Question About the Universe

quote:

---

AS CONTRASTED. So if a person doesn't believe in God, I just went straight to a conclusion that he/she wouldn't have any state or quality of being dedicated to God. I didn't consider any of the more secondary definitions - "spiritual things", like maybe some sort of trance that connects them to Darwin or anything like that, because that sort of spirituality wasn't what was being discussed in this thread between Percy and Colbard. (messages 137 & 138) They were discussing "studying the natural world", and the "absence and denial of spiritual or moral laws." In message 138, Percy said;

---

"Spiritual laws" would be "spiritual things or values" so it seems that you ignored the part of the definition most appropriate to the discussion.

quote:

---

If (those who control) science didn't deny them, it would respect them. By not ignoring them, and pushing beyond them, to try to find naturalistic theories about reality that conflict with them. That was my main point of entering this particular fray.

---

In other words, to you, the germ theory of disease was an example of science "dismissing spirituality".By your standards, Pre-Columbian archaeology "dismisses spirituality" by daring to contradict the Book of Mormon.Of course in reality it is entirely possible to be spiritual while disagreeing with other people's "spiritual" views - although I have to wonder just how "spiritual" they really are if they're largely about the material world. Do you, for instance, refuse to take a position on the age of the universe to avoid contradicting the spiritual beliefs of Hindu ? Or do you "dismiss spirituality" by refusing to "respect" those beliefs ?So obviously your standard of measuring whether someone "dismisses spirituality" seems to be more than somewhat faulty. The more so, since it confuses respect with deference.

quote:

---

Well no, I never mentioned germ theory, and I don't even believe in the Book of Mormon. I was just referring to the general way that the scientific community has always gone after Christianity, particularly the book of Genesis.

---

In other words "respecting spirituality" only refers to respecting YOUR beliefs. Which include things which can be "measured and tested" and therefore by your words below probably shouldn't be counted as "spiritual" at all.Science has not especially gone after Christianity. A branch of Christianity (to use a loose definition of Christianity) is going after science because it objects to the discoveries science has made.

quote:

---

I agree, I wonder if the word "spiritual" is the proper word to describe humanistic meditations and other secular philosophies.

---

And yet they obviously fit the concept of spirituality much better than the age of the Earth, for instance.

quote:

---

I care nothing about Hindu - I refuse to take a position on the age of the earth because I'm not interested in that subject. My position on it doesn't affect my life, and the word of God doesn't address it.

---

And yet it is a good example of scientists disagreeing with "Christian" views. And often presented as an example of scientists "going after Christianity".I think we can say that the idea that if scientists did not "dismiss spirituality" they would give special respect to YOUR views is so obviously false that even you can see it.

So you just enjoy lying about people who dare to prove you wrong.