<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Science and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum &#8230; so where does the truth sit in this equation?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.soulgrowth.com/2013/10/science-and-religion-are-at-opposite-ends-of-the-spectrum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.soulgrowth.com/2013/10/science-and-religion-are-at-opposite-ends-of-the-spectrum/</link>
	<description>a blog about my thoughts and opinions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 10:34:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://blog.soulgrowth.com/2013/10/science-and-religion-are-at-opposite-ends-of-the-spectrum/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.soulgrowth.com.au/?p=248#comment-13</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ScienceNews.org has an article that I&#039;d like to point out - &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/replacing-paradigms-requires-open-minds&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Replacing paradigms requires open minds&lt;/a&gt;. Which suggests that while current scientific theories/paradigms have the potential to be flawed, they are rarely challenged. Even long-standing theories such as Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

I think a comment that someone else posted on that article sums it up ...
&lt;blockquote style=&quot;margin-top: -1em&quot;&gt;
The basic premise here is to think not like everyone else thinks to solve or resolve long standing (or new) scientific problems. The issue then becomes....how?
Science and scientists shun ideas and close the door on individuals and thinking that does not align with current notions, theories or traditions.
Look at any university physics track courses, world wide, from undergrad through PhD and post doc work. Everything- courses, text books, lectures, and research is in lock step to make the student conform to the ridged theories of the day without deviation...without critical thinking...without analysis of what has come before. And if the student conforms to the norms set forth then he or she will have a promising yet uneventful career in science. If the student does not conform to the norms set forth then the student will be failed and withdrawn from this career path where research, further education, and work opportunities are removed and colleagues are encouraged to shun these individuals.
This is where we are and this is the issue!
&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ScienceNews.org has an article that I&#8217;d like to point out &#8211; <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/replacing-paradigms-requires-open-minds" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Replacing paradigms requires open minds</a>. Which suggests that while current scientific theories/paradigms have the potential to be flawed, they are rarely challenged. Even long-standing theories such as Einstein’s special theory of relativity.</p>
<p>I think a comment that someone else posted on that article sums it up &#8230;</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top: -1em"><p>
The basic premise here is to think not like everyone else thinks to solve or resolve long standing (or new) scientific problems. The issue then becomes&#8230;.how?<br />
Science and scientists shun ideas and close the door on individuals and thinking that does not align with current notions, theories or traditions.<br />
Look at any university physics track courses, world wide, from undergrad through PhD and post doc work. Everything- courses, text books, lectures, and research is in lock step to make the student conform to the ridged theories of the day without deviation&#8230;without critical thinking&#8230;without analysis of what has come before. And if the student conforms to the norms set forth then he or she will have a promising yet uneventful career in science. If the student does not conform to the norms set forth then the student will be failed and withdrawn from this career path where research, further education, and work opportunities are removed and colleagues are encouraged to shun these individuals.<br />
This is where we are and this is the issue!
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://blog.soulgrowth.com/2013/10/science-and-religion-are-at-opposite-ends-of-the-spectrum/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:38:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.soulgrowth.com.au/?p=248#comment-11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lately, Jonathan Cainer&#039;s (the astrologer) &#039;thought for the day&#039; seems to tie in nicely with this post. The following quotes are from Jonathan Cainer&#039;s website - perhaps scientists would be a little wiser if they paid attention to horoscopes? :)

