(04-22-2019, 11:37 AM)Ed Hurst Wrote: I would tell someone outside that our (my) way is right for us (me), not necessarily right for everyone. Summarizing the rest: The beliefs passed down were not from the Apostles, nor consistent with the Bible as a whole. Until we study and think like the Hebrew people who brought us the gospel, we can't really understand it.

Heart-led was not a phrase they used because, in Bible times, everyone did it without having to think about it. (Refer to studies in Ancient Near Eastern civilizations.) We lost touch with that after the First Century as the leadership of churches fell increasingly into the hands of Westerners who knew no such thing. Also make note of the influence of the Judaizers and what that meant in terms of perverting revelation by preference for reason.

(04-25-2019, 08:18 PM)Ed Hurst Wrote: Part of the issue is that "science" as we know it is an artifact of our civilization. As Sheldrake notes, the sociology of how scientists do science is nothing like the common perception. It was never the thing we are taught to believe it is. I recall reading the book (1970s) on how DNA was discovered and the petty rivalry between the various scientists, competing for funding, trying to be the first to publish so as to get the credit for it. I've never seen anyone acting selflessly in academic scientific research in universities, nor even heard of it.

I suppose if we decided to talk about inquiry into the mechanics of life, the universe and everything (heh), and call it something other than "science," it might be easier to answer the question. Then we would say that God calls and drives people to investigate such things. In that sense, there is no proper role to articulate. Each of us is called to attend or ignore such things as it fits our mission. Since I entertain serious doubts about our ability to perceive reality in the first place, I'm not sure it makes that much difference. I don't think it's necessary to lay down some common perception of the nature of reality. We can't prevent people from trying it, but there's not much point in us trying to advise others on the matter.

I would expect that heart-led people would know not to take themselves too seriously. If someone's mission in life is scientific research, there's no real conflict. Materialism is just a model, not ultimate truth. It's appropriate in some realms of investigation because we know that the people who fund such research want only certain kinds of results. We don't tell everyone everything we discern. There's not a lot of use in me trying to submit for wide publication my experiences in computer tech support using the heart-led approach. I can record my findings, but my hacking methods won't make sense to most computer enthusiasts.

So I think we can just take what we can use and let folks who don't understand our approach just go and do what they do. In the long run, it won't make much of mark in eternity, anyway. Maybe someday we can watch scientific inquiry take a different approach, but I'm not expecting it in my lifetime.