Science and theology

Science and Technology
1

Some of you might be interested in extracts from a theological presentation–of a Russian Orthodox priest–that I just posted at:
pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/sysoev.html
Comments will be appreciated,
Ludwik

2
Some of you might be interested in extracts from a theological presentation--of a Russian Orthodox priest--that I just posted at: pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/sysoev.html Comments will be appreciated, Ludwik
It's not a new idea. It's been floated many times before by people who want to reconcile contradictions between the bible and known science. The idea breaks down sooner or later. It has to. There are too many unbridgeable contradictions. The religious argument must win everytime so they have to come up with another "explanation" that doesn't hold water except with indoctrinated people. Lois
3
Some of you might be interested in extracts from a theological presentation--of a Russian Orthodox priest--that I just posted at: pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/sysoev.html Comments will be appreciated, Ludwik
It's not a new idea. It's been floated many times before by people who want to reconcile contradictions between the bible and known science. The idea breaks down sooner or later. It has to. There are too many unbridgeable contradictions. The religious argument must win everytime so they have to come up with another "explanation" that doesn't hold water except with indoctrinated people. Lois I plan to share my own note on the subject, probably in August or September (after it is published). Ludwik
4

Who might be interested in this? This is Ken Ham “observable science” non-logic. This is a new low for you Ludwig. How does one even construct a thought like “The Big Bang was never seen by anyone”? You first need to have a concept of what the Big Bang is to understand that it was not observed.
The problem here, and this was brought up a couple hundred years ago, is he is taking one aspect of his own existence and saying that the entire universe must be based on that. That is, our consciousness. Our brains are unique on this world and apparently quite rare in the universe, but this guy theorizes that since we have it, it must be the basis for everything, a perfect consciousness must have created the entire universe just so we could rediscover that knowledge 13.7 billion years later.
Sentences like this, “But science rebelled and ran away. This did not produce anything good.” show a complete lack of understanding of the history of science and pretty much the entire world. Lookup “The Peace at Westphalia” to see how the people rebelled against religion to produce nations where they had rights instead of Kingdoms where rulers claimed to talk to gods. Immediately after the end of the wars among the Protestants and Catholics, Newton wrote the Principia and that has led to electricity and a man on the moon. God had nothing to do with it.

5
1) Discussing the relationship between scientific and religious ways of understanding the world some people say that domains of scientific and theological realities are very different and non-overlapping. This is nonsense. ...
An aeronautical engineer PROVES that he understands what he is talking about by getting a plane to fly. What understanding have the Orthodox Christians PROVEN? There is only talk pretending to be logic. psik
6
Who might be interested in this? This is Ken Ham "observable science" non-logic. This is a new low for you Ludwig. How does one even construct a thought like "The Big Bang was never seen by anyone"? You first need to have a concept of what the Big Bang is to understand that it was not observed. The problem here, and this was brought up a couple hundred years ago, is he is taking one aspect of his own existence and saying that the entire universe must be based on that. That is, our consciousness. Our brains are unique on this world and apparently quite rare in the universe, but this guy theorizes that since we have it, it must be the basis for everything, a perfect consciousness must have created the entire universe just so we could rediscover that knowledge 13.7 billion years later. Sentences like this, "But science rebelled and ran away. This did not produce anything good." show a complete lack of understanding of the history of science and pretty much the entire world. Lookup "The Peace at Westphalia" to see how the people rebelled against religion to produce nations where they had rights instead of Kingdoms where rulers claimed to talk to gods. Immediately after the end of the wars among the Protestants and Catholics, Newton wrote the Principia and that has led to electricity and a man on the moon. God had nothing to do with it.
Thanks Lausten. I'll be honest Kowalski kind of irritates me, I know I myself do my fair share of peddling my own thoughts and links back to my website]s, { %-P } but at least I drop in to engage in some discussions here and there, . . . where it seems to me all Ludwik does is advertise over here. Not that I'm saying he doesn't have a right to it, I'm just saying wishing there were something more interesting and human coming out of the man.
7

It’s like “Science and theology” are actually quite on my mind these days - but I can’t get myself excited to visit his site, when he can’t even spit out some thoughts to start a conversation about it over here.

