quote:
1. The Law and Jesus. The historical J doesn't seem to have overturned the law, or amended it, or anything. His is the standard pharasaical exegesis of the day. So he argued with Pharisees-- that's what Pharisees did. They had a parliamentary form of government where written law was interpreted and argued over and made into living law. When J (for example) justified picking corn on the Sabbath, he was not overturning the Law-- he was practicing law, so to speak. It was perfectly "legal" for laws to be overridden by other laws, principles, and necessities, just as in our legal system. There's nothing odd or surprising or revolutionary about it, historically. It's what you'd expect from a Rabbi of the time.
Jesus, as you said, was a rabbi. He was also a carpenter. The point is, he was also a rabbi with a pretty dodgy career. He didn't sit about arguing semantics with Pharisees, he told them they were two-faced bastards in so many words. Jesus stirred up a lot of crap for a Rabbi, but what he did not do is demonstrate any interest in the arcane points of legislation. He said "Today I give you a new law: Love your neighbour as yourself." In other words, this was to superceed the Mosaic law and the doctrines of the Ten Commandments, because, basically, if you treat people like you want to be treated, the Ten Commandments are a moot point. This theme of a prophet bringing change to the followers of the Hebrew God is repeated throughout the Old Testament.
quote:
2. Science. There's a huge misunderstanding about science. Wirthling stated it perfectly: "First, the scientific community does NOT agree to any wild notion. When a scientist proposes any notion, other scientists look into it to see if it proves true or is at least sustainable in a way consistent with other known factors."
Actually, what other scientists do is look into it to see if it's false. There's a big difference. See, you can find evidence for any hare-brained proposition. It's the scientist's duty to doubt and to come up with better theories. So if I say, here's my theory, and here's a bunch of evidence, Science isn't supposed to go, "Oh, OK. Sounds rational to me." It's supposed to go, "what if your results were caused by something else? Such as excessive nose hair?"
No, the scientific community at large does not, by it's very definition, condone or subscribe to wild notions. I am curious, however, as to just how much hard science any of us here really know. Or theology, for that matter. Science is an approach, not a job description, after all. Science covers a lot of shit, you know? And, as I stated, great volumes of scientific research and the conclusions drawn therefrom are not broadly disseminated to the general public, and even if they were, most of it would be indecipherable to people outside of that discipline. What most folks get from science -like it or not- as far as a mental reference point, are guys in lab coats doing terribly interesting things that bore the shit out of us if we pay too much attention to it. The scientific community has good PR, too. They know that the warm and fuzzy feeling people get from it's more productive research is all most people really want. And that's fine, but my point was: I know a few people who are actually firmly entrenched research scientists in various disciplines and avenues of research. I talk with these guys. I applaud and commend them for admitting just how stunningly little we actually know, and how much there is to learn. I am awed by their disciplined and objective approaches to producing solid, tangible results in their research. I can tell you that to a man, though, if asked to choose between "E.T." or "The Ten Commandments" as being useful for educational purposes, they would snicker and say "E.T., obviously. At least that's PLAUSIBLE." This despite the fact that at least the Ten Commandments is somewhat educational as a dramatisation of Hebraic mythology and a historic artifact of a religious faith. We all get narrowed by the mechanics of our occupations.
quote:
Scientific "truth" and "belief" are very different from the religious varieties. It's not quite right to say I "believe" Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. I can say I have a high degree of confidence in their predictions, based on experience, but it's important to realize that both models deal with limited and very different sets of observations and are in many ways-- and this is VERY important-- irreconcilable.
Therefore, science is looking for a better model that will explain both sets of observations, so that they can discard current "truth."
Duh.
quote:
Can you imagine anything like this in religious faith? "I believe Jesus died for my sins, but I'm eager to discard this theory in favor of a more complete one. I'm gathering the evidence against my beliefs as we speak!"
Nice twist on the Sagan quote, but your cheerleading pom poms are showing.
quote:
Finally, Science has nothing to say about God. There's no falsifiable proposition (that I know of) concerning God, so how could Science deal with it?
Which, of course, doesn't keep the scientific community at large from snickering up it's sleeve at the notion of God. Not that anybody really cares, but people notice stuff like that. It's one of those things that everybody knows but nobody admits to. The fact of the matter is that the scientific community at large is widely regarded as being so inherently dismissive and scornful of the notion of an engineered universe created by a superior being, that God is indeed regarded as antithetical to science in general. Just because they don't publish a paper named: "Scientific Community Declares God Bollocks", doesn't mean that everybody, inclding you, doesn't know better. If this smacks of a cliche`, (there are, after all, scientists of various faiths), then no less cliche`d aspersions have been cast upon the religious community since the age of enlightenment
quote:
So why are religion and science seemingly at odds? I think it's because science is founded on doubt, and as they always say, doubt is the enemy of faith.
Science, by and large, via the preponderance of it's research and methodologies, has actually dismissed the notion of God quite handily. And as far as religions go, as near as I can tell, organised relgion is at least as imposing an enemy to faith as doubt.
quote:
I've been asked: What evidence would convince you to believe in God? The short answer is, I'm not in the habit of "believing" things in that way. I mean, even if I saw a burning bush and it told me it was God, I'd have to entertain alternative hypotheses, such as I am off my rocker, or my drinking buddies are back there with a blowtorch and a Mr. Microphone. Even if it performed miracles like parting the Red Sea and vacuuming up Nazis like Nacho Cheese Doritos, I'd have to think maybe it's just very advanced technology, or an alien or something.
Thank you. Everybody knows that grey beings with large heads, black eyes, demonstrating unbelieveable scientific advances as a race -that have been sighted repeatedly by reputable gas station attendants, hairdressers, and monster truck rally attendees- are an entirely more plausible explanation for anything out of the ordinary than a set of ideas that have lasted since the beginning of recorded human history in one form or another. :- )
quote:
And before I could invest any confidence in this God thing, I'd have to make head or tail of it, and so far, I can't.
The articles of most religious precepts all seem to eschew the notion that God has to believe in you, or toss a few miracles out per capita to prove his existance. There is something to be said for faith, actually. The notions of faith and belief and hope are entrenched within the human spirit, and, as the cliche` says: "spring eternal". As much I heartily endorse the love of learning and objective thought, if academia has a shortcoming in and of itself, it lies in the fact that armchair, or for that matter, laboratory bound speculation and convoluted reviews of data and ideologies do NOT lend themselves to nourishing the spiritual nature of mankind. You have to go out and get your hands dirty with something at some point, or you might as well not go anywhere at all. As long as organised religion is touted as the most salient provider of emotional and spiritual care and nourishment, the slap-happy, dogmatic, inexplicably idiotic notions that go with it will prevail over the true value of faith as an anchor in a chaotic world.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Now, if you will excuse me, there are a bunch of Starbucks that need burning. Caramel Macchiatto.... I hope to kiss a pig.
Love,
bunner
---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.
