Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Did Erasmus live in vain? Message-ID: Date: 21 Nov 90 05:50:00 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Duke University Medical Center Lines: 40 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article root@mamia.UCAR.EDU (Sys Admin) writes: > "Universal Unitarianism - a church where you don't check your mind > at the door" - but maybe you should, just to see if it's functioning! One of the great appeals of Unitarian Universalism is that science is compatible with our religion. We do not hold to that which flies in the face of empirical evidence, nor do we hold that all or any scientific theory is complete and total. A requirement to believe by faith is by its very statement opposed to the free use of the mind. To choose to believe without sufficient evidence is often necessary even in the most mundane of situtations, but a requirement to believe in unproven data explicitly denies the ability of a person to make choices based on reason for themselves. Unitarians Universalists choose to have faith in reason, in humanity's ability to make a better world paradigm than the self-defeating one based on a concept of original sin. We believe that education and reason and nonrational (not irrational) activities such as love and prayer can work together to create a better world on this earth, not in some postdeath realm, but for the living. We may be wrong, but we continue research and development for a better way. Instead of just taking a cheap shot, defend it. John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism Duke University An inclusive religion! and all its components () including the Divinity School, \__/ disavow anything I say. II [Of course those who believe in "creation science" also think that science is compatible with their religion, and that empirical evidence does not conflict with their religion either. It seems clear that there is a difference betweeen you and our more conservative contributors in their assessment of evidence. I'm not interested in discussing that, as I believe it belongs in talk.origins. What I would be interested in whether folks from the more conservative side think they have a different relationship between faith and reason then you do, or whether they think the only difference between you and them is that they believe the empirical evidence points in a different direction than you do. --clh]