Wednesday 6th November 2013 -
&lt;blockquote style=&quot;margin-top:-1.1em;&quot;&gt;
More today, on the Big Bang:&lt;br&gt;
Janet writes; &quot;Time is a circle with no beginning or end.&quot;&lt;br&gt;
Brett says &quot;Once we include consciousness in the equation of existence, the idea of a Big Bang becomes meaningless. The concept does nothing to explain that which thinks about it!&quot;&lt;br&gt;
John echoes this: &quot;Unless perceived by something permanent, outside of &quot;time&quot;, nothing could notice time&#039;s passage. Time is, therefore, an illusion from the standpoint of that which perceives it.&quot;&lt;br&gt;
and Liz says &quot;I drove my teacher mad at school by asking what came before the Big Bang. I still want to know.&quot;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Thursday 7th November 2013 -
&lt;blockquote style=&quot;margin-top:-1.1em;&quot;&gt;
I&#039;ve lately been sharing readers&#039; letters about infinity, eternity and the validity (or otherwise) of the Big Bang. I&#039;ve been reading up on how this idea ties in with the current quest amongst astronomers and physicists, to understand &#039;dark matter&#039;. The more I hear about the experiments now taking place to identify this, the more the scientists sound like mystics. I think that the current series of right angles from Uranus to Pluto, which culminate in 2015, will coincide with a breakthrough that proves, in its own way, to be as big at the discovery of gravity or relativity.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;


Monday 11th November 2013 -
&lt;blockquote style=&quot;margin-top:-1.1em;&quot;&gt;
More today, on time and timelessness.
John writes, &#039;In Hinduism, the creation and dissolution of the universe is explained as one out-breath (a big bang expansion) then one in-breath (a contraction). This repeats with no beginning, no end.&#039;
Pauline comments, &#039;From a state of high consciousness, life seems no more than a dream. Dreams have a beginning and end, hence a time frame.&#039;
Paul quotes Stephen Hawking, &#039;It is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang since time began at the Big Bang.&#039;
And Morgana says, &#039;It&#039;s called The Big Bang Theory because... it is a theory!&#039; 
&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lately, Jonathan Cainer&#8217;s (the astrologer) &#8216;thought for the day&#8217; seems to tie in nicely with this post. The following quotes are from Jonathan Cainer&#8217;s website &#8211; perhaps scientists would be a little wiser if they paid attention to horoscopes? <img src='http://blog.soulgrowth.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Wednesday 6th November 2013 -</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:-1.1em;"><p>
More today, on the Big Bang:<br />
Janet writes; &#8220;Time is a circle with no beginning or end.&#8221;<br />
Brett says &#8220;Once we include consciousness in the equation of existence, the idea of a Big Bang becomes meaningless. The concept does nothing to explain that which thinks about it!&#8221;<br />
John echoes this: &#8220;Unless perceived by something permanent, outside of &#8220;time&#8221;, nothing could notice time&#8217;s passage. Time is, therefore, an illusion from the standpoint of that which perceives it.&#8221;<br />
and Liz says &#8220;I drove my teacher mad at school by asking what came before the Big Bang. I still want to know.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>Thursday 7th November 2013 -</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:-1.1em;"><p>
I&#8217;ve lately been sharing readers&#8217; letters about infinity, eternity and the validity (or otherwise) of the Big Bang. I&#8217;ve been reading up on how this idea ties in with the current quest amongst astronomers and physicists, to understand &#8216;dark matter&#8217;. The more I hear about the experiments now taking place to identify this, the more the scientists sound like mystics. I think that the current series of right angles from Uranus to Pluto, which culminate in 2015, will coincide with a breakthrough that proves, in its own way, to be as big at the discovery of gravity or relativity.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Monday 11th November 2013 -</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:-1.1em;"><p>
More today, on time and timelessness.<br />
John writes, &#8216;In Hinduism, the creation and dissolution of the universe is explained as one out-breath (a big bang expansion) then one in-breath (a contraction). This repeats with no beginning, no end.&#8217;<br />
Pauline comments, &#8216;From a state of high consciousness, life seems no more than a dream. Dreams have a beginning and end, hence a time frame.&#8217;<br />
Paul quotes Stephen Hawking, &#8216;It is meaningless to ask what came before the Big Bang since time began at the Big Bang.&#8217;<br />
And Morgana says, &#8216;It&#8217;s called The Big Bang Theory because&#8230; it is a theory!&#8217;
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
