OUG,

Regarding what I said earlier about there being value in the "not knowing" - a friend lent me a magazine with an article written about two Catholic Brothers who are astronomers and work at the Vatican Observatory.

Their comments caught my eye. They both said, on science and religion, that they run "parallel":
....My science tells me that there is something wonderful here to study. I know going in that it was made by a loving God who made it in a sensible way and made it worth studying. The goal in both cases is to get closer to the truth...Faith is one way of being in contact with God, and certainly the reflection on faith which is theology.
The reflection and understanding of our world - science - is another way of approaching the truth. There can't fundamentally be an opposition between them. He adds that both respond to "hidden-ness" or mystery in the same way: "The nature of faith is to keep growing. the nature of science is not to be complete.....the opposite of both science and faith is actually certainty....no scientist is certain, there would be no more reason to do science."

its ok wm...even the pope is fooled
by this materialist delusion...[its darn clever]
and any opposing it are INSTANTLY presumed to be ignorant

thats why im so pedantic on others
ACTUALLY PRESENTING THEIR PROOF

if you claim proof..
but cant present proof..
then in time all will see the lie

take puro's quote for egsample

""My science tells me
that there is something wonderful here to study.""

and there certainly is
just how..*god did it is an amasing thing

""I know going in..that it was made
by a loving God*..who made it in a sensible way""

yet even science senses..are missing out the common sense
of them..STILL NOT knowing..HOW GOD DID IT

""and made it worth studying.""
by those finding...THE sense..in god doing it

""The goal in both cases is to get closer to the truth...""'

this must not be forgotten
were ALL here in GOOD faith discussion
simply ASKING how/WHO what/why..[regardless of our basic trusts/faiths/faithlessness..FACT MUST BE FACT,...or its untrue

""Faith is one way of being in contact with God,""
and study of HIS creation anther

""and certainly..the reflection on faith which is theology.""

will have evidences of his works..and methods..
[revealing more of his amassing qualities]

""The reflection and understanding of our world""
can only reveal its creator

""science - is another way
of approaching the truth.""

""There can't fundamentally be an opposition between them.""
this is true...we ALL sek only truths..silence only hides wrongs

""He adds that both respond to "hidden-ness"
or mystery in the same way:""

embarised silence..[or even name calling
or subtle insult

""The nature of faith
is to keep growing.""

wether its faith in science
or faith in god

whatever floats your boat..[such are the fruits of freewill]

""the nature of science..is not to be complete""

that seems a misswrote word
might have meant to be compete?

se the whole gist of the article
is about it not being a competition

who would need an 'opposing'...
[ie an 'oppisite'..?]

"".....the opposite of both science..
and faith is actually certainty""

there comes making the words of what men say
to be gosple...is a fraud...

if science cant provide certainty
[or faith for that matter]..

*then what is its use

i know for a certainty..evolution DIDNT do it all
nor did god do it all..

he made his creations
then let us chose..how we evolved it

he made many wolves genus
man bred the dog species

god made the blue bar/rock-dove genus
man bred the many species

it seems there is some clever editing
this dont match the context of the previous

""....no scientist is certain,""
[or else why constantly repeat the same experments

remember what science is all about..
is that one time..the same result dont appear

without there being that ONE time discovery
""there would be no more reason to do science.""

thanks for the silence wm
it reveals so much..

BUT its not yet too late
with your wisdom...and my logic..
im sure we could figure out..*how god done it

OUG,

Re: "clever editing":

This is the full quote of that part:
" According to Brother Guy, the opposite of both science and faith is actually certainty. "No scientist is certain", he remarks. "If we were certain, there would be no more reason to do science."

(this is quoted from the Australian Catholics magazine)

Sorry Pericles, was interstate all weekend and just got back to normality.

The passage is open to interpretation, but there are bigger issues to consider regardless of which interpretation you decide on. The big picture is the historical evidence that Christians were dying for their belief in the divinity of Jesus, and that many different individuals believed this to be the case within a relatively short time.

The “key elements” of the various accounts do agree. This is precisely why there’s certain evidence that we can be pretty clear about- among it, the evidence for the belief in Jesus’ divinity within a short time in history as I mentioned above. There are indeed different emphasis and theological points being made, but this doesn’t discredit the historical information that can be gleaned.

WmTrevor,

I have no issue with agreeing that, despite the inevitability of interpretational differences and the importance of presuppositions, scientific knowledge is relatively “objective” and “changeable”. And I also agree that religious knowledge is generally both difficult to convey and difficult to prove. However for various reasons, unlike some people I don’t consider that to be a major problem for religious belief.

From where I’m standing, I see the presuppositions of science as fitting more closely within a theistic framework than otherwise, but of course that’s a different question to the question of the results of science and a different point to the one you were making

pure...your missing the full meaning of the quote
by trying to include..*too much of it...
a full stop means..next topic/point..

""According to Brother Guy,
""::::...the opposite of both*
..science and faith is actually certainty.""

ie THE OPPOSITE of both
not just sxcience
not JUST belief

BOTH*...
thus.... "No scientist is certain", he remarks.""
infuring that THUS...no PRIEST..is certain...TOO

"""If we were certain,"""

ie both scientists
and priests..

""there would be no more reason to do science.""

which is completly true
its because we DONT know
that we need to do science..[again and again]
just like we need read the scriptures...again and again

to learn what is really written
or really happening..in an experiment

that commment...is by a priest
and a scientist..[both in one]

if ya think..
that..he thinks god didnt 'do it'?
i must tentativly claim you are in error

if there was a choice..priests will be priest's first

but religeon dont make scientists chose
per presure in science dosnt assure the same thing
NOT one scientist is trained in 'evolution'..as such..
cant get a phd in evolution..cause its a theory..it dont apply in a lab

it relies on chance/fluke/accident
then modifieyers..that allow only the fittest to survive

darwin said once
if i put a 1000 pigeons of all types
into a cage for 1000 years..they would return to their mean

ie the wild type blue barred rock dove...

[as often occures ...even in just one outcross...
with a divergent species..ALL are..of the columbia "genus"]

the plain thing is
both are taken on faith..
by many who claim that particular...BE_lief

i...*look at life...
i can see god within it..sustaining it to live
i know god by studying..life..life is a sign that god is

what god is..is a role for science to takeup...
when it gets over the lie...of chance/alians/accidents..doing it*
none of which can in anyway be called science

[science is more about helping the NOT FITTEST survive
but then so too..is that the job of religeons]