Why scientists are closer to God than you are.

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.

Oh, and post your opinons. (on this topic)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
hug There, there now, don't cry just because you have a crappy thread.

😱 😆

jk

Somehow I don't think you believe what you wrote. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why does it matter if I do? To what extent to I have to agree with it to believe in it? In what context am I believing this?

Well, let's just say there are some major holes in your statement up there. Glaring ones actually, its pretty sloppy work, very unlike you Alliance.

Well would you like to address them or simply point out how intelligent you think you are?

Originally posted by Alliance
Well would you like to address them or simply point out how intelligent you think you are?

That was too harsh of me.

Originally posted by Alliance
That was too harsh of me.

No, I think it was perfectly justified.

Well, for starters...

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.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Einstein

These debates always seems to come down to "which is better" in understanding the Big Picture: using the Mind or the Heart.

IMO, using both is better than either by itself. Blind faith alone is religionistic self-indulgence; science alone is directionless number-crunching.

On the other hand to that oft-quoted saying.

"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

That's why I make the distinction between religion and religionism...Einstein did too.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

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.

Its so often taken out fo context.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't that what Darwin did?

No. This philosophy actually predates Darwin. Darwin is an iffy case, because he later went through an athiest-agnostic case when his kid died.

Darwin did use some elements of this philosophy, but it came out of its golden age by the time the Enlightnement rolled around.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

Its so often taken out fo context.

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.

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"