Originally posted by Zecharia
reply to post by schuyler
I understand what your saying up to the part about catholicism, Hawkings basically said there is no god, no creator, no afterlife. We have one
lifetime to appreciate the wonders of the universe and for that he is greatfull so does that not contradict the religion side? I dont doubt your
insight on the matter i just dont understand how this would make a case for the catholic point of view i must be missing 90% of the puzzle like always
My problem for not being clear, not yours. I should have defined my terms better. I perhaps should have used "catholic" with a small "c" or
perhaps "catholic-like." My contention is that (big-S) Science and the Catholic Church are very much alike in their approach. They are both
dogmatic, both very conservative, and both have a priesthood that uses esoteric language to retain power. They are both "the Establishment."
On the Catholic side the Church insists its interpretation of Christianity is absolutely correct, infallible, even. Though they will tell you Jesus is
coming back, they reject reincarnation "for the rest of us," and interpret the afterlife in terms of Heaven, Hell, sin, and guilt. They manage
expectations and have amassed vast wealth and power over 2,000 years. Indeed, you can make a case that the Catholic Church IS the Roman Empire. Their
use of Latin is not what it was after Vatican II, but you still must go to the priest for an absolving of sins. The idea that Jesus might have been
married, especially to Mary Magdalene, send them into tissy fits.
On the Science side you have people who insist their version of Reality is absolutely correct as well, proven even. They reject ANY notion of an
afterlife or reincarnation, God, etc. out of hand and have a tissy fit if you bring it up. Their language of mathematics is esoteric, not
understandable to most of us, and thus they maintain a priesthood via PhDs and academic appointments. They manage expectations. After all, they are
"smarter" than us.
On the one hand I don't blame Science for rejecting many religious beliefs. Their stance is that if you can't see it, then it does not exist. The
problem is, because they are so steeped in a physical world, they won't even look for anything else. They expect us to take the eleven dimensions of
Super String Theory on faith (sound familiar?), because the math works out, but consider an afterlife impossible simply because they have not yet
The evidence we have for reincarnation and an afterlife is overwhelming. There are tens of thousands of cases of people reporting what they have seen,
or reporting communication between realms, but it's all anecdotal and subject to fraud and religious interpretation as they co-opt the issue. Science
gleefully points out the fraud and explains more mundane cases away with vague allusions of "DMZ affecting the brain" as answers to why people see
what they do.
These two interpretations need to merge. We need to develop communication with the afterlife--reliable technical communication, not through human
mediums, which attracts the Sylvia Browne's of the world. I built a modern version of
myself. Either it did not work or I did not have the patience to make it work. Nevertheless, I believe we will have to have a
breakthrough along those lines to move forward. It may be that the barriers in place are intentional, and that we are not meant to break through them,
but if that is true then we are condemned to more of the same, and the Universe is cruel indeed,