by IslandWoman 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
I give the Dubs credit where credit is do. Their "Blood doctrine" sacrifices are/were not nearly as bad as the Catholics. Think of all the dead, who fought for God in the UK. The Dubs only have allowed a fraction of sacrifices of what the Catholics did.
Break the chains that bind you,
unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing.
J2L,
Thank you for bringing Peaceful's words to my attention again. I misread his statement to the effect that we both have an incomplete understanding. In all honesty, I was so unnerved by the thought that I had insulted Peaceful (and possibly others), that I misread into his comments the very same thing (an insult). [:|] Wonder how many times that happens and goes ultimately undetected on the board? Thanks for your correction and clear-headed reading comprehension.
Peaceful,
An additional apology for misreading your last comment. Obviously my reading comprehension was suffering.
Best wishes,
Rational
RW
Theres plenty of blame to go around.But I really am afraid there is no where to go with this discussion. I'm glad to see that you have not fallen to the conclusion that scientific methodology is inherently biased favoring atheism.It is a tried and proven approach tward unfettered learning.As mentioned a number of times in other threads most scientists recognise the error of applying this method alone to other domains, such as moral value judgement.While everyone no doubt agrees that objective assessment of specific traditional rules of behavior is healthy and refines the product, scientists should abstain from declaring certain judgment for or against esoteric "beliefs" that pose no threat to society. That last part of what constitutes a threat is where most of the disagreement arises.The private determination that acceptance of ANY as yet unscientific ideas promotes superstition and amounts to a threat to human progress, naturally precludes the concept of gods and actively opposes it.This is an extreme position that probably,like religion provides emotional security for it's adherents with it's appearance of certainty. Some notable thinkers have spontaneously or when pressed, expressed their personal philosophy for living.Their comments while often influential do not represent science or scientists as a whole.Readers need to understand the difference.
Richard Feynman, outstanding physicist,found a place in his mind for belief in a God.He did however acknowledge that belief for a scientist is different than the person undisciplined in his thinking. An awareness that the conclusion is an indefensible one made for other than scientific reasons.He did not in his determination see this as any compromise of scientific ideals.Stephen Jay Gould while having the very same determination that belief does not constitute a threat to science,concludes privately that there is not enough for him to base belief upon.To each his own.
The only problem encountered is when religion asserts as fact histories or explanations that do directly conflict with known science.Then religion is open to be challenged. The consequences of debunking these literalist errors can be devastating to the masses,who find themselves without a "port of call".
How much the world needs a new approach to religion! To provide moral guidance, a sense of social responsibility, and a positive philosophy, without citing ancient "proof texts"as authority. A good philosphy has it's own persuasive power.Story telling can reach the heart, so these tools can effectively fill this human need without the trappings of literalism and dogma.No doubt some of these new religions would incorporate a deity to serve as role model father figure.For such a religion science would pose no danger.
Ultimately you've argued that life without belief in God is puposeless and fraught with uncertainty and perhaps inclined tward selfishness. And why? Because without God there is no ultimate accounting or reward, noone telling you that you matter in the big picture.It is my position that it is posible to provide people with a sense of purpose,that of enjoying life for what it offers and helping others with less to enjoy.Each of us becomes vitally important to the whole."Kindness has it's own reward" someone smart once said.
"You reap what you sow"To quote the Bible.I do not imagine that this will exactly substitute traditional theology in it's power to motivate masses.This is because the safety net created by fear of dissent with be gone.For better and for worse this will impact society.How to manage the details of such a society will have to be worked out by the sociologists and polticians of the future.
This community spirit is not strong enough today and to some extent this is the result of separatist theology(us vs. the world)and shortsighted apocalyptisism.(how many policies have been made by Right wingers anticipating imminent world destruction by God) It is also the result of humanist lethargy.Too many with good things to say have remained silent, allowing 100-2000 yr old primative humanist voices to speak in their behalf.
This must change.This is the hope I entertain.Today it is not an easy thing to do,creating this code to live by without organized support.I have benefitted much by reading as many varied opinions on the subject as I encounter.I am my own person but have learned a great deal from others who have struggled with these issues before me. I've learned that there remains much to learn and that learning is not a threat to truth or goodness.A blinding resistance to change is.
Any discussion about evidence for creation is another topic,one that I'd participate in if someone wishes to open the thread and agree to limit the talk to just the science.
Peaceful,
Thank you for your kind response. I do not have time to make a reply worthy of the effort you have put into it, but I did want to say that it appears to me we are closer in our views than you may have thought. BTW, three of Feynman's lectures given in his book The Meaning of It All portray a balanced viewpoint between science and religion.
Cheers,
Rational
