sci.astro.amateur
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Beyond Rosamond Report

Subject: Re: Beyond Rosamond Report
From: "Ioannis"
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:54:22 +0200
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:is3mm2hapcficv6s28sot19m78qrio0m84@xxxxxxxxxx
[snip]

> You're painting with too broad a brush. There is no requirement that
> Christians believe in the literal truth of the Bible, nor that
> everything can be understood through its study. At a minimum, Christians
> need to be placed in two categories- Bible literalists, who are either
> fools or just plain stupid, and the rest, who practice Christian
> philosophy in one form or another. There is no conflict between science
> and the beliefs of the latter (who I'm quite certain represent the
> majority of Christians).

Apparently you haven't ever spoken to a Jehova's Wittness. :-)

Although a non-practicing Christian myself, I /think/ these guys probably
represent the culmination of all Christian denominations, in terms of depth of
study (never mind their other aspects of which I am fully aware, btw). From a
couple of short talks I've had with them, they reduce almost everything to the
Bible. I therefore think the term "representative" carries with it a certain
sense of "seriousness" and "depth" of study. And I know of no other
denomination that has gone so far in terms of literal explanations. That's why
I picked this example. But you are right: There are much more lucid
denominations which do not consist of literalists, but I don't consider those
to be representative.

My point with my previous response was that to a non-scientist, science is as
good as faith, so the two /extremes/ are basically irreconcilable.

So I was basically defending Dennis' application of those Dr. Strange comic
cartoons, because the point of "ultimately it's faith" oftentimes extends even
to scientists who do not happen to know EVERYTHING.

So, even with a scientist or amateur scientist/astronomer, oftentimes the
stuff he is not knowledgeable in (like sections of science he is not fluent
at) can nicely be lumped/portrayed in a more abstract way, as in, for example,
with those cartoons that Dennis has put up.

It does not in any way denote "faith" in anything supernatural, in the same
sense that, say, religious people employ "faith". In fact, if any religious
person asked me to "show them God", I'd take them to 6.5+ skies and ask them
to stare at the nightsky. Now cut a crude humanlike outline against that, and
you've got Dr. Strange's cartoons. Nothing metaphysical about that :-)

[snip]

> Chris L Peterson
-- 
Ioannis
-------
The best way to predict reality, is to know exactly what you DON'T want.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>