form, no matter what, is negative"