[discountviagraman]

Hi..!
I think, Sophroniscus, we are moving in a off topic discussion. In order to maintain discussion inside boundaries of astraldynamics forums general purpose, I’ll reply about significant segments of yours, quoted as follows:

Personally, I would say that science should be trusted in those things for which it is good and useful. I would not deny, however, that there are transcendental matters for which science may not be terribly helpful. The American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce argued that one must, for example, generally trust the ethical and moral judgments of society, since they have matured over many generations of men whose experiences have true worth in helping one form his own character. And

though 10,000 scientists may scoff at his very existence. (Anyway, Donald McGlinn perhaps desire to close the thread about NDE, remove this reply from there and create a new thread in another Astraldynamics Forum like at Psychic and Spiritual Development and Experiences, he he , I’m only rambling…)

First, who determines what is good and helpful..?. For mine, public opinion. For scientist, scientific board of advisories.

Anyway, and from the public opinion viewpoint I think science has failed in some critical thematics.

Not being my will to rise in a controversial and futile discussion about what is good and helpful, I think such a science failure stems from a general disappointment of scientist about God’s commitment about Humankind. As my leader lawyer frequently says: “God doesn’t exists…”. I never though ask her: “Why not..?” My policy about complex belief systems of another people is ever to regard him, and let time and experience, although sad for me, will do its teacher like work. Humankind from a Bible viewpoint seems to be the God’s workings object; work area apparently neglected and what justifies scientist in its God’s denial task. But from my particular viewpoint, if God take broad intervention in people affaires, soon such an attitude drive Humankind to its worsening from a quality viewpoint. As late Carl Sagan sometime recognizes: “only worries about to fight against an apparently indifferent Universe is what it invigorates humankind to evolve” (word more, word less… my memory doesn’t perfect)

I’m certainly fanatic of to transpose general situation to another more comprehensible, in order to understand its hardly difficult of understand concerns. God’s intervention in Humankind affaires is comparable to money abolition. Can you imagine a world without money..? Certainly, it would be necessary to reconfigure all the economics concept. Sometime was an attempt of thought experiment about this possibility. You, Sophroniscus, done your high cultural level (more illustrated from mine done your philosopher condition), surely know it. Anyway, if money were abolished general decrease of Humankind power might be the immediate sequel.
The same is valid in order to understand, the problem as sequel of God’s intervention in Humankind affaires. Hence, God stay away from Humankind, but only in order to rule her. Something like First Directive in Star Trek series: “Do not build relationship with pre-Warp Speed civilizations”.

About your final statement “though 10,000 scientists may scoff at his very existence” and without intention of crash foundation of your attitude, but in order to feed your philosopher life I suggest examination of following link:

http://www.godless.org/sci/sr_talk.html

This is related to an Newsweek article titled: “Science Discovers God”.

My best regards...
Sincerely,
Natalia Parker