From: dcorbett%srg@uunet.uu.net (Dan Corbett x2040)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Science vs. Religion (was: Resurrection is irrelevant to human body whether dead or alive)
Date: 2 Nov 92 17:07:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.45673
Organization: /u2/dcorbett/.organization

[This article, and a few that follow, went down some kind of NNTP black
hole.  I'm reposting them now. -a]

In article <45066@ogicse.ogi.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

   I know this is a moderated group, but I am under the impression that
   Baha'is welcome questioning of their opinions and that even though I
   express skepticism, this posting is still appropriate.  [Absolutely!
   Thank you for writing, Ken. --rdt]

Baha'is welcome the search for truth.  I invite all readers (sometimes
called lurkers) to post and ask questions of the Baha'is, however pointed.

   (Deleted reference to posting concerning Baha'i burial laws)

   If I read the above passage correctly, it makes a scientific claim
   about the substances that make up the body.  This scientific claim is
   false, just like scientific claims made by other religions, for
   instance claims that evolution is wrong.  Cremating the body does not
   slow the passage of its atoms into other creatures, despite what your
   founder claims.  [Actually the passage is from 'Abdu'l-Baha, the
   founder's son. --rdt]

   [I believe that the passage asserts, contrary to the correspondent's
   paraphrase, that cremation is too fast.  But this would not obviate
   the following, general question. --rdt]

I agree with the Rick Troxel's interpretation.  I think that Abdu'l-Baha
wishes us to avoid cremation so that the body can slowly decay.  The basis
for the importance of this slow decay is spiritual in nature and thus is
not a scientific issue.

   Is it considered a mistake for a Baha'i to believe, in this case, what
   science says instead of what your founder says, when they contradict?
   When one of your teachings conflicts with science, is it your
   teaching, or science, which has made the mistake?

Short answer (personal opinion): If a finding is made in science which
contradicts the Baha'i teachings, then we must examine both and determine
which is wrong.  I believe that it will be found that either a mistake was
made in the science -or- the Baha'i Writings were not properly understood.

>From the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha (the center of the Covenent of the Baha'i
Faith):

"... For every era hath a spirit; the spirit of this illumined era lieth
in the teachings of Baha'u'llah.  For these lay the foundation of the
oneness of the world of humanity and promulgate universal brotherhood.
They are founded upon the unity of science and religion and upon
investigation of truth.  They uphold the principle that religion must
be the cause of amity, union and harmony among men.  They establish the
equality of both sexes and propound economic principles which are for
the happiness of individuals.  THey diffuse universal education, that
every soul may as much as possible have a share of knowledge.  They
abrogate and nullify religious, racial, poliltical, patriotic  and
economic prejudices and the like.  Those teachings are the cause of
the illumination and the life of the world of humanity.  Whoever
promulgated them will verily be assisted by the Kingdom of God."
   - The Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 109

"O ye recipients of the favors of God!  In this new and wondrous Age,
the unshakable foundation is the teaching of sciences and arts."
   - The Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 134

"And among the teachings of Baha'u'llah is that religion must be in
conformity with science and reason, so that it may influence the hearts
of men.  The foundation must be solid and must not consist of imitations."
   - The Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, p. 299

The following is taken from a talk on Science and Religion by Dr. S Dean:

"Man is warned to put his beliefs into harmony with science, for, according
to the teachings of Baha'u'llah, ther can be no opposition when truth is
one.  When religion, cut free of its superstitions, traditions and
unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then there will
be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before
all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles.  And then will mankind
be united in the power of the Love of God.  What, indeed, is the
alternative?  To dishonour true religion on the basis of religions spoiled
by human imagination, while at the same time clinging to inherited
rituals and dogmas, is to invite total confusion.  For true religion is
the foundation of law, social regulation, and civilization itself.  Thus
it is that today we witness the crumbling of lawful behaviour, the wayward
and directionless social movements, and the destruction of time-honoured
institutions.  The totering pillers of religions, sapped of their vital
power, are no longer able to hold up under the strain.  To this collapse
you are a witness.  The only question is whether you are content to be
a passive witness, or whether you will apply your intellect in the
investigation of Baha'u'llah's solution?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Corbett
INTERNET: dcorbett%srg@uunet.uu.net

Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars
and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the
people of all faiths and no faith.  Followers of all religions must be willing
to face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear
answers.  How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in theory
and in practice?
                -- "The Promise of World Peace", The Universal House of Justice