Stephanie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Galileo was a heretic because what he proposed was
> opposite of what the Church believed and you're
> right. There were other "heretics" that agreed.
> They were all scientists. In fact, this case of
> scientists being viewed as heretics to the
> teachings of the Church is STILL ongoing. One
> just has to read a newspaper to see it in effect.
> "Orthodox" science is heresy by definition.

I'm sorry Stephanie but you're wrong there. Sure Galileo was accused of being a heretic. Nowdays he would be accused of being a 'maverick'. In those days the Church (and you used the capital there so I assume you mean the Catholic Church) was the centre of scientific research. Galileo was a friend of the pope and a religious man. he just had ideas that seemed strange to the people of the day. And that has and always will happen to whatever is considered the orthodox defender of scientific principles. Nowdays the Church is still very much involved in scientific research and is a firm supporter of it. I think the fact you live in the US makes things seem confusing. Its a battle of reason versus faith that is much like a school playground gang war - "My gang is better than your gang".

Here is something I put together from a Vatican source to show how mainstream christianity does not view scientists as heretics - quite the opposite -> [phorum.internalspace.co.uk]

Of course the Church has moral and theological considerations that a few scientists (and many 'lay' scientists/journalists/commentators that mistakenly consider empriricism to equal truth) have decided are irrelevant. The rest consider the universe and our whole existence within it to be an amazing mystery we want to understand better.

>
> >
> > We 'heretics' don't care much about peer
> review...
>
> You can't lump yourself in with Galileo, Wireless.
> Galileo was a scientist. You are actually
> fighting against what he strove for.
>

WG wants to be different. When he admits that he is wrong about something - like the fact he thought people in the time of Columbus thought the world was flat, he will be starting to want to know the truth.


> >
> >
> > To me orthodox science today is just the
> same
> > basic thing as the old church! Little to no
> > difference whatsoever...
>
> That is your opinion.

Well the church moves on and tries to reconcile the divine revelations and empirical knowledge through better understanding the natural side of reality. The fact new age people lump the "old church" and "orthodox science today" together is a revelation in itself. I'm interested to read Hancock's supernatural as after a couple of years of meditation I followed my discovery of something that didn't fit my atheist viewpoint with nearly every psychadelic substance known. I know these connections to the spirit well - at least as much as anyone can retain once the experience has ended. And I know how false the interpretations of it all can be if you allow yourself too much freedom from truth. There are others who experience these things who consider them all hard-wiring - and I can understand why they can come to that conclusion.

What these substances do it make you realise how much your day to day reality is a contrived thing. Only simpleness of mind, psychadelic substances, or meditation, can give you that realisation. Of those, psychadelic substances do it (if at all) only by showing you what is not real. And usually they confuse more than they enlighten - which you will see in the way Hancock will change in the next 3 or 4 years. He will do so because, despite what we all think, someone who is interested in truth. Its a powerful experience to see things that are not describable to anyone who has not experienced them. These paintings give an impression that is kind of real in a way - but nothing like the actual experience -> [www.grahamhancock.com]


>
> >
> > Yes, there can be a differences between
> prevalent
> > views and orthodox views, but this is out of
> the
> > scope of this discussion...
>
> No, if you are going to use both orthodox and
> prevalent views, then it is not out of the scope
> of this discussion. Orthodox and prevalent are not
> always the same thing. Take Hancock for example.
> Hancock's point of view is actually more prevalent
> in regular society than the orthodox. One just
> has to make note of how his books are best selling
> and that his website can get up to a million hits
> per month for an example. His opinion is not
> "orthodox" by your or anyone else's definition but
> it still prevails. Heck, even a card game that my
> family plays called Killer Bunnies, makes mention
> of Hancock!

I've had personal arguments with Hancock that have been more personal and downright rude to each other than I've had with anyone on this board. But he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with WG. He accepts when he has been shown to be wrong. Its a significant difference.


>
> >
> > Finally, yes, we are all born feeling that we
> are
> > the center of our Universe, but the simple
> fact
> > that we were born means that we have been
> > temporarily physically mapped to a given set
> of 3D
> > coordinates in outer space...
>
> Or it could simply be the egocentricism that is
> found in every child from the beginning.
>

I actually kind of like what WG said there.


> >
> > In other words, we temporarily exist outside
> of
> > our own nuclear core to temporarily share
> > experiences with others...
>
> Now this has nothing to do with the conversation
> at hand.
>
> Stephanie
>
>
>
> Moderator
> The Hall of Ma'at
>
>
> In every man there is something wherein I may
> learn of him, and in that I am his pupil.--Ralph
> Waldo Emerson






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2005 06:32PM by Simon.