(December 14, 2008 at 10:48 pm)Daystar Wrote: Well this is interesting. How, for example, would you say that my view of scripture is narrow minded - lets say - as far as hell goes, a subject which you recently posted my views on in your own blog?Your views on hell are all very well and good, but you have a narrow minded view overall if you are under the impression that the Bible is 100% accurate. As I have pointed out before, when you cannot possibly reconcile science with the Bible (as you have so elegantly done elsewhere) you simply deny the science is true. That is the narrow minded view I object to.
Are you suggesting that my views are correct and narrow in that they are uncomromising in that capacity or that they just narrow in a derogatory way which simply means that my views don't fit with your views. Because I get the impression you mean the latter rather than the former.
As for science being abused, of course it is. However it is the people who abuse science and not science itself. Science (as I have already explained) is not a living thing, it has no emotions. It is a process to tell us what constitutes reality. What we do with this knowledge is ultimately up to us as humans.
The difference between science being abused and religion being abused is that religion is often the root cause, the dogma stating we should kill homosexuals or non-believers for example, or people interpreting scriptures to mean horrendous things, and believing that God has given them a divine quest to do this.
Never has any scientist thought that "science" was telling them to go on a mass murdering rampage. It was always a human that came up with the idea. They simply used science to gain the knowledge of how to do it.
