Post by drystyx on Nov 22, 2020 17:56:36 GMT
I can't read minds, so I don't know who is cautious deep inside.
In a nutshell, if one doesn't want to read the rest, I pretty much concur with Arlon. Especially on the 2020 events. Now, I will expound on the entire general outlook of Science and Religion in terms of caution.
Ideally, Science would teach caution. And the original definition of "Science", which is no longer adhered to, certainly not in this century, would be totally for caution, because the original "Science" was meant to not jump to conclusions, but just to observe, record, amass information.
So, that's no longer the case. So called scientists have actually admitted they meant to prove theories, so any "caution" went out the window. No objectivity. No caution. Just blatant cherry picking of whatever one wanted to believe. There's no credibility in anything these alleged scientists record. If they're brushing away debris from a bone, they're going to scrape off whatever they want to scrape off to fit their preconceived hopes and desires. They admit this when they claim they are out to prove a theory.
So, they are "cautious" to prove their point, and probably subconsciously, so the question is a loaded question.
And the same goes for Religion. Obviously, those who claim "faith" to be the source of their religion, don't use caution. But for most people over 30 or 40 or 50, or whenever one gets the experience, religion is instead the supernatural explanation for what isn't natural.
And many things aren't natural.
A good metaphor for this would be the movie scene with 007 speaking with the scientist Q, and explaining that Q would be surprised what happens to that valuable, perfect equipment in the field.
"In the field" there are variables that modern Science refuses to recognize. Too many modern scientists believe they are in a vacuum, and that the world is whatever MacGyver and the professor on Gilligan's Island can conjure up, in a magical way.
Science isn't supposed to be like that, but it's been turned into that.
That's the first problem.
The second problem with just relying on Science is that it only accepts the natural laws of Physics and Anatomy. When something goes awry, then "oops, lets change the law to fit this" for any distortion, notably for mutations in Biology. It's a situation where they have absolutely no caution at all, and just use their pattern as a religion until they have to change it.
For example, each time an archaeologist discovers a new "oldest" civilization, they decide to change the "diet" of the first living humans to fit what is in that archaeological find. I've seen this over and over. There is no "caution" before the discovery is made. It's a simple "religion" based on blind adherence to rules. However, "religion" allows one to step outside the box. A scientist never steps outside the box. At least not a modern scientist.
So, it depends on whether the Science or Religion is faith based or experience based. In any event, both are needed. One for the natural know world, and the other for the supernatural or unnatural events.
In a nutshell, if one doesn't want to read the rest, I pretty much concur with Arlon. Especially on the 2020 events. Now, I will expound on the entire general outlook of Science and Religion in terms of caution.
Ideally, Science would teach caution. And the original definition of "Science", which is no longer adhered to, certainly not in this century, would be totally for caution, because the original "Science" was meant to not jump to conclusions, but just to observe, record, amass information.
So, that's no longer the case. So called scientists have actually admitted they meant to prove theories, so any "caution" went out the window. No objectivity. No caution. Just blatant cherry picking of whatever one wanted to believe. There's no credibility in anything these alleged scientists record. If they're brushing away debris from a bone, they're going to scrape off whatever they want to scrape off to fit their preconceived hopes and desires. They admit this when they claim they are out to prove a theory.
So, they are "cautious" to prove their point, and probably subconsciously, so the question is a loaded question.
And the same goes for Religion. Obviously, those who claim "faith" to be the source of their religion, don't use caution. But for most people over 30 or 40 or 50, or whenever one gets the experience, religion is instead the supernatural explanation for what isn't natural.
And many things aren't natural.
A good metaphor for this would be the movie scene with 007 speaking with the scientist Q, and explaining that Q would be surprised what happens to that valuable, perfect equipment in the field.
"In the field" there are variables that modern Science refuses to recognize. Too many modern scientists believe they are in a vacuum, and that the world is whatever MacGyver and the professor on Gilligan's Island can conjure up, in a magical way.
Science isn't supposed to be like that, but it's been turned into that.
That's the first problem.
The second problem with just relying on Science is that it only accepts the natural laws of Physics and Anatomy. When something goes awry, then "oops, lets change the law to fit this" for any distortion, notably for mutations in Biology. It's a situation where they have absolutely no caution at all, and just use their pattern as a religion until they have to change it.
For example, each time an archaeologist discovers a new "oldest" civilization, they decide to change the "diet" of the first living humans to fit what is in that archaeological find. I've seen this over and over. There is no "caution" before the discovery is made. It's a simple "religion" based on blind adherence to rules. However, "religion" allows one to step outside the box. A scientist never steps outside the box. At least not a modern scientist.
So, it depends on whether the Science or Religion is faith based or experience based. In any event, both are needed. One for the natural know world, and the other for the supernatural or unnatural events.