I sorry, but your idea of "proof" is completely wrong. Proof if repeatable and demonstratable. Your internal christain experience is NOT proof in any way for anyone BUT you, nor would be the religious experiences of Druids, Mormoms, Hidnus or any other faith. Your comments on theories are well taken but missguided. In science a theory is always open to debate. Theories can and have been proven wrong in part or in entirety. Science realizes it might be wrong and is always prepared to correct itself in light of new evidence. In fact science works, in great part, by stating a theory then trying to prove it wrong. As it is proven wrong and corrected, the theory stabalizes into something that gets closer to the truth. Christains believe they have all the answers up front and the facts must fall in-line. This why scientists were hunted by the church for saying that the sun goes round the earth and that the earth is not the center of everything, and that the earth is round. Each step christians "assumed" they were right and science was wrong and THEY were wrong. They were wrong because they attempted to define their personal and group religious exeriences as proof of their books account of history.
The most dagerous part of your message is very much a "Christain Science" soapbox arguement that evolution is a religious faith and creationism is science. They make this arguement in an attempt to get creationism taught in schools as an alternative to theories on evolution. To paraphrase Azimov on the topic, you might as well teach Storkism as a theory on child birth or clausism as a theory on gift giving. The level of science would be no better.
The root problem is cultural in the two communities, science and religion. In science if you stand up and say I think the established theories are wrong, here is why and you layout your reasons with logic or proof to back it up, your ideas are considered, hammered on and integrated into the theory, improving the theory. Quatum Physics is a good example. Newtonian physics was well established and taken for granted. In religion, however, and christainity in particular, you get hunted, killed, outcast and dammed to bad places if you come up with new ideas that go against the established truths as the christains hold them. Martin Luther, the mormons, Galilao, Darwin. All of them had their ideas summarily dispmissed by christian dogmatics and mainy had prices put on their heads.
I don't mean to be hard on religion. I think it has its purpose. But that purpose is NOT to answer questions of science any more than science should answering questions of faith. Did man evolve from lower forms of life? This is a question for science. What does it mean, that man evolved from lower forms of life, and what does it say about us as spiritual beings? These are questions for faith, which science is ill equipt to answer.
Its this kind of religious tunnelvision that stagnates thought. Christianity, historically speaking, has been among the most violent, war inspiring faiths ever, from the Crusades to the Inquisition, to the modern ERA. And when Christians weren't picking a fight with someone they were out shoving their faith down the throats of unsuspecting native cultures all over the world. Just think of the irony. Christians stomping though the rain forests of Central America to tell the natives that they're naked! Did you know that the Mayans wrote books, on paper. Most people don't. That because Christian missionaries convinced them that the bible was all they needed and made them burn all their books. Which is why we know so little about their history. Now that is Christian enlightenment! And what about Buddhist enlightenment? Hindu, Native American Spiritualism, which by the way, has been around longer than Judaism, let alone Christianity.
When Christians begin to believe that they have a monopoly on morality, or that they invented freedom, they lose the best part of their own faith. They lose Christ.
My little take on it: those who follow Christianity end up hateful, spiteful, dogmatic, judgmental and often Republican. Those who follow Christ end up level headed, open-minded and above all, non-judgmental. The Dahlia Lama is probably more a follower of Christ than any Church going, bible-thumping American Christian I've ever met (with a couple of possible exceptions.)
The http://www.msnbc.com/news/207645.asp address works too, but you have to do a reload to actually vote. It's an ASP thing. Also, I sent a note asking for the poll to be included as a headline to get it more attention.
Slashdot Mirror
The most dagerous part of your message is very much a "Christain Science" soapbox arguement that evolution is a religious faith and creationism is science. They make this arguement in an attempt to get creationism taught in schools as an alternative to theories on evolution. To paraphrase Azimov on the topic, you might as well teach Storkism as a theory on child birth or clausism as a theory on gift giving. The level of science would be no better.
The root problem is cultural in the two communities, science and religion. In science if you stand up and say I think the established theories are wrong, here is why and you layout your reasons with logic or proof to back it up, your ideas are considered, hammered on and integrated into the theory, improving the theory. Quatum Physics is a good example. Newtonian physics was well established and taken for granted. In religion, however, and christainity in particular, you get hunted, killed, outcast and dammed to bad places if you come up with new ideas that go against the established truths as the christains hold them. Martin Luther, the mormons, Galilao, Darwin. All of them had their ideas summarily dispmissed by christian dogmatics and mainy had prices put on their heads.
I don't mean to be hard on religion. I think it has its purpose. But that purpose is NOT to answer questions of science any more than science should answering questions of faith. Did man evolve from lower forms of life? This is a question for science. What does it mean, that man evolved from lower forms of life, and what does it say about us as spiritual beings? These are questions for faith, which science is ill equipt to answer.
Dude. Have some more champagne!
Sympathy accepted! Thank you.
Did you know that the Mayans wrote books, on paper. Most people don't. That because Christian missionaries convinced them that the bible was all they needed and made them burn all their books. Which is why we know so little about their history. Now that is Christian enlightenment!
And what about Buddhist enlightenment? Hindu, Native American Spiritualism, which by the way, has been around longer than Judaism, let alone Christianity.
When Christians begin to believe that they have a monopoly on morality, or that they invented freedom, they lose the best part of their own faith. They lose Christ.
My little take on it: those who follow Christianity end up hateful, spiteful, dogmatic, judgmental and often Republican. Those who follow Christ end up level headed, open-minded and above all, non-judgmental. The Dahlia Lama is probably more a follower of Christ than any Church going, bible-thumping American Christian I've ever met (with a couple of possible exceptions.)
The http://www.msnbc.com/news/207645.asp address works too, but you have to do a reload to actually vote. It's an ASP thing. Also, I sent a note asking for the poll to be included as a headline to get it more attention.