Ten Commandments

[denuseri]

As if the only good or pure scientist was the ungodly one?

Attention! All scientists out there turn off all your own spirituality and moral compassess they are interfearing with "production" like it's no bodies business.

Oh thats right, quite a few allready did.

In reality those same scientists who shut out their spritualism allow their non-religion orientated beliefs, their political dogmas, their financial intrests, their need for posterity, their greed, ambition etc to dominante such endeavors instead, filling the hole of the phyche.

Is that really such a good thing?

Spiritualy detached is what is good for us?

News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.

Is that the kool-aide you are sugesting we keep drinking?

[Thorne]

As if the only good or pure scientist was the ungodly one?

Attention! All scientists out there turn off all your own spirituality and moral compassess they are interfearing with "production" like it's no bodies business.

That's not at all what I said. I said they can't let it interfere with their science. If the evidence points to something which contradicts their religious beliefs it would be absolutely wrong of them to toss aside the evidence in favor of those beliefs. On the other hand, if the evidence points to confirmation of those beliefs, it would be just as wrong for an atheist to throw out the evidence because of it.

In reality those same scientists who shut out their spritualism allow their non-religion orientated beliefs, their political dogmas, their financial intrests, their need for posterity, their greed, ambition etc to dominante such endeavors instead, filling the hole of the phyche.

So basically you're saying that scientists are human. And I agree. There are some who let their greed and ambition sway their judgment. That's why science requires peer review to verify results and not just take one person's word on things. It's a self correcting mechanism. Not always fast and mistakes can be made, but eventually the science wins out.

Spiritualy detached is what is good for us?

I can't see where spirituality, as practiced by religions, has done us a hell of a lot of good.

News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.

I suggest you take a look at the people who deny the fact that we are killing ourselves and our ecosystem. They tend to be the same people who promote fundamentalist beliefs. Their god gave them the world and everything in it, and their god will save them if something goes wrong.

[denuseri]

I suggest you take a look at the people who deny the fact that we are killing ourselves and our ecosystem. They tend to be the same people who promote fundamentalist beliefs. Their god gave them the world and everything in it, and their god will save them if something goes wrong.

Perhaps I/m not the only one who needs to take that closer look, becuase the people conserned with the planet and being good stewards of it are most certianly also and primaraly composed of spiritual people, (the "pure scientiests are in no way the majority) some of them are even what you try to dimminish as "fudamentalists" who believe that if we dont change what we are doing God is going to hammer us with a natural catastorphe of some kind or a war etc or simpley sit and watch us mess it up and start over when we are done.

[leo9]

News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.

If you check the credentials of the politicians and CEOs who took the decisions to use damaging rather than beneficial technologies, you will find, firstly, very few science graduates, and secondly, very very few atheists. (I may be wrong, but my impression is that it's not possible to get to high office in the US as a professing atheist.) So it's not exactly fair to blame godless scientists for the mess we are in. So far as I can see, it was the new god Mammon that did most of the harm.

In any case, this whole godless-scientist stereotype is about as far from the truth as most stereotypes. You will find as many believers in the average science faculty as in the arts departments next door; all Thorne was saying is that if you're a believer and a scientist (like me), you believe the facts first, and if the facts disagree with your religion, you accept that your religion needs to be adapted.

Richard Dawkins has attracted a fair amount of criticism from scientists for promoting the idea that atheism is the only "scientific" viewpoint. There are plenty of us who find the world all the more spiritually awe-inspiring because we believe in all the fabulous scientific story of its creation from nothing in a cloud of fire, and the growth of living things from primal molecules to glorious complexity by their own simple efforts to survive better than the next being. As far as I can see, most Pagans are scientifically educated: perhaps that's why we're drawn to creeds that value matter as well as spirit.

But like it or not, Thorne was right: one of the main strands of resistance to conservation comes from fundamentalists who say that (a) God made the world for Man (sic) to use, so nobody should tell us not to, and (b) the Rapture is due any time now, so there is no future to conserve resources for. You couldn't make these people up.

