Originally posted by amannion
I think you forget how easy it is to quarantine aspects of our lives from others. It's so easy for anyone to hold contradictory views and not really question the nature of those contradictions.
Scientists are not some sort of superhumans (yourself included) - they are just people like everyone else, who eat and sleep and love and worry and laugh and drink and ... so on.

Absolutely. I totally agree, but I think that a good scientist would at least say to himself, "why do I believe this?". If they have a different standard for what they believe within work, and what they believe religiously, then to earn the title "good scientist" they'd have to be able to justify it logically and rationally.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm sure there are people who have discovered great things in science and believe in God, yet I would say that as long as they do not apply the scientific method to their own beliefs and to all aspects of their lives, I would have trouble classifying them as a great scientist.

Applying the scientific method to all parts of your life certainly isn't beneficial. The scientific method, as much as I like it, is very limited in its potential for helping us understand our universe.

If you just meant that scientists should question their beliefs and do their best to find the ones that fit the world around them, then I would agree. But the scientific method will give very little help in that endeavor.

Originally posted by jebry
Applying the scientific method to all parts of your life certainly isn't beneficial. The scientific method, as much as I like it, is very limited in its potential for helping us understand our universe.

Can you suggest another way to understand the universe?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you suggest another way to understand the universe?

Certainly!

There is inductive and deductive logic. There is experience and application. There is observation and intuition.

Don't get me wrong, the scientific method is great where it is usable but there are conditions that must hold for it to work. For instance, the question at hand must be falsifiable; you must be able to set up an experiment that is repeatable and you must be able to measure the results. Obviously there is a vast amount of information in the universe where these conditions do not apply.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, but is worship the cause of bad musical taste?

Have parishioners brains became rotten with constant hymn singing?

Tallis, Byrd, Bach--bad taste? Let alone Johnny Cash and the gospel tradition. While Britney Spears (just for example) is good taste? Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree again...

Originally posted by whodey
I think it rather difficult to assess at times what is spiritual and what is otherwise. After all, we are a triune being and everything is interconnected. Also, you are attempting to describe aspects of your existence that is scientifically intangible.

The best I can describe the change in me after I became saved is that a "6th sense" was awakened if you ...[text shortened]... festations of a "change" yet there are no other tangible changes you can put your finger on.

I struggled for years with Rom. 7. The dual nature.

2Cor.5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Tallis, Byrd, Bach--bad taste? Let alone Johnny Cash and the gospel tradition. While Britney Spears (just for example) is good taste? Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree again...

Come on now Bosse, just because Brittney goes around flashing the public and shaving her head and writing 666 on her forehead and screaming that she is the anti-christ should in no way indicate that anything about her is in bad taste, including her music. Perhaps we should be asking questions about the lives of the musicians instead of their quality of music? Shall we look at lifestyles, such as drug addiction and such? Who's happier?

BTW: I am convinced that Scotty views theists as inferior in terms of mental capacity, musical capacity, etc. Perhaps he stereotypes all of us religious folk as West Virginians are stereotypes as being inbreeded red necks? Prove me wrong Scotty, I await your response.

Edit: That reminds me of a joke I heard the other day. Why is it that all murders in West Virginia always go unsolved? The answer is that there is never any dental work to examine and all the DNA is always the same. Sorry, just had to share. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
BTW: I am convinced that Scotty views theists as inferior in terms of mental capacity, musical capacity, etc. Perhaps he stereotypes all of us religious folk as West Virginians are stereotypes as being inbreeded red necks? Prove me wrong Scotty, I await your response.

Not at all.

Mental capacity and the application of that are completely certain.

Let's think about it in car terms. You can have a V8, and you can go very fast, provided you drive it that way! Likewise, an old granny could drive that same V8 very conservatively. It's not all about what you've got, but more what you do with it.

I appreciate there is some good Christian music, but come on, there is a whole lot more crap stuff. I mean, look at the two "worship" songs already linked to on this thread - they're crap!

And Bosse, I'm not much of a Britney Fan, but as you should realise, that simply by me saying "the majority of Christian music is crap" in no way equates to me saying that all (or even the majority of) secular music is good.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Not at all.

Mental capacity and the application of that are completely certain.

Let's think about it in car terms. You can have a V8, and you can go very fast, provided you drive it that way! Likewise, an old granny could drive that same V8 very conservatively. It's not all about what you've got, but more what you do with it.

I appreciate th ...[text shortened]... n no way equates to me saying that all (or even the majority of) secular music is good.

I think there is some truth in what you say. After all, secular music is but for one purpose and one purpose only which is to make $$$. Conversly, much of the focus of religious music is ministry. So the secular musicians will achieve their goal in large part and the religious group will achieve their goal in large part.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And Bosse, I'm not much of a Britney Fan, but as you should realise, that simply by me saying "the majority of Christian music is crap" in no way equates to me saying that all (or even the majority of) secular music is good.

Bad taste is a scourge that afflicts humanity willy-nilly, regardless of creed. To single out religion as a cause is silly--it doesn't get to the root of the problem. Aesthetically speaking, I must say that my experiences of church while growing up were abysmal, the very pews groaned with boredom. Then again, that's probably what the congregation wanted--security at the expense of passion, like any other fearful middle-class community. But I am speculating...To me, bad taste signifies the total defeat of the aesthetic imagination by the forces of sentimentality and greed. Much like the crucifixion was a kitsch drama put on by some spectacularly unimaginative Romans.