8
Who might be interested in this? This is Ken Ham "observable science" non-logic. This is a new low for you Ludwig. How does one even construct a thought like "The Big Bang was never seen by anyone"? You first need to have a concept of what the Big Bang is to understand that it was not observed. The problem here, and this was brought up a couple hundred years ago, is he is taking one aspect of his own existence and saying that the entire universe must be based on that. That is, our consciousness. Our brains are unique on this world and apparently quite rare in the universe, but this guy theorizes that since we have it, it must be the basis for everything, a perfect consciousness must have created the entire universe just so we could rediscover that knowledge 13.7 billion years later. Sentences like this, "But science rebelled and ran away. This did not produce anything good." show a complete lack of understanding of the history of science and pretty much the entire world. Lookup "The Peace at Westphalia" to see how the people rebelled against religion to produce nations where they had rights instead of Kingdoms where rulers claimed to talk to gods. Immediately after the end of the wars among the Protestants and Catholics, Newton wrote the Principia and that has led to electricity and a man on the moon. God had nothing to do with it.
Thanks Lausten. I'll be honest Kowalski kind of irritates me, I know I myself do my fair share of peddling my own thoughts and links back to my website]s, { %-P } but at least I drop in to engage in some discussions here and there, . . . where it seems to me all Ludwik does is advertise over here. Not that I'm saying he doesn't have a right to it, I'm just saying wishing there were something more interesting and human coming out of the man. The most important Internet benefit for me is to learn what others have to say, not to argue who is right and who is wrong. Some comments are more interesting than others. Ludwik
9
The most important Internet benefit for me is to learn what others have to say, not to argue who is right and who is wrong. Some comments are more interesting than others. Ludwik
If you don't want to argue, then don't. On any given day I could start a fight with other members here like VYAZMA or psikeyhacker, but I only do that every few months when I'm bored or feel like making a speech that others might read. So, your statement here is not a defense of dropping links and not following up. Certainly not a defense of saying "I will follow up" then not doing so.
10
The most important Internet benefit for me is to learn what others have to say, not to argue who is right and who is wrong. Some comments are more interesting than others. Ludwik
If you spent time looking at some of the other threads around here you'd know that bringing up ideas to present and discuss is what this website is all about. "argue" is your state of mind. First you need to present your ideas so there's something to think about… the "arguing" comes later and is supposed to be a part of constructive dialogue - though it require a good faith approach with a sense of both propriety and a bit of self-deprication. I think "Argue" has gotten a bad wrap because everyones seems to take themselves so damned seriously, with this need be right, rather than to wrestles with each others ideas. . . and so on and so forth . . . . . . . . I simply think it's cheap of you to drop in here to nail up another of your adverts and then run off again. :smirk:
11

I didn’t bother reading past the send paragraph, which is a classic example of circular reasoning. Why do you waste your time with this tripe?

12
I didn't bother reading past the send paragraph, which is a classic example of circular reasoning. Why do you waste your time with this tripe?
Because I have it to waste. Or were you asking Ludwik? The guy seems smart, but he is stuck on these "spirituality" issues. I find that pretty common and I experienced it myself, so I want talk about how I dealt with the cognitive dissonance.
13
I experienced it myself, so I want talk about how I dealt with the cognitive dissonance.
Lausten, share a link with your latest favor musings on the topic.
14
I didn't bother reading past the send paragraph, which is a classic example of circular reasoning. Why do you waste your time with this tripe?
Because I have it to waste. Or were you asking Ludwik? The guy seems smart, but he is stuck on these "spirituality" issues. I find that pretty common and I experienced it myself, so I want talk about how I dealt with the cognitive dissonance. I was asking Ludwig. I experienced some spirituality issues when I was a born again Christian. Leaving religion behind helped me regain my sanity. :-)
15
I plan to share my own note on the subject, probably in August or September (after it is published). Ludwik
And here it is October. This is why I don't put much effort into your posts.
16
I plan to share my own note on the subject, probably in August or September (after it is published). Ludwik
And here it is October. This is why I don't put much effort into your posts. [link]]