HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Contradiction with science
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:02:20 GMT


In article <TOWFIQ.92Nov4215820@justice.UUCP> sedisrj01@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>> 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?
>I understand Baha'u'llah's writings to say that religion and science
>must be in accord, not that one should dominate the other, to maintain
>a balance in society.  ...

Unfortunately, that does not really answer the question.  What happens if the
actual religion and science seem _not_ to be accord?  It's not an answer to
point out that the writings say they must be in accord, for that's not the
question; almost all religions say they must be in accord with science.  The
question is: if it seems not to be in accord, _who_has_made_the_mistake_?

If science and your religion seem to contradict, which of the seemingly
contradictory teachings get taught in schools, for instance?  Or do you teach
both?

Or if it's something which matters in everyday life, which do you use?  If
I am a Baha'i and have been taught that bodies should not be cremated because
the atoms dissipate too fast to enter the ecosystem, and my scientific
knowledge tells me that this is not so, what should my will say?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: RICHTER@RHENIUM.CHEM.UTAH.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Science and Religion
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:20:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: newscan.1992Nov12.160402.16569
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.


Dear Friends:

   I have been enjoying the discussions on the issue of Science 
and/vs (?) Religion, and the use of the example of cremation to 
"argue" point on how science does not fit in with religion.
 
  However, I think that we are forgetting that this current
discussion is taking place in 1992, when the term "atom" has a 
different meaning to scientists and to society than it did during the 
lifetimes of the Bahai leaders.  So let us be careful in making 
judgements!

Here is a thought for you:

  It is my understanding that conception and development of the fetus 
involves proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, etc. Indeed, human 
life depends on complex organic and inorganic compounds to survive. 
For example, when a life-form decays it still may serve as a source of 
food for other life-forms (eg. maggots and worms). But, when a 
life-form is burnt, all the complex organic and inorganic compounds
are broken down into simpler substances. The burnt material has to be 
"reconstructed" into complex organic and inorganic compounds in order 
to serve as nourishment to other life-forms, a process that takes 
time.

  Perhaps we should ponder some more on the fact the Bahai 
founders/leaders spoke of "science" and "atoms" in an era when these 
terms were poorly understood by the general population.

  For those curious ones:

  It will be interesting to find out when exactly the passage on 
"cremation vs burial vs speed of atoms" was written, and what the 
scientific definition of "atoms" were at the time. Note that for a 
long time, "atoms" were defined at "things that could not be broken 
down into simpler substances"!!!


  With warmest greetings to you all,

  George Richter-Addo
  richter@rhenium.chem.utah.edu
From: emilia@natinst.com (Emilia Hezari)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: from the Bahai writings
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:09:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.45679
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX

>From the Bahai Writings:

"O ye beloved of the Lord, bestir yourselves, do all in your power to be
as one, to live in peace, each with the others: for ye are all the drops
from but one ocean, the foliage of one tree, the pearls from a single
shell, the flowers and sweet herbs from the same one garden. And achieving 
that, strive ye to unite the hearts of those who follow other faiths.
For one another must ye give up even life itself. To every human being, must
ye be infinitely kind. Call none a stranger; think none to be your foe. Be ye
as if all men were your close kin and honoured friends. Walk ye in such
wise that this fleeting world will change into splendour and this dismal
heap of dust become a palace of delights."

		From the book "Prayers and Thoughts for Peace"
			      Bahai Publishing Trust, London						
-- 
 Emilia Hezari                
 e-mail: emilia@natinst.com
From: ABLB@musica.macarthur.uws.EDU.AU (ABLB)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: <none>
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:57:25 GMT
Organization: University of Western Sydney, Macarthur

Allah'u'Abha! Here I am writing from Australia and it is unbelievable
that we can communicate like this. It just goes to show that finally the
world is coming together as one!! Much Baha'i Love, Mei-Ling.
From: house@helios.usq.edu.au (ron house)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Science vs. Religion (was: Resurrection is irrelevant to human body whether dead or alive)
Date: 2 Nov 92 03:13:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.45675
Organization: University of Southern Queensland

[Article was lost by NNTP, being reposted now. -a]

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>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?

