Religion and Science

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Sherwin P. Hicks: "Re: your mail"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "Adaptive Suicide"

Since I have posted my first difference between science and Religion, I
have gotten a few responses to my challange (Perhaps after recent
challanges, the word challange might be construed too harshly. Although
the responses I got were obviously tempered, I hope no one took my
statement as a being from another "tough guy" or angered individual.)
naming religions that were thought to "emphasize finding new religious
truhts through exploration of other religions." The best case of a
surviving religion (surviving being very subjective of course, but I
don't know what else to use as a qualification) that emphasizes the above
is the Ba'hai. They appear to have a very particular affect in relation
to my statement.
The Ba'hai look for spiritual enlightenment through exploration of other
religions. For the Ba'hai, only first hand experience or original
documentation are some the necessary conditions for research
requirements. Priests or other human interpretors aren't a reliable
source of information pertaining to the particular religion. Their
approach to research is very scientific, in the Western sence. But do
they replace their current beleif for that of a new found truth? For a
Ba'hai, it is probably possible to beleive in two religious systems at
the same time. Then would the Ba'hai follower really be a member of the
second religion? If the second religion was, for example Catholocism,
then it would be impossible to be a Ba'hai also. I am not a member of
the Ba'hai religion so I can not claim intimacy with their doctrine, but
I do believe I have come close to the mark.
What I am trying to get at here, is that if someone finds a new religious
truth, then can the old religious truth remain? It does depend on the
nature of the truth and how deep it strikes into the foundation of the
religion. While the Ba'hai are exploring other religions, they are still
operating in the Ba'hai system. If a Ba'hai were, in the course of
intelligent research, to find out that it is impossible to find an objective
religious truth and that Hinduism is the way to go, then we would now
have a Hindu, not a Ba'hai. I don`t think the Ba'hai stress proving that
the Ba'hai belief system is incorect. Science must falsify itself in
order to come up with an objective truth.
Please, tell me what you think.
Leo T. Walsh (ai653@ksu.ksu.edu)

• Next message: Sherwin P. Hicks: "Re: your mail"
• Previous message: Read, Dwight ANTHRO: "Adaptive Suicide"