Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-09, 12:58:06Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.Much to ersi's chagrin, I would agree with these statements!
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.
Of course, where he sees failure and incompetence, I see intellectual honesty and honest effort...[...]Modern science is -much as was religion before it- a sopa de pedra. Some people can't accept that!
An example: The basis of statistical reasoning can't be frequentism. Nor subjective Beyesianism. But objective Beyesianism makes sense...
The problem with the Bible is that it's hard to see its point.
There's no problem at all with the Bible. The Old Testament simply forget it and the New Testament you simply put a priest explaining what it means to the faithful people in the Church. Just a bit at the time and once a week it's enough, they'll get the point.You must decide either you want to be part of those that listens or those who speaks, institutional religion being a multilevel kind of thing but where DIY has no place.
The theologian foundation for my words can be found at the very source, Jesus Christ words. He told Peter go and make my Church. You get to God through the Words of the Bishop of Rome, there's no short cut.
Philosophy, no matter how much appealing it can be, it's not Religion and religion it's about To Serve not to discuss.There are however gradients in serving, not everyone knees the same way...
I have already understood that Old and New Testament propound different concepts of God and, different from fundie evangelicals, it's impossible to justify any rules or practices based on the law of Moses. Everything relevant to Christians is found in the New Testament. But there has been literally nobody to tell me this.
Jesus condemned only one group: The leaders of his own religion.
This is totally open to interpretation. It can be seen as a general exhortation for everyone to emulate Peter's example and make their own church...
How about a religious philosophy, complete with the concepts of spirit, God, and eschatology coherently tied together so as to make sense of the purpose of service-mindedness and keep the focus on worship?
You evidently have no idea how some power can take an aspect or a whole branch of society and cut it off abruptly so that it never recovers, like Soviets did with the church, and like Western governments are doing right now with the institution of marriage. In such a situation, people are on their own to make sense of things according to their individual ability. No priest or church or social worker will be there to help. Lucky if you still have your mother to DIY for you.
But with all these in place, it should be evident that all this is not merely a matter of discussion, but of practice.
As a wee laddie in the Sunday School in my local parish kirk, I discovered in a hall some beautiful coloured copies of paintings of Jesus in different situations. Having thought of him as meek and mild I was at first puzzled at the one on the cleansing of the Temple. However even at such an young age, I came to realise there was a place for righteous anger.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-09, 20:58:06Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.Yeah-okay-fine, but at the end of the day it is science that gets the work done. It does it faster and more efficiently than we ever could before and that frees up more time for people to do the things they need or want to do for themselves and their families, i.e. it promotes happiness.
At it's core science is a field of discovery which is a natural freedom allowed to all of us--ever tried it as a kid? Science is the future...
What work? Done in what sense? Frees up more time? The actual experience is precisely the opposite. People are either working on multiple jobs at the same time, with no time for families or themselves, or they are unemployed, with no money for family or themselves.
Science also unequivocally shows that people need sufficient rest and cool-down time. Not that you need science for that...
How do "tried it as a kid" and "the future" fit together? How does "science" fit in there rather than "life" or "eternity" or "Jehovah"? You are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there's no head or tails to it.
...do you not recognize experience as meaningful grounds on which to form an opinion.
If I had spent my life analyzing to death everything I saw, heard or read then I'm fairly certain I would not have enjoyed my life nearly as much as I have...
You must explain to me though, how is it that you know for a fact that science is not being done in the most effective and efficient way possible despite the flaws you see.
(Just like Frenzie managed to justify Sam Harris once upon a time: Sam may have no philosophical or logical merit, but since his Great Mission is to smear religions, he is still a Good Guy.)
Did this really just follow a piece of text attacking false dichotomies? Sam Harris is either Good™ or Bad™?
For example even you have it occasionally hard to accept that religion can be so much a thing of the mind, intellect, and reason, as it seems to be to me For you religion is properly more of a heart and intuition thing.
You identified well a separation but wrongly the terms - for the individual, freedom to reason; for the collective, the security of dogma.
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 40 queries.