Simon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stephanie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.

That's kind of my point. The Church was the center of scientific research but Galileo was considered a heretic, irregardless of his quality of faith.

> 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".

Without going too much into politics, yes, the case here is that evolution is considered almost (or is) heresy. It's a case of science vs religion. Same with Galileo.

Read this: [www.fordham.edu]

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

This, unfortunately, is starting to enter too far into the religion topic. As you know, contemporary religion is not to be discussed at the Hall of Maat. Although I would like to reply, I cannot. As a moderator, I must uphold the rules of the board at all times. My apologies and hopefully, this part of the discussion can end here.

>
> 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.

I haven't seen him admit that particuliar error yet.

>
> 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've noticed that tendency as well. It's like both are great evils.

>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 ->

Actually, meditation and self hypnosis are part and parcel with my existence. I use both as escapes from pain when it becomes to great, being as I'm pretty much allergic to every narcotic painkiller on the planet, lol. I can voluntarily do so to an extent that it is almost a fugue like state. I have yet to have any visions, however.

>
> 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.

lol, I certainly wasn't lumping Hancock in with WG. Try re-reading it again. I was giving him an good example of what can dictate prevailing thought and how it isn't always the "orthodox" doing the dictating. In the case of Hancock, his ideas and theories have effected many things, including something as unrelated as a card game about killer bunnies. That was my point.

Stephanie




In every man there is something wherein I may learn of him, and in that I am his pupil.--Ralph Waldo Emerson