I don't buy it. First you say that you are not attacking science, then you
attack science. Not one word about faith or what it is trying to prove.
You bring up an obscure reference to natives and complain because they were
eating pot-roast.
I asked if there is something which makes certain ideas "poison" for the
other camp (science vs. spirituality*). I explained that I found no
conflict with my internal representation--faith--and my external
representation--hope (and I'm assuming that anything which needs replication
or varification is merely *hoped* to be true no matter how much confirmation
one gets from an outside source). I asked WHY people of faith continue to
attack people of science. All you can respond with is more accusations
against scientists. I don't think you even understand what your are
doing...let me say it again: You are attacking science: You are NOT
strengthening the arguments for faith.
*example, spirituality--psychology too, for that matter--is founded on the
idea that there is an intelligent motivation for action; science can't study
either intelligence or motivation as they are not objective phenomenon: I
think that to accept intelligence and design is to take away from
"scientific objectivity"; perhaps science cannot function on many levels if
it allows for this type of thinking. I wondered if there is something about
science--perhaps the idea that objects exist, I don't know--that makes the
scientific thought process similarly poison to people with an internal
understanding...is faith, as an internal varification of truth, harmed in
some way by seeing an external representation?
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
H. L. Mencken