(5) Science vs. Theology

Stephen Millard smillard at webgold.com
Thu Mar 12 08:48:57 EST 1998


mystic wrote:
> 
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > Per-Anders Freyhult <per.anders.freyhult at r.lrf.se> wrote..
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> > > > Religion is not compatible with science at all-
> > > > religion is the antithesis of science.
> > > >
> > > > All true scientists are atheists.
> > > > All truly intelligent people are atheists.
> > > > Religion is something found only
> > > > in ignorant children. The logical process
> > > > of reason must exclude mythological
> > > > beliefs.
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > Althuogh I my self is probably beast designated as an agnostic I see
> > no
> > > reason that relegion and science are incombatible. Rather I see them
> > as
> > > paralell principles, religion dealing with those things that can not
> > be
> > > described in purely physical terms but are non the less important to
> > > human such as the afterlife, the origin of all things( what scientist
> > > can tell you what caused the Big Bang) and such things.
> > > Also these lines "All truly intelligent people are atheists. Religion
> > is
> > > something found only in ignorant childern." are an insult to every
> > > religious individual on this planet.
> > >
> > > Johan Freyhult
> > >
> > My opinion of religion is quite low. I do not
> > regard anyone who is so weak-minded to
> > actually believe in such nonsense as intelligent.
> > Would you regard an adult who actually believes
> > in Santa Claus to be intelligent? My opinion
> > may be taken as an insult by religious people,
> > but my intent is merely to guide the fools back to
> > the path of reason and science and away from
> > the land of fairytales.
> >
> > Goldstein
> 
> Nonetheless, there are still things in this world that are quite real,
> even prosaic, that are not measurable, quantifiable, nor explainable
> in terms of pure rationale.  Love.  Hate.  Awe.  Even trying to explain
> these in terms of chemical impulses in the brain is not plausible,
> because no one is certain as to whether or not the measurable evidences
> of emotions are a cause -- or an effect.  I'm as much a scientist as I
> am a historian or a poet -- and I know a blind spot in the abilities
> of science when I see it.  Admitting this is no more un-intelligent than
> is irrationally claiming that science can answer all questions -- even
> those that have not yet been asked of it.
> 
> Appleman

I would agree. Further, I believe that the spirituality requirements we
have are emotions based on instincts. Some have larger doses than
others. Spirituality, however suggests a story to accompany it. Some of
the stories are more logical than others, and some are more compatible
with science than others. When challenged the holder of the story will
defend it with zeal, as it is emotionally based. Try telling even the
most logical scientist, that is happy with his/her marriage, that their
spouse has been demonstrated to be a despicable person, and they should
no longer stay in the marriage, and see how logicically this is handled. 

Steve
-- 
               ----------------------------
               - Stephen Millard          -
               - Websmith Enterprises Inc.- 
               - Harrisburg, Pa.          -
               ----------------------------



More information about the Plant-ed mailing list