[Thorne]

You couldn't make these people up.

It's too bad you can't make them up, because then you could make up a way to give up their 2000 year old (or 6000 year old for the YEC's) nomadic religion and step up to the 21st century.

[denuseri]

And if you check the demographic religious afiliations of the people involved in taking good care of the planet you will also find the same people.

My only issue with Thone's aproach is his use of stereotypes and insults to attempt to make his point, my little godless pure science thing was manily to show him how it looks when the shoe is on the other foot, if he didnt use sophism in his argument...I wouldnt eaither.

In any case, this whole godless-scientist stereotype is about as far from the truth as most stereotypes. You will find as many believers in the average science faculty as in the arts departments next door; all Thorne was saying is that if you're a believer and a scientist (like me), you believe the facts first, and if the facts disagree with your religion, you accept that your religion needs to be adapted.

That is how it should be in my opinion as well. I think both types of stereotypes are bull. Not all "christians are fundamentaly fundamentalist in their fundamentals" as some people apear to liken them to.

Richard Dawkins has attracted a fair amount of criticism from scientists for promoting the idea that atheism is the only "scientific" viewpoint.

I can't help it if Mr. Dawkins is an asshole.

I wish him the best of luck, but I think he is missing a large part of the "human" equation by denial or by ignorance when he attempts to promote such viewpoints as vampantly as he does.

There are plenty of us who find the world all the more spiritually awe-inspiring because we believe in all the fabulous scientific story of its creation from nothing in a cloud of fire, and the growth of living things from primal molecules to glorious complexity by their own simple efforts to survive better than the next being. As far as I can see, most Pagans are scientifically educated: perhaps that's why we're drawn to creeds that value matter as well as spirit.

Yesh...we have achieved agreement of sorts (does a lil dance) As I pointed out previously in this very thread earlier and in every other thread started to bash on religion in the past that Ive seen. (except I dont believe the "pagans" have a monopoly on anything when it comes to scientificly orientated educations)

But like it or not, Thorne was right: one of the main strands of resistance to conservation comes from fundamentalists who say that (a) God made the world for Man (sic) to use, so nobody should tell us not to, and (b) the Rapture is due any time now, so there is no future to conserve resources for. You couldn't make these people up.

There is a big difference between the greedy scumbags in charge of multinational corperations and other "a" holes who twists the dogma of a religion or takes it out of context for the purpose of finacial gain and the common believer who was tuaght that God wants makind to not only hold dominion, but wise dominion and be good stewards of and live in fellowship with the earth.

[Thorne]

Not all "christians are fundamentaly fundamentalist in their fundamentals" as some people apear to liken them to.

I agree with you, and I've said so many times. Though there are times when I would like to give some of them a good swift kick in the 'fundament.'

I can't help it if Mr. Dawkins is an asshole.

I wish him the best of luck, but I think he is missing a large part of the "human" equation by denial or by ignorance when he attempts to promote such viewpoints as vampantly as he does.

It might surprise you to know that I feel the same way about him. I think what he's doing is important, but I'm not too fond of the way he goes about it.

There is a big difference between the greedy scumbags in charge of multinational corperations and other "a" holes who twists the dogma of a religion or takes it out of context for the purpose of finacial gain and the common believer who was tuaght that God wants makind to not only hold dominion, but wise dominion and be good stewards of and live in fellowship with the earth.

Once again I have to agree with you, to a point. But despite not having any financial interest, some of those "common believers" can be just as rabid and "a-hole-ish" as the religious leaders and corporate officers. (Interestingly, now that you've brought them together in this context, it's surprising how often religious leaders behave in exactly the same manner as the heads of multinational corporations!) Over the past few years there has been a campaign around the world to promote atheism by placing signs on buses and billboards. The same places you would see signs promoting Christianity. Guess which signs get defaced or destroyed? And by those same "common believers" who want to "live in fellowship with the earth."