By the way, don't think that me calling you confusing was an insult. It's just that I don't always understand you. It's like you have two seperate minds trying to get their ideas across at once. Sometimes you'll post things that make so much logical and scientific sense independent of theism that I get confused when you propose to talk about the nature of the supernatural, or contacting spirits, etc.

One place in particular where I think you're dead-on is that science is fully capable of describing any spiritual world. I find it annoying when people say things like "Physics is the study of the physical, therefore science is an invalid way to study a potential supernatural." That is misleading and semantic language, and I'm glad that we agree on this issue. If a supernatural does exist, the only way we wouldn't be able to scientifically study it is if it is totally independent of us, never interacting with our universe in any way. I think even the most devout anti-scientist can see the logic in that.

And again, I agree that much of the physics is over our heads. Discrepancies between relativity and quantum mechanics, for example, suggest that our current science is only description, not law. Okay. I'm with you all the way to that point, but then you start talking about "It all is Allah" and contacting spirits and the usefulness of the scripture in the pursuit of knowledge. At this point I tend to get a little frustrated (I'm a little embarrased that my posts have been much more caustic than usual lately) because I can't understand how someone who embraces science and reason can abandon it and jump to conclusions about the nature of the universe and its origin, which as you said, is currently over our heads.

• Flights of fancy - yanniru - August 29, 2001 - 00:03 UTC
  • Pragmatic Faith - stormcrow - August 29, 2001 - 00:17 UTC
    • Again sorry - yanniru - August 29, 2001 - 00:31 UTC
      • Ideally belief and the nature of the universe would coincide - stormcrow - August 29, 2001 - 00:39 UTC