RE: MD Philosophy and Theology

From: Erin N. (
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 21:21:58 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Philosophy and Theology"

    >===== Original Message From =====
    >Hey there Sam,
    >> I don't see the fruits of science as necessarily separate to a religious
    >> perspective. To say that it is requires putting a religious perspective
    >> a static box, which does violence to the nature of the religion itself. If
    >> science is allowed to change over time as our understandings evolve, why
    >> can't religions?
    >The way you tell it, apatheia evolved into objectivity which evolved into
    >science. So if religion has evolved overtime into science and objectivity,
    >why insist upon maintaining a belief in the pre-evolved version? I think
    >this is what Campbell was alluding to when he wrote: "In fact, the famous
    >conflict of science and religion has actually nothing to do with religion,
    >but is simply of two sciences: that of 4000 B.C. and that of A.D. 2000."

    Because there are some old religions that help people
    live in the moment better then modern science sometimes?
    getting stuck in the future seems like a trap to me too
    no? I have said this before but I really like how
    Contact dealt with the issue (problem with deifying
    technology at the expense of others and not believing
    other people's experiences). I don't think putting faith
    or reason over each other is a good way to go.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 21:12:25 BST