Appalachian Trl. an 'amazing opportunity' for witness - BP News

[WalkSoftly33]

Thanks.
That's interesting. They are learning alot about the human brain.
People have sought to replace religion/spirituality with such things as psycology, psyciatry, sociology, philosophy, physics, and so on. Such endeavours have led to breakthroughs in science, and perhaps in religion/spirituality at the same time, but so far it seems that we can never fully explain away the need for spirituality, or science for that matter. Perhaps in theory, if we ever have all the answers, the two will essentially become one, but I don't think we can ever get there. The human brain is so complex, that even the human brain will never understand it. What hope do we have of ever fully understanding the universe?

As an aside, these are more possible positions in the game of chess, than there are particles in the universe. Even supercomputers will never solve the game, because all the possible positions can never be represented at once, even if the entire universe was used to build one supercomputer. I think the human brain is even more complex than the game of chess, and for that matter, even a gnat's brain.

Again I agree with you, The understanding will bring us "closer" to the why. We will never understand everything, perfection is a fools errand. A moving target that always leads to more questions than answers (then are we ever closer or farther away?). But one thing that is clear is that given the capacities we have as humans there is a drive to experience and understand/ explain our universe leading to a game of catch 22 that will not end.

[JAK]

I will have to send in your direction those who want to tell me how old the earth is based on their reading of the Bible.

I think 4.5 billion years in a physical sense can be 6,000 years, or 7 days, or whatever you want it to be in the spiritual sense. I remember a native american speaker talking about how some lawyers were disputing aboriginal title based on the idea that they had only been in a certain region of 10,000 years or whatever. He made an interesting point, something along the lines that, since we are all so intent on exploiting all the resources of this land within the next 100 year or so, can`t we all just agree that the past 10,000 years has been essentially, forever.

[WalkSoftly33]

I had never read/heard that before, thanks for sharing it.

[JAK]

Cheers. Thanks for the video.

[WalkSoftly33]

We talk about the importance of carrying maps, even on marked trails. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but it is important to consider that people didn't always have maps. Even people that did use maps, quite often they had to make them themselves. I've always thought that might be a valid option for some modern day explorers and adventurers, and theologions, to throw out all the maps and charts and astronomy, and make new ones.

The only bummer about going back to "those times" is that average life expectancy was like 32 or something....

I think 4.5 billion years in a physical sense can be 6,000 years, or 7 days, or whatever you want it to be in the spiritual sense. I remember a native american speaker talking about how some lawyers were disputing aboriginal title based on the idea that they had only been in a certain region of 10,000 years or whatever. He made an interesting point, something along the lines that, since we are all so intent on exploiting all the resources of this land within the next 100 year or so, can`t we all just agree that the past 10,000 years has been essentially, forever.

Standing on a bridge, watch the water passing under me
It must’ve been much harder when there was no bridge just water
Now the world is small, remember how it used to be
With mountains and oceans and winters and rivers and stars

DMB- Funny the way it is

[Rockhound]

I think 4.5 billion years in a physical sense can be 6,000 years, or 7 days, or whatever you want it to be in the spiritual sense. I remember a native american speaker talking about how some lawyers were disputing aboriginal title based on the idea that they had only been in a certain region of 10,000 years or whatever. He made an interesting point, something along the lines that, since we are all so intent on exploiting all the resources of this land within the next 100 year or so, can`t we all just agree that the past 10,000 years has been essentially, forever.

Um....no....because it hasn't. Carbon dating, fossils etc....show the Earth as being much much older. So why should we agree on something that is clearly not true. If I could answer that question perhaps I would be more religious. I think I'll just remain spiritual. This division between science and religion need not be for rational people of faith. Over the past 100 years science and religion have grown closer together. Accepting science does not have to mean dismissing God.

[Rockhound]

I think 4.5 billion years in a physical sense can be 6,000 years, or 7 days, or whatever you want it to be in the spiritual sense. I remember a native american speaker talking about how some lawyers were disputing aboriginal title based on the idea that they had only been in a certain region of 10,000 years or whatever. He made an interesting point, something along the lines that, since we are all so intent on exploiting all the resources of this land within the next 100 year or so, can`t we all just agree that the past 10,000 years has been essentially, forever.