Depends on who you ask!  Here is one Baha'i who is firmly convinced that
'Abdu'l-Baha's writing are positively loaded to the gills with scientific
howlers.  For example, he devotes some 70-odd pages of one tome (Some
Answered Questions) to an effort (apparently) to show that man evolved
independently of all other living beings.  But I would not consider myself
mistaken in consigning the entire mish-mash to the WPB.  I believe that the
illusion of infallibility in _any_ religion is a significant cause of
evil, pitting people against each other without tolerance.  The good
thing about the Baha'i faith, though, is that one is free to hold any
views one pleases, with very few exceptions.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:59:30
Distribution: world
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Unity between Science and Religion

In article <45676@ogicse.ogi.edu> rick@helix.nih.gov (Rick Troxel) writes:

>1. That the body's chemical dissolution is faster when it is cremated
>(perhaps there is also an implication of qualitative difference)

>2. That such is not desirable

>IMHO, assertion 2 is religious, not scientific, hence cannot conflict
>with scientific beliefs.

Assertion 2 can conflict with scientific beliefs if a reason is given
for the undesirability, and this reason conflicts with science.  In
this case, the reason is as follows: fast dissolution is not desirable
because it prevents the elements in the body from becoming parts of
other creatures.

If science says that fast dissolution doesn't prevent this, then
assertion 2 conflicts with science.

>"Cremation suppresses it speedily from attainment to these
>transformations, the elements becoming so quickly decomposed that
>transformation to these various stages is checked."
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: uunet!guinea!jb8285@nwnexus.wa.com (Jeffrey R. Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: A Hopi Prophecy
Date: 2 Nov 92 19:36:26 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.

[Article was lost by NNTP, being reposted now. -a]

I though that this excerpt from a Hopi prophecy was quite intriguing:


>From _The Fourth World of the Hopis_ by Harold Courlander, University
of New Mexico Press, 1971.

        The leader of the Hopis said,  "... it is said that in some
distant time a certain Bahana [white man] whose name is not yet known
will arrive among us from the direction of the rising sun, bringing
friendship, harmony and good fortune to our people. When the time
comes, he will appear. Let us watch for him. Let the dead be buried
with their faces toward the east so that they will meet him when he
approaches."
        One of the elders of the Fire people said, "When such a person
arrives, how shall we know for certain that he is the one we are
expecting? ..."
        Thereupon he [the leader of the Hopis] took a small flat piece
of stone and carved a picture of a man on it. Around the figure he
made designs. And when he had finished carving this tablet he broke it
into two parts. The part containing the head of the figure he handed
to the chief of the Fire People, saying, "Let the Bahanas carry this
piece. Let them hold it in trust for the White Brother who will come
to us."
        (page 31)


        Following herewith are textual excerpts from comments made by
various informants on the Oraibi split (1971).
        "The Fire Clan of Oraibi which moved to Hotevilla have a broken
piece [of the Fire Clan tablet], and half of it is what they're
expecting the eastern people [Bahanas] to bring and fit the tablet.
The old man that's dead and gone, Yukioma, he was head of the Fire
Clan while they were all living in Oraibi, and when the Oraibis drove
them out he took the stone tablet with him. ..."
        "Now it [the tablet] is in the hands of a man named James
George in Hotevilla. ..."
        (page 229)


Do you find it a little more than coincidental that the bringer of
friendship, harmony and good fortune is a BAHAna coming from the east?
By the way, the foot half of this stone tablet really does exist.  I
wonder where the other half is?


--
Jeffrey R. Brown                Internet: jeffrey.brown@medtronic.com
Medtronic, Inc. (T430)          UUCP:     uunet!medtron!jb8285
7000 Central Avenue N.E.        Voice:    1-612-574-4698
Minneapolis, MN 55432 USA       FAX:      1-612-574-6150
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:54:13
Distribution: world
From: Steven Kolins <Steven.Kolins@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Organization: <none>
Subject: Re: Science and religion

Greetings all,

Ken what we have been pointing out is a process  - if there is a percieved
difference between science and religion, then first - assume they  are not
in contradiction.

Then go about reconsiling them within you own expertise.  Perhaps involve
others in your search for truth, both individually and administratively.

If it boils down to no solution is availble and something must be done
there are generally two provinces i am aware of - matters of Baha'i Law as
currently enforced ( as opposed to not enforced - this being a systematic
descision of the administrative bodies who are ernestly doing the right
thing,) and personal choice - noting that one has no authority to claim
any personal solution is right ( though it may be right.) In relation to a
Baha'i school that depends on the matter of freedom and responsibility
between the body sponsoring the school and the teachers in it.

Notice the difference in our approaches - you are speaking of the conflict
and what should be done, we are speaking about the compatablility of each
and what should be done.

