Posted by CarolAnn on November 18, 1999, at 10:46:33
In reply to science superior to religion? (CarolAnn), posted by Elizabeth on November 17, 1999, at 2:58:45
>>>CarolAnn's comments are below these:
> I wonder what you consider to constitute "evidence." Really none of the examples you give is at all comparable to mystical claims. To wit:
>
> The big bang theory is based on the fact (observed) that galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed that increases with distance. The most reasonable interpretation of
> this observation is that, from any position in
> the universe, galaxies are moving away from each other in the same way.>>>My comments:
>>>Elizabeth, I was particularly using this analogy to respond to your statement that you could not believe in mystisism because all the theories were untestable. I think my point about untestable scientific "truths" still stands, because even in your above paragraph, you use the words "reasonable interpretation" which, is based on scientific *knowledge* but the examples are still called "theories" because they are not completely testable. Again, my point was that if we can accept such theories as absolute truths, maybe we should at least keep our minds open enough to gain the knowledge required to determine if certain *mystical* theories might also turn out to be absolute truth. As far as "evidence" the fact is that there are many scientists who use the exact same information to discount all of the example theories.
Please remember that none of my writings has been an attempt to impose my views on anyone. They have all been intended to explain my belief that the best way to find our own "absolute truths" is to keep our minds constantly open to any and all knowledge in order to keep developing the belief or *dis*belief system that will bring our own personal comfort to our lives.CarolAnn :)
poster:CarolAnn
thread:14368
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/19991108/msgs/15455.html