Talk:Baháʼí views on science/Archive 1

message: As a student of linguistics I'm quite partial to Mike Russell's insistance of being specific about the words used and their definitions at the time they were used. So I think that a section about this should include the statement about creatures simply being things that were created, and I like that quote about the first creature being light. 
Jeff, I like that write-up, but I think it could use a couple of changes, like that last one, to take into account some of the other things that were said on this topic earlier.
On another note, I think the whole page is missing love and cohesion. It's so quick to go to disagreements that the section on ether doesn't even have the quote it's dissagreeing about. 
This article is an example of why it's necessary for science and religion to be in harmony. Science takes you down countless rabbit holes in order to discern the truth in all things, while religion reminds you of the bigger picture about what the science is for. For example: what is the use of studying the age and composition of a fossilized turnip found in southern Montana when there are people famined in Niger? And what exactly is the better use of the energy released when an atom is split?
So who's more correct? Science? Religion? They are not the same things. They govern different spheres. Each is essential, science to discover truth of matters and protect people from extremely fundamentalist religious thought and from superstition; and religion to protect people from the misuse of scientific knowledge and discoveries, to direct them to scientific endeavors that will profit mankind and to remind them of the light at the top of the rabbit hole when they're scraping the bottom of it... and it's granite. ;-) 
Heres something Bahá'u'lláh said about this:
: Out of the wastes of nothingness, with the clay of My command I made thee to appear, and have ordained  for thy training every atom in existence and the essence of all created things.
::-Hidden Words
So that's my personal interpretation of `Abdu'l-Bahá's quote at the begining of the article, and according to it I would personally like to see more religion guiding how (and indeed- if) these arguments are carried out. That said, I'm glad these things are being discussed. It's nice to watch things become more perfect. LambaJan 01:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: splitting hairs?

message: Secondly, there's the question of "fixed star."  What on earth is a fixed star?  As far as I can tell, there's no such thing, since all stars are moving relative to galactic center, and all galaxies are moving relative to each other.  So a literal reading works out logically to be 
:::Every fixed star hath its planets
:::There are no fixed stars
:::Non-existant-stars have their planets
:::Science speaks of stars in motion
:::Apples-to-oranges
So if he's being absolutely, and prescriptively literal, then we have no problem, since the words are meaningless.  Zero meaning, zero contradiction.  Clearly he's not being absolute AND literal, or he wouldn't have bothered to waste air (paper) on the statement.  Therefore, we can take a relaxed view and assume that (short of explicit interpretive guidance from Abd'ul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi to the contrary) that he was making a point, and meant to emphasize the fact that there was/is life on other planets.
:A "fixed star" means any star except the sun, and the term dates back to when the stars were not known to be suns.  They are called fixed stars because they move so slowly that as far as the ancients knew they didn't move at all. Ken Arromdee 05:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and thus we have to use the meaning of the terminology from Baha'u'llah's time, and thus creature could very well mean the mineral kingdom as MARusselPESE has already added to the article. -- Jeff3000 13:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed

message: After perusing this discussion and the article, I'm reinserting the discussion on the language of the quote that Ken had added, 10:04, 24 October 2005, but Cuñado removed on 12:50, 24 October 2005. I have expanded the references and edited it for presentation.
This formulation has support here on the discussion page. (Please see Ken's discussion and LambJan's entry above.) I see no opposition, except perhaps Cuñado's possible preferred literal interpretation. As this presentation is more on-point than the discussion of current planetary science, or the quotes from Shoghi Effendi or the House of Justice, I'm inserting it ahead of these.
I also have a small POV problem with Christian's point 4. "Is the use of an overstated and absolute assertion simply a common persian stylistic device used to emphasize?" As an Anglo-American, I do feel that Middle Easterners and South Asians seem to rely on hyperbole more than I do (Ever seen the Saudi Ambassador give an interview?), but can this be documented in a way that is authoritative, doesn't raise unnecessary issues, and doesn't sound POV? (Yes, I see the humor in an American waxing on about hyperbole — but I'm a Yankee, not a Texan. (Ever seen the Texan Ambassador Governor give an interview?))
Thanks to all for your thoughts and contributions last night (or whenever your time zone was), especially you Christian. Your expansion of the "Scientific Statements by the Founders" section was very helpful.
MARussellPESE 13:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Figurative Interpretation Added

message: Interesting. From this page, I discern many arguments that could be applied to a write-up about Independent Investigation of the Truth (IIOT), the role of infallibility, and the foundation for a Baha'i Philosophy of Science. jmswtlk 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IIOT