So what is the difference between you or religious
people "keeping up with religious knowledge" or "religion keeping
up with the latest findings/knowledge" and
scientists/philosophers/science keeping up with the latest
findings/knowledge?
Let's take your perception/people's perception of the
world as an example. You see red/blue/green/yellow around you. The
color blind person sees only shades of grey.
What does that tell you? Colors are people's delusions
in that there are no colors in this world! There are only spectrum
of light! Your brain assign colors to these different spectrum of
light!
The color blind person can still touch an elephant and say,
elephant! He will never ever touch a color and say, blue! Blue does
not exist, not like an elephant, and you need a brain to see blue
(just having eyes will not do, just as color blind people have
eyes).
If you lose the sense of touch, you will still be able to
see an elephant. You will still be able to hear and elephant if it
calls out. Not the same with color. You lose the ability
to interpret the different wavelengths of
lights, you cannot see color because colors do not exist. What
humans see as blue, an insect could very well see something else
and very likely see something else! (Actually what we see,
everything we see is but an interpretation... but that is another
story hahaha)
You are right in saying that what scientists know about
the universe today is still ongoing. You are wrong in saying
religious people are seekers. Religious people (maybe not you) are
people that claim to have found the truth/people that have found
IT!
"Jesus IS the ANSWER" they claim. You ever hear them say
"Jesus is a small part, maybe the answer"? Of course not. That is
not how religious people operate. You want people to give you 10%
of their salaries in the name of Jesus, you have to tell them
"Jesus IS the answer" or else no one will or very few will give you
even a cent.
Scientists will tell you: "All the findings, all the
research, all the observations, points us to this direction but
once we come up with new evidence and proofs, we will let you
know."
The evidence, proofs, observations are open to all to
review, criticize and object to. Some religious people will
kill you together with other innocent people if you dare criticize
their religion. While not all will kill you if
you criticize them, ALL, will not accept criticism and
change their core beliefs. They will simply cling on to their core
beliefs.
You see, if they accept the criticism and change, the
religion disappears.
All religions (otherwise they would not be called
religions) are based on unproven beliefs.
Science tells you, "it points to this direction, given
the state of the art but subject to change", the religions will
tell you: "WE KNOW, WE FOUND IT! IT IS LIKE THIS!"
So the choice is yours and even for some scientists, are
you willing to accept the versions the religions offer, when
scientist tell you the evidence so far is this but subject to
change?
Are you willing to accept the REALITY, the reality based
on what we know so far even if it is uncomfortable, or do you want
to live in a set of delusional lies, comforting to hold on to, but
nevertheless, unproven, illogical and baseless?
First of all, i must say that i understand your point of view.
The notion of its logic in the material plane to be supported by
concrete evidence, and not some 'delusion' to rely on ones faith,
such as believers on the meaning of the creation of the
universe.
And regarding contradictions and affirmations(which agnostics,
atheists,non-believers always rely on), upon an examination of the accounts in the
Gospels, it will be seen that none of the writers denies, what one
of the other Gospel writers affirms. If, however, one talks about a sun that is
always light, yet dark, contradictory statements are made. By
definition that which is always light cannot be dark. Nor
can one talk about a square circle, since by definition a circle is
round and not square. The property of squareness precludes the
possibility of a square being a circle. In certain instances not all problems may be
resolved by a careful reading of the contexts and a clarification
of what is, and what is not, claimed by the narratives. Such ought
not to be the source of undue embarrassment. The fact that no resolution of a
problem is immediately possible is not proof that the right
solution is not available. Humility is required that one
does not confine the divine inspiration of Scripture to the level
of one's intellectual attainments.
Let me just begin with the simple notion of supported evidence
of biblical proportions. Crossings of the red sea by Moses.
While the above locations of Mount Sinai and Yam Suf have been
conventional wisdom for centuries, during just recent decades,
mountain-climbing-adventurers and deep sea divers (devoted
Christian Bible-believers) have made remarkable discoveries in the
Gulf of Aqaba and in Saudi Arabia. By 21st century standards of
artifacts, topography and logic, these facts-on-the-ground
establish that the Bible and the Passover Haggadah are arguably
true factual histories of ancient events - including the
"miracles" described in the Old Testament.
What has been found are coral-covered remnants of ancient
Egyptian chariots: wheels, hubs, axles and shafts, the diameters
and spoke designs matching Egyptian murals and museum collections
of the 18th Dynasty (compatible era-wise with the biblical Exodus).
Photos of such artifacts, although underwater (removal is not
permitted by Egyptian and Saudi authorities), can be seen in
numerous books, films, even on the Internet. The artifacts,
including bones of men and horses, are strewn along a seven mile
underwater ridge, from Egypt to the Saudi Arabian shore.
A 21st century realist viewing these items in books, film or
Internet, can ask, "Are these coral-covered remains of ancient
chariots really there?" An affirmative answer comes from solid
reasoning - the numerous well-known personages accompanying the
diving expedition, the many authors of books and films, all attest
to authenticity - such serious professionals would not risk their
reputations and careers in any duplicitous scheme (such as if the
artifacts depicted were non-existent). Thus by logic, those
coral-covered relics of ancient Egyptian chariots are truly there -
scattered on an undersea ridge between Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and
Saudi Arabia, miles from Egyptian shore and hundreds of feet
below sea level.