Steven
From: Steven Kolins <Steven.Kolins@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Unity of Science and Religion
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:42:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.45459
Organization: -

I thought i might offer something addition to comments made in
response to Ken Arrombee's question on a Baha'is approach to
differences between scientific and religious teachings.

Bob Edis mentions that science and religion must be in accord.  In
this i see two ideas - one worth splitting off and strengthening.  In
this i mean that science and religion ARE in accord.  And science and
religion should be in accord with respect to what each has to offer
the other.

What i mean by both being in accord is that both are involved in an
ever advancing process of greater understanding of the truth.  This
may seem quite outlandish considering the differences scientists and
religionists have gone through some pains to establish.  Let me shift
to another realm: literature.  Literature includes at least two modes:
prose and poetry.  Both are trying to communicate something, and each
can render something about the same event, concept or what not.  Yet
the presentations of each would be very dissimilar - may in fact draw
our attention to different and apparently contradictory aspects of the
same thing.  For example one might write a piece about war noting its
devestation, carnage, and general human abasement.  Another might
write a piece about the heaven of human attributes on the field of
battle - of existentially really making a decision not out of some
sense of tradition or however you were brought up, but the fact of
being there.  No one in literature really condemns either for what it
presents because it is generally assumed that both have something to
say. (Indeed i note that i assumed one of the above as prose and the
other as poetry, but could in fact have been done either way.)

This assumption is lacking on the field of science and religion.  Thus
some suppose that there must be a conflict between the teachings of
science and religion, and go about hunting down proof of the conflict
to further the reality of the issues.  And the heated way these
differences are presented makes reconsiliation hard sometimes.

The other relationship between science and religion, that they should
be in accord, i believe pretty much means what Bob pointed out - that
the world we live in is complex and each has something to offer.
Specifically i would say that differences of focus of the two should
aid the other in the practise of the two disciplines. Science is not
served well by the use of its discoveries and theories as means to
further harm people and the world we live in.  Religion is not served
by use of its discoveries and theories as means to further harm people
and the world we live in.

thanks
Steven
From: djull@Athena.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Reading for Monday November 9
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:38:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.45678
Organization: -

O well-beloved ones! The tabernacle of unity hath been raised; regard ye
not one another as strangers. Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the
leaves of one branch. We cherish the hope that the light of justice may
shine upon the world and sanctify it from tyranny. If the rulers and
kings of the earth, the symbols of the power of God, exalted be His
glory, arise and resolve to dedicate themselves to whatever will promote
the highest interests of the whole of humanity, the reign of justice
will assuredly be established amongst the children of men, and the
effulgence of its light will envelop the whole earth.

Baha'u'llah, Lawh-i-Maqsud (Tablet of Maqsud)
_Writings of Baha'u'llah_, India, p.252

--
David Jull
djull@athena.mit.edu
From: dcorbett@uucp (Dan Corbett x2040)
Subject: Re: Unity between Science and Religion
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:43:44 GMT


In article <1992Nov11.190854.18442@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
   In article <45676@ogicse.ogi.edu> rick@helix.nih.gov (Rick Troxel) writes:

   >1. That the body's chemical dissolution is faster when it is cremated
   >(perhaps there is also an implication of qualitative difference)

   >2. That such is not desirable

   >IMHO, assertion 2 is religious, not scientific, hence cannot conflict
   >with scientific beliefs.

   Assertion 2 can conflict with scientific beliefs if a reason is given
   for the undesirability, and this reason conflicts with science.  In
   this case, the reason is as follows: fast dissolution is not desirable
   because it prevents the elements in the body from becoming parts of
   other creatures.

I don't believe that the quotation from 'Abdu'l-Baha' makes this point.
See below.

   If science says that fast dissolution doesn't prevent this, then
   assertion 2 conflicts with science.

   >"Cremation suppresses it speedily from attainment to these
   >transformations, the elements becoming so quickly decomposed that
   >transformation to these various stages is checked."

I think that perhaps this statement does have scientific significance.
To examine this one must look at the various stages of decomposition
which occur when a body is not cremated and compare this to the stages
when it is cremated.  Certainly there is a difference!  Certainly there
are stages which would occur when a body decomposes naturally which do
not occur when a body is cremated.  I am not a biologist annd therefore
cannot identify these stages in detail, but certainly reason will
indicate the truth that transformation to certain stages of decomposition
is indeed checked by cremation.

Even if your interpretation of 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement is correct.
What are the scientific facts?  Indeed cremation may even make it more
difficult for the some elements of the body to be reused in the ecosystem.
This might occur because the chemical energy which is inherent in some
chemical compounds was consumed by the fire of cremation.  This chemical
energy could be useful in the process of the elements becoming parts of
other creatures.

