Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
...
I can, quite easily,
agree with everything believed within religion,
without violating everything believed within science.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruminator
...
Though I don't understand how you manage that?
...
|
As I said, easily. I don't shackle my thoughts into any pre-determined conclusions.
I understand that the body of religious writings represent the wisdom of thousands of years of human experience, and I know that human nature never changes--these writings are as relevant as they ever were. I know also, that the laws of physics do not change, although our understanding of them is always incomplete. Our understanding of the physical universe is an ever-changing work-in-progress.
When reading a composite of anctient writings, I consider this context. Is what is important to the aspect describing human nature necessarily directly correlated to the aspect describing the physical universe, i.e. do we have to believe the texts as literal or can we take away their true value without bundling in unnecessary baggage? Do I not have the luxury of using ALL the knowledge at my disposal in fleshing out an idea of what they were writing about?
I'm not saying that my knowledge of the universe is necessarily superior to those in the past, but that neither of us can confirm that knowledge. And, at best, we are all dealing in metaphors for something we are literally unable to understand. Therefore, I do the best I can with all the knowledge I have to form one coherent description of the universe. I recognize that all who came before me were making this same attempt; and I acknowledge their work and build upon it rather than tossing it out without consideration.
Right or wrong, what this means is that I place everything I read into a massive logic chart and calculate the probability of something's liklihood based upon how well it matches the literal or metaphorical descriptions found within other sources. I don't discriminate against a source simply because it is a religious text; however, as soon as someone starts quoting one, exclusive text as the source of all knowledge, their credibility drops to near zero almost instantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenGum
Sounds like Flind might be a Deist.
|
From what you've described, that sounds about right. What I call God is immanent, but not transcendental.
However. That's not the whole story. I refer to God as an organizational intelligence, because physical objects which are sufficiently organized do begin to exhibit properties which appear to be transcendental to their component qualities. I do not believe that physical objects can be literally transcendental; however, to the degree that we are able to perceive certain of their qualities, they appear that way to us.
I believe that religions describe the apparent transcendental properties of the universe which, while theoretically capable of being scientifically explained, such a description is not likely (or was not likely at the time of a particular writing). In those cases, a vague metaphor is (or was) probably the best approach available. A metaphor can contain more information than can be communicated verbatim, acting as a kind of data compression. However, as the granularity of our knowledge increases, we can begin to take more literal views upon things.