Q:Why Did the Charioteers Enter the Ridge - Water Hundreds of
Feet Above?
For it is only logical to explain that, it has to have a passage
of way, to enter and pursue. The key element here is the rationale
behind the pursuit of the chariots.The only rationale has to be
that it looked safe - since the Israelites were fleeing without
concern for the water, hundreds of feet above their heads, and
"somehow" being held back! - That is just a thought for you to
ponder on.
Now the next issue will be regarding Science and Religion.
I am sure we have all seen or head the story about a young
boy/girl, asking the mum/dad 'Where did i come from?' pleased to
have the opportunity to discuss such an important matter with her
son, began by offering an elementary account of human biology, even
introducing some references to the theory of evolution. Lest she
restrict her analysis to the realm of the purely physical, she
spoke of God's role in the creation of each human soul, and
ultimately of God as the source of all that is. After she had
finished, her young son, looking somewhat bemused, said to her that
he had wondered about this because his friend next door had told
him that he had come from Iowa.
The question of where we come from can be answered in many ways.
We need to keep this fact in mind when we turn our attention to the
account given by contemporary cosmology of the origins of the
universe. I seriously dont want to go into the details of the Big
Bang as a "singularity," that is, an ultimate boundary or edge, a
"state of infinite density" where space-time has ceased.Just as
sub-atomic particles appear to emerge spontaneously in vacuums in
laboratories, as the result of what is called "quantum tunneling
from nothing," so the whole universe may be the result of a similar
process, however rejected by Hawkings that he universe, according
to him, does not have a boundary: "It is completely self-contained
and not affected by anything outside itself." He thinks that the
only way to have a scientific theory is if "the laws of physics
hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe." That
issue even though exetremely interesting to look at the competeting
ideas, i shall stop here. To continue on.. i use one of the
natural law jurisprudence by Thomas Aquinas in the explaintaion
like how too often contemporary discussions about the relationship
between science and religion suffer from an ignorance of history,
and our question is an example. For we can save God and natural
theology from the dustbins simply by turning to the sophisticated
analyses of the natural sciences and creation that took place
during the age of High
Scholasticism. <--- Click to save time for
explainations.
Recent speculations that the universe began as "quantum
tunneling from nothing" reaffirm the ancient Greek principle that
you cannot get something from nothing. For the "vacuum" of modern
particle physics, whose "fluctuation" some see as bringing our
universe into existence, is not absolutely nothing. It is not
anything like our present universe, but it still is something. Or
else, how could it fluctuate? The key to Aquinas' analysis is the
distinction he draws between creation and
change.
Aquinas did not think that the opening of Genesis presented any
difficulties for the natural sciences, for the Bible is not a
textbook in the sciences. What is essential to Christian faith,
according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or
mode of the formation of the world.
For Aquinas, the literal meaning of the Bible is what God, its
author, intends the words to mean. The literal sense of the text
includes metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech useful to
accommodate the truth of the Bible to the understanding of its
readers. For example, when one reads in the Bible that God
stretches out His hand, one ought not think that God has a hand.
The literal meaning of such passages concerns God's power, not His
anatomy. Nor ought one think that the six days at the beginning of
Genesis literally refer to God's acting in time, for God's creative
act is instantaneous.
Hence, Aquinas would have no difficulty accepting Big Bang
cosmology, even with its recent variations, while also affirming
the doctrine of creation out of nothing. He would, of course,
distinguish between advances in cosmology and the philosophical and
theological reflections on these advances. Like the little boy/girl
i mentioned at the outset, we are being told a great deal that
is beside the point of our question. Thomas Aquinas did not
have the advantage of the Hubble Space Telescope, but in many ways
he was able to see farther and more clearly than those who do.
Sorry for such a long post, as i am trying to use logical
explainations using the jurisprudence of natural law as opposed to
positivist point of view to try and make my state ment.
Finally, i must end this by saying that, yes i believe in the
realities. But the difference between me and those that follow
blindly, i accept science and religion together. Maybe you need to
see LKY's body (and/or skeptical) to believe he is dead even though
his body together with 500 people perished in the sea(as reported
in New Strait Times), you will not give the benefit of the doubt,
and unless solid proof that he is dead, u still have inclinations
of him hiding at some cave with his billions of the peoples money.
Unless you want DNA proof :-
If u were to believe in DNA , let me give you another example of
why I say it takes just as much faith to believe evolution as it
does to believe in God. There is exactly zero evidence of one
species of beings evolving into another species. None, not one
example or proof. Yet we are told that we all came from a common
ancestor. People will even try to point to DNA and how close our
DNA is to apes and say, see that is proof. Did you realize that our
DNA is also close to the DNA of a tomato? Wow, did we come from
tomatoes? Of course not, so what does it prove? To me it proves
that we had a common Creator. Our Creator not only made us but He
made tomatoes too!! And apes and grasshoppers, etc...
So i hope you will understand the way i believe in the bible as
much as i believe in science.
