Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are two words for knowledge in the greek .
Don't know how to properly spell them but they are like Oda and genosko.
One form of knowledge is superficial , I know this because some one told me.
The other form of knowledge is experiential .I low this because I do it and participate in it's principles.
There are some believers that are strictly ego academic based in their belief system ,they know because some one convinced them intellectually.
There are others that actually have a relationship with God on a personal basis.
They are few but they are real.
So much of science being taught, is strictly academic. One is completely dependent on the word of some one endeavoring to prove their point ,which is hard to disprove with out having the funding and education they claim.
Little science can be reproduced by any one especially evolution the weakest of science.
If you have experience that proves evolution and I can experience that evolutionary fact show me to it .
But if wall you have is second hand information ,then who is the fool ?
I have real experience with God, knowing whom He is, and having His participation in my life, is far more powerful a means of my belief , than any thing man has ever come up with.
To go further than that, I would that you too could have the same relationship and know what I know .
I already know what you know and the things science teaches .
I am very much into science and technology.
The deeper I get into it , the more I can appreciate the thing's God does for me.
You only have one world, I have both.
If that's the best you can come up with Richard, then you are way out of your league. The fact is that we continue to evolve, SLOWLY. The HERC2 gene which is causing more humans to have blue eyes is only one example. People in northern climates evolving to paler skin, better to absorb vitamin d because of the reduced amount of sunlight in those areas. There is more, but the fact that we continue to evolve is undeniable.
I already know all this...I do not discount the sciences as you may assume...
I see a lot of this complete denial of science like evolutionary biology by religious fundamentalist types on these forums. Is it like that out in the real world in the US? Is it a growing trend or a last dying gasp?
If a religion requires the denial of scientific evidence to maintain it's beliefs in the 21st century, then its long past it's "Use By" date.
Just to be clear: The views you describe are not typical of all religious people or even all Christians. You're basically describing (correctly) fundamentalists, who are an extremely loud and vocal minority within Christendom.
Just to be clear: The views you describe are not typical of all religious people or even all Christians. You're basically describing (correctly) fundamentalists, who are an extremely loud and vocal minority within Christendom.
True.
Fortunately, fundamentalists are on their way to history's scrap heap. They're stuck in quagmires of untruth and, like mammoths bellowing in a tar pit aren't sinking quietly. But sink they will.
Just to be clear: The views you describe are not typical of all religious people or even all Christians. You're basically describing (correctly) fundamentalists, who are an extremely loud and vocal minority within Christendom.
It's not just "fundamentalists."
Catholics and most mainline Protestant denominations believe in what is called theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. Many Catholics are either unaware or are confused. Pope Benedict summed it up when he said, "The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability, This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.
Theistic evolution attempts to fill the gap between intelligent design and biological evolution. It is comprised from parts of each, but does not completely accept either.
There are two words for knowledge in the greek .
Don't know how to properly spell them but they are like Oda and genosko.
One form of knowledge is superficial , I know this because some one told me.
The other form of knowledge is experiential .I low this because I do it and participate in it's principles.
There are some believers that are strictly ego academic based in their belief system ,they know because some one convinced them intellectually.
There are others that actually have a relationship with God on a personal basis.
They are few but they are real.
So much of science being taught, is strictly academic. One is completely dependent on the word of some one endeavoring to prove their point ,which is hard to disprove with out having the funding and education they claim.
Little science can be reproduced by any one especially evolution the weakest of science.
If you have experience that proves evolution and I can experience that evolutionary fact show me to it .
But if wall you have is second hand information ,then who is the fool?
It is true that most of us mere mortals cannot personally reproduce scientific experiments, thus converting the results into direct personal experience. But nothing says that we have to. That would be like saying we all have to personally forge pistons and crankshafts and carburetors and the like and personally build our own internal combustion engines, else, how would we know our cars could be relied on?
Our cars can be relied on to the extent that they reliably work. The mechanical engineering, fluid dynamics, metallurgy and so forth that goes into building a car, has credibility because the science and engineering behind them demonstrably work. Same goes for trains, planes, vaccines, cell phones, etc.
This is known as "division of labor". You and I don't have to become mechanical engineers or metallurgists, etc., in order to trust and use the work of such folks. It's something you take advantage of every day or you wouldn't be able to function in society at all.
We would disagree, obviously, whether the science behind evolution is strong. But there is no vast atheist conspiracy behind the acceptance of that science. It stands or falls the same as any other science, and it has broad and deep acceptance. The basic problem is that it happens to be an area of science that directly contradicts some scripture, or at least that scripture taken literally; also, it is relatively difficult to relate to personal experience like you can do with the science behind planes, trains, automobiles, etc.
There are, on the other hand, other areas of science that are even more abstract and far less proven, such as string theory. I don't see you folks organizing protests or counter-theories to string theory, though; you're indifferent to it at worst and find it interesting at best. Why? Because it doesn't contradict your dogma. This should tell you something.
Finally, experiential knowledge is not inherently superior. One can be mistaken about one's experiences, particularly personal subjective experiences. You can have an experience with a car but anyone riding in the same car will share that experience and can compare experiences, at least with respect to fairly objective aspects of the ride (bumpy or smooth, say). Your experiences with god are completely limited to you personally. Others may have similar experiences but this can prove nothing other than that people, being similar, will have similar experiences. When you hear god speak to you, no one else does. When someone else claims god is speaking to them, you don't hear that. In fact this is why it is so difficult, particularly in fundamentalist groups that accept personal revelation of any kind, to be sure that someone is really hearing from god and not just making stuff up. Even if you only accept the validity of alleged experiences with god based on whether or not they conform to scripture, that is still subject to interpretation and the large areas that scripture doesn't happen to speak to. The Bible doesn't tell you what to eat for breakfast, whether to accept a job offer, who to marry, etc.
So when you are talking about your personal experience with god, it is first of all, conveniently unverifiable to anyone else, and so it is inadmissible as evidence. Secondly, it is subject to personal (mis)interpretation. Thirdly, it is completely irrelevant to what science says and what evidence it presents to support what it says.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