Perhaps a knowledgable biologist can be called on to comment on this
aspect and help us come to a true understanding of this.

Perhaps this could be posted on another Newsgroup, sci.skeptic or any
which may be dedicated to subjects dealing with biology and discussed.
Maybe somebody on these groups would have the proper scientific knowledge
and background.

Let's work together to determine the real truth!

   - Daniel
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:58:26
Distribution: world
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Subject: Re: Science vs. Religion (was: Resurrection is irrelevant to human body whether dead or alive)

In article <45673@ogicse.ogi.edu> dcorbett%srg@uunet.uu.net (Dan
Corbett x2040) writes:

>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.

If the basis is that the atoms in the body escape too fast to become parts of
other creatures, it _is_ a scientific issue, unless you're only referring to
spiritual atoms that don't necessarily go the same place as the physical ones.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: sedisrj01@cc.curtin.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Baha'i Computer Professionals
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:59:03 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

Allah'u'abha to all my Baha'i friends out there.

I am a Baha'i in Perth, Western Australia and I am so happy that
there is finally a newsgroup for our Faith.

I am going to the Baha'i World Congress in NYC and I would like to
get together with other Baha'is who are involved in the IT/IS
industry.  I am a programmer analyst.  There are many of the friends
in this field and it would be great to start up a Baha'i Computer
Professionals Network wouldn't it?  Give me your thoughts before the
18th November and I'll see you in New York!


Yours in His service.

Bob Edis
Perth
Australia
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Unity between Science and Religion
Date: 8 Nov 92 08:01:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.45672
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <45460@ogicse.ogi.edu> mpimfhd!vkitzing@oneworld.wa.com
(Eberhard von Kitzing - MPImF - Heidelberg - FRG) writes:

>My personal interpretation of this statement and similar one is that
>any apparent contradiction between the Baha'i-Faith and science must
>be due to my personal misunderstanding of at least one of the two.

The question is: _which_one_ has been misunderstood?

And what if it's something so clear that it cannot be misunderstood?
Your holy scriptures were quoted as saying that if the human body is
cremated, its atoms spread so fast that they cannot become parts of other
organisms.  There doesn't appear to be much room to read the passage as saying
anything else, and it clearly contradicts science.

--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: djull@Athena.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
Subject: From the Baha'i Writings
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:56:22 GMT
Organization: <none>

O SON OF MAN!
Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence,
I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee
Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

Baha'u'llah, Hidden Words, Arabic, #3
--
David Jull
djull@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
From: Farshad Farhand <ffarhand@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Subject: (none)
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:02:32 GMT


Allah u Abha dear friends,
I am very glad to have found this newsgroup.  I have read some interesting
views and points on The Baha' Faith which were very helpful to me to answer
some of the similar questions raised on this newsgroup.

I am going to New York World Congress and hope to meet you there.

I am the president of the UCI Baha'i Club and would like to hear some stories
from other colleges and universities on their activities on their campus.
Our focus at UCI is to promote the Race Unity, because here in Southern
California it is a big issue(since no one likes to take it seriously).

Our Club is looking for new idea on teaching on campus and getting the
word of the Baha'i Faith out.

Thank you.

------------------------------------
 (ffarhand@bonnie.ics.uci.edu)	   |
------------------------------------



Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
From: ashkon_k@apollo.hp.com
Subject: Reading for Thursday, November 5, 1992
Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:50:58 GMT



          "Be fair, ye peoples of the world;" He (Baha'u'llah)
     thus appeals to mankind, "is it meet and seemly for you to
     question the authority of one Whose presence, 'He Who
     conversed with God' (Moses) hath longed to attain, the
     beauty of Whose countenance 'God's Well-beloved' (Muhammad)
     had yearned to behold, through the potency of Whose love the
     'Spirit of God' (Jesus) ascended to heaven, for Whose sake
     the 'Primal Point' (the Bab) offered up His life?" "Seize
     your chance," He admonishes His followers, "inasmuch as a
     fleeting moment in this Day excelleth centuries of a bygone
     age...
     Neither sun nor moon hath witnessed a day such as this...It
     is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God
     hath lived is divinely ordained and may, in a sense, be
     characterized as God's appointed Day.  This Day, however, is
     unique and is to be distinguished from those that have
     preceded it.  The designation 'Seal of the Prophets' fully
     reveals and demonstrates its high station."

           -Shoghi Effendi,
           Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, Page 16

Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai