Dear Dan,

I understand that it is very difficult to look outside the square and step out of the modern mindset.

In modern times, "truth" is related to objective evidence. We take for granted that what our senses are telling us, is more or less so, especially when everyone else can see the same with their own senses. We consider it important to know the "what"s and "how"s of the physical world. We are in fact indoctrinated to think this way and only rare 'heretics' like me see it differently.

This doctrine of modernity affects the Christian and the secular alike. While commonly, the secular/atheist simply discards the spirit as nonsense, the Christian attempts to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance in different ways.

But this was not always so.

Perhaps you could for example look at aboriginals (those who still live in their traditional ways) - for them, Dreamtime is more important than objective facts, for them this is the highest reality.

So it was likely true, as well as sacred, in the ancient Hebrew's Dreamtime-equivalent that the heavens, the earth, the sea and everything in them were created in six days, but the idea to translate this to the material world as we know from our senses and science, to mix up and confuse the spiritual with the physical, could only arise in the modern mind. Sadly this misunderstanding had cost Galileo his head - but others lost even more: they lost their faith, unnecessarily.

.

Dear ORIGINS OF MAN,

.

You wrote :

« Go ahead and kill me......I have a BCC cancer.....2 years on.....what are going to do..kill me twice........you all still have a global problem....with or without.

Science has always been my love....and it always will.

Like lve always said........toworrow is where your minds should be..

Now Iam not dead yet.....i dont know what to say »
.

If there is anything any of us can do here to help in any way, ORIGINS OF MAN, please feel free to communicate it to us. I, for one, shall do my best to do whatever I can and I am sure I am not alone.

There comes a time when we all need a helping hand. Even if it is just to know that somebody is there with you who cares, even though we may be miles apart.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>Metaphysics and religion are related, therefore, because religion often attempts to provide a metaphysical understanding of existence.<<

I agree, related, but not one reducible to the other. Religion is more like that “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist, a philosopher (metaphysicist), an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven).

>>each couple applies in its own particular realm and not in the other realm: philosophy of science and philosophy of religion<<

Maybe so, but both philosophy of religion and philosophy of science have their own reasons to avoid the term “evidence”. Also, misunderstandings arise during translations from languages that do not distinguish between “proof” (depending only on pure logic but empty of contents) and “evidence” (building on some facts that have already been established as evident).

>>the concept of “evidence” remains constant. It is our vision of the world which has evolved.<<

Maybe so, but as I tried to explain, what is and what is not accepted as “evidence” not only evolves with time but also depends on whom this “our” refers to: everybody, when talking about everyday things or on a popularising level, not so when talking about world views. See my last example with Dawkins and his missing “evidence” for God, whom a believer assumes to be self-evident (like e.g. the assumption that there is something like "time" that nobody will ask evidence for) and will derive from that assumption a different vision of the measure of evidence for this or that than Dawkins.

Even in science you can talk about “evidence” more in experimental sciences - where popularisations do not depend very much on your philosophy of science you approach them from - but not so easily in theoretical physics that tries to describe the very nature of (physical) reality, c.f. my reference to Hawking-Mlodinow in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464 .

For instance, writers of popular science rejoice about having found “evidence” for the Higgs boson, but physicists are happy only about having found a crucial experimental confirmation of their standard theory of elementary particles.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>Sadly this misunderstanding had cost Galileo his head<<

It certainly did not cost his head only his freedom to move around. And not freedom to think, as demonstrated by his contribution to a reconciliation between Christianity and emerging sciences with his metaphor of the two Books God wrote.

sir/frenchie bacon
“God has,/in fact,\written two books,*not*just one.
Of course\we/are all familiar/with the first book\he wrote,
namely/celestial-Scripture's[pooRLY/CONVEYED\to/this\satans-realm\.....But\he has written/a second book/he\called creation.”

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/twobooks2.htm The American Scientific Affiliation is a fellowship of scientists who are Christians/and one-of/our main shared/interests\is /he relationship between our views of nature (as studied in science) and our views of God,scripture,\humans,/and life (\studied in theology).

Understanding and FaithA s+udy/of theo-logy-and-sci*
silences/science can/be useful-in two closely-related ways\,/when we ask:

1) "What are the relationships (historical, sociological, psychological, philosophical, theological) between science and Bible-based Christian religion?", and our goal is improved understanding.

2) "What are the mutual interactions between a person's faith and their views of science/religion relationships?", and our goal is improved faith and quality of living.

What is the connection between understanding, faith, and quality of living? Christians must live by faith, by trusting God's character and promises. If our Christian faith is affected by anything, including our views of science-and-Christianity, it will affect the way we live.

If we think there is conflict between the claims of science and the Bible-based principles of Christianity, this perceived conflict — regarding creation questions, divine action in providence and miracles, or in other ways — can be a challenge to the quality of personal faith and Christian living.

*But if we increase our understanding and decrease our perception of conflict, we can improve our faith and the quality of our Christian living.These two questions are examined in Religion-and-Science for Understanding & Faith.Is there inherent conflict between science and religion?Is scientific thinking consistent with a Bible-based Christian worldview?

*When we carefully study the two books of God,/can we-find harmony in what we learn?/Or is harmony\impossible because there is inherent conflict\between the information*in-bibed/with-in scripture and natures codes/remain\twain/

?If theology (based mainly on studies of scripture)[its/missed/the living-essence/not-captured/in\mere-dead/word

the living-god=active/good.omnipresentgood/nmercy-grace/eternal
and science\(based mainly-on/physucal-studies/of living]nature) are incompatible, useless/arcane/theories;both

then we cannot combine their knowledge/in a harmonious way,
so conflict/between theology ]peer based;ignorances/bias

& science/per/pre-vieuw/pervieuw/licebnce

same/same/same/
shame/sham/slam*
(and "warfare" between advocates of theology/theory
physical-]practical/acrtural[non-theo/heretical/theologie.&
true/observational/notational/replicationable faulsifiable/testifyable[amasing teachings og god satan leaves scatterd in the dusts/honest-

science?)[is inevitable.]
im heading bush/now.where can we share/photos?

Dear Yuyutsu,
You accuse me of being overrun by the 'mindset of modernity'. You should question whether this isn't rather more applicable to yourself. I am simply reading the Hebrew Scriptures within their own context. I'm not reading anything into it that isn't already there.

If you're feeling 'cognitive dissonance' with regard to vast age evolutionary account not squaring with the straight forward Biblical creation account, then that's your issue. You needn't put it on me.

I don't feel dissonant. I think the Genesis creation account is quite straight forward. I don't see a reason to compare it to the Aboriginal dreamtime. The Hebrew mindset with regard to the timing of creation is quite linear. At the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There were specifics completed over six days, and history then flowed from that. The current year dated on the top of any Jewish newspaper is 5774, which dates from the time of creation.

If faith means anything, it has something to do with believing the words of God. I'm not sure who you're referring to when you talk of people 'losing their faith'. It's definitely not me. I think I have a strong faith, and well grounded in solid Biblical teaching.

Who are those losing their faith? There are those who are trying to hold onto a vast age evolutionary account in one side of their brain, and reconcile that with a straight forward Biblical account in the other side. The two don't reconcile. Some people can simultaneously believe contradictory things in different parts of their brains. For others, it causes dissonance, and they lose their faith. They realise that if the modern evolutionists are right, then the ancient Hebrew writings are wrong. They stop believing in the Word of God. (I agree with you that it is unnecessary.)

If the ancients are wrong about their history, their writings cannot hold credibility for faith and morality. For the Bible is a consistent whole (it's not dissonant): the New Testament is dependent upon the Old, while also being a fulfilment of the Old.