Wow dood! did ya ever think that like maybe the whole world is just like a tiny cell in the earlobe of some huge greater being man? And like maybe Armageddon and Revelations and all that just mean the Earths gonna get wiped out by like a giant Q-tip or something and like maybe if there are survivors they will get treated to a bitchin' concert.cuz the greater being got the celestial ear wax out of the way and now we can hear what he's listening to? That show would be wicked dood!

[JAK]

I think you are looking for an argument with the wrong dude.
I'm not religious.

[Appalachian Tater]

Christian churches: an 'amazing opportunity' for hikers to recruit members for ALDHA and solicit donations. Also to convert Christians to rational belief and convince them that the mountains are more than 6,000 years old.

[JAK]

Yeah, all sorts of opportunities, good and bad, for all sorts of people.

[Old Hiker]

Nevertheless, the Turtle moves! Didactylos

[berkshirebirder]

to the question whether religion and science have mutual goals--

How can you say they are not doing the same job?

To name a few

Beggining of the universe
Our place in the universe
Form of man and women
Animals
Formation of the earth
Why john doe died in X accident
The reason we exist! (neither does but they are both trying)
--Walk Softly

I think religion attempts to explain existence as well as to control beliefs and behavior be setting standards of what's right and what's wrong. You must conform if you wish to belong and be rewarded in the afterlife.

Science also attempts to explain existence but (ideally, not always in practice) does not attempt to control beliefs by setting standards of what's true and what's false. You are free to believe or not believe.

[DrRichardCranium]

How can you say they are not doing the same job?

To name a few

Beggining of the universe
Our place in the universe
Form of man and women
Animals
Formation of the earth
Why john doe died in X accident
The reason we exist! (neither does but they are both trying)
--Walk Softly

OK, let me give you an example of why they're NOT doing the same job.

Say John Doe gets run over by a steam roller.

His wife asks "Why did this happen?"

Science would answer by explaining that the steam roller exerts 2000 pounds per square inch, which the human skeleton can only withstand x amount of pressure, so that the skeleton and the internal organs were crushed, causing a cessation of function necessary for life.

Religion would make no attempt to say that. Religion would be more concerned with the emotional and spiritual impact that this John Doe's death has on his wife, and (depending on which religion) would explain what this may mean for her and John Doe in the next life.

Now whether you believe in an afterlife or not, you can see quite clearly that the Scientific explanation of Doe's death and the Religious explanation do not refute one another. Because Science and Religion are not attempting to do the same thing.

[Jester2000]

OK, let me give you an example of why they're NOT doing the same job.

Say John Doe gets run over by a steam roller.

His wife asks "Why did this happen?"

Science would answer by explaining that the steam roller exerts 2000 pounds per square inch, which the human skeleton can only withstand x amount of pressure, so that the skeleton and the internal organs were crushed, causing a cessation of function necessary for life.

Religion would make no attempt to say that. . .

Correct. But religion would attempt an answer, and the answer would be, "because it's part of God's plan."

[DrRichardCranium]

Not necessarily, it depends on the religion. But even if they did, none of what they said would in any way refute what science said.

The point is that religion and science are exploring two different aspects of life.

[The Old Fhart]

I always liked this explanation of creation:

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

[DrRichardCranium]

The Big Bang theory is a lot cooler.


1) In the Beginning there was Nothing.

2) And then the Nothing exploded into a whole lot of Something.

3) For no particular reason. Amen.

[The Old Fhart]

DrRichardCranium-"The Big Bang theory is a lot cooler......."

If you read carefully the Rig Veda to Creation and the Big Bang theory are saying basically the same thing. The Rig Veda does it in a much more poetic and interesting manner and it explains religion at the same time.

[DrRichardCranium]

And it sounds like Yoda is saying it.

[modiyooch]

I think it safe to say that most of us don't agree with religion. I believe in God, Christ , creation and the bible; but not religion. Hopefully, the people reaching out to you on the trail in Christ's name is not doing it to ram rules and laws down your throat or to convert, but to share hope, love and kindness. My spiritual actions are not to "get into heaven" or to be better than the next guy, but out of gratitude.