The Scientific World Is Turning to God

[blaise]

franko said:

place -- and it goes for the religious right/moral majority/whatever you want to call it in
I disagree -- Pentecostalism is far more conservative than the Catholic Church -- smoking, drinking, dancing, and other like "vices" are forbidden, yet people still flock to the church (maybe because contraception is allowed? ;D ) Evangelicalism is more inviting because it shows some form of life and allows past tradition to enter into its rites and worship. A good read: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity by Phillip Jenkins (though I did note that you do not have much time for much reading of books outside of your preferred discipline).

I don't why I said Pentecostal when I meant Evangelical all along. What made me realize my mistake was recalling this Guatemalan house painter who told me of lively meetings at his storefront church in town.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, "Unam Sanctam" (A. D. 1302): "There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins." This position was reaffirmed on September 5, 2000 in a 36-page document from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was approved by the pontiff. It states that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "instrument for the salvation of all humanity."

Dialogue continues within the Catholic Church as to her place in leadership -- some hardliners claim to be the only way; others are more open . . . but the higher the position in the church, the more likely (it seems) for a firmness of pre-eminence



ooh, the Wesleyan in me points to free will . . . that God does not intend any for the fires of hell but also gives all the ability to chose or reject Him . . . otoh, I do have difficulty with the very notion of hell. So we are left with universalism (abhorrent to me -- Hitler and Paul Bernardo receive equal blessing?), annihilation (any not deemed worthy are wiped out = "the second death" -- but I don't like this philosophy either -- a Creative God destroys His creation?), or a purgatoric state (though I like Rany Alcorn's description of hell Deadline, which (granted) is mere Christian fiction).


I'd rather go to another thread or pm to discuss this one!

Thanks Franko

Good quote. and I believe it to be true, but it definitely does not mean the bald literal sense of the phrasing i.e. that to be "saved" by the church one has to profess to be a part of it. Incidentally, the doctrine of the ordinary and papal infallibility which incidentally has absolutely nothing to do with the person, but rather the promises of Christ "gates of hell shall not prevail etc."
but this does not mean that the actual phrasing of a fundamental aspect of faith or morals is perfect in its expression.

Here is a response to the question of the necessity of baptism for "salvation"

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As a hypothetical instance, I know a guy who had to wear a suit and hang around his parents in the living room all day on Sundays!!!!! He couldn't wait to warmly embrace agnosticism and who could blame him. He's a real nice thoughtful caring human being by the way, a lot nicer guy than me! He happens not to be a Catholic, but there are equally terrible instances of well and evil-intended lunacy in Catholicism. i would probably have killed off both my parents (slowly) and spent the rest of my life hunting down "Christians".

My point is of course that even exposure to dogma, practice and irrational goofballs yelling in your face or "Jesus loves you" bumper stickers, does not necessarily mean any telling preconditons have been met to a reasonned assent of the will. "Christians" are often one of the most compelling reasons to steer away from it. I sometimes am on the golf course or 401. Someone once gave me my favourite card. On the cover was a standard shepherdlike "Jesus" with the words "Jesus loves you" on the cover. On the inside however was written "Everyone else thinks you're an a$$hole."
The best! And sound theology too!

[Toronthab]

Blaise said:

Most people belong to one particular church or another because they follow what their parents do and in turn are exposed to others of the same religion who attend the same churches. It would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone had to make an independent choice without parental or neighborhood influence. I suspect that any serious thoughts about theology would come only after the membership issue has been settled.

It is interesting to note that starting with the era in which Roman Catholicism was the only option there have been numerous departures. Smaller sects (e.g., the Albigensians) were largely obliterated by force. Among the major permanent schisms were the breakaway of the Eastern Orthodox, Lutheranism, and the formation of the Anglican church. There are now numerous Protestant sects. In the US, membership in older established churches, such as the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopalian, has been declining in favor of the Southern Baptists and other more evangelical sects.

Another interesting phenomenon is the drift away from the Roman Catholic church in Central America and to a lesser extent in South America. One plausible explanation is that Roman Catholicism has been too closely associated with oligarchy and dictatorship as well as its own inherent authoritarianism. There are storefront Pentecostal churches situated in predominantly Guatemalan or Honduran or Salvadorian or or other Central American immigrant communities in the US. The increasing conservatism exemplified by John Paul and his like-minded cardinals does not bode well for the further expansion of Roman Catholicism in Europe or the Americas. Liberal Catholic priests in Latin America have had the reins pulled in on them by Rome.

Since the crumbling of the Soviet Union, more and more Russians identify themselves as Orthodox Christians. This, of course, is not true of all the former republics, where ethnic Russians are leaving Central Asia in droves as the region becomes more and more Islamicized.

I hope I don't screw up another post..must be irritating.

I think you are quite right about people generally tending to adopt the religious perspectives of their culture, not that in anything dealilng with causality I would reduce to a single sociological element. I think that most religions most of the time do a rather good job of embodying pretty good principles which stem from the basic axiom of practical reasoning which is that good should be done and evil resisted. From this universal principle flow the so-called decalogue or secondary principles. injunctions against certain acts.

It's funny, but people often focus on these gudelines for the morally dumb as being "negative". Only a little thought should reveal that this humble little grouping intends only to preserve the good.

I think your overall summary of religious movement is pretty fair and along with the Archbishop Romero and the priests and nuns slaughtered ommunidads de bas, there may well be bishops considered to be too close to the rotten powers that be. I think the issue tends to be complex in practice and don't have ready and immediate courses of action to suggest.

Marxism believes in radical renewal. A sudden and traumatic break with the past. Christianity is more organic. The church very clearly teahes a social gospel. Pius X stated that capitalism of its very nature is corrupt because its nature is greed. Private means of production and private property are seen as consistent with human nature, but property rights are anything but absolute.

As to the Pope being "conservative". or particularly so, I couldn't possibly agree less. He's is the strongest, most consistent and bravest liberal I have ever seen up close. There may of course be ';"greater" men and women all over the world, probably lots, but he impresses the hell out of me so to speak.

His concern for humanity starts when humans do and only ends beyond the pale. I think he's stunning. I saw him in Abbotsford a few years ago. I think he stands up for and defends every authentic human aspiration and freedom. Catholics are generally the quintessential "bleeding heart liberals" a phrase taken from the Jesuit vision of a heart surrounded and pierced by thorns. Practicing Catholics tend not to be libertarian which is of course something quite different. MY beef with my fellow liberal and social democrats is that they are not nearly as liberal as they like to think they are, and a lot less courageous thatn they imagine themselves to be.

Now that I've had "MY" say (I'm laughing at me, by the way) I think Franko was right about moving this to his baalsy religion thread. I'll try to post somethiong controvertail there!!

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

I hope I don't screw up another post..must be irritating.

I think you are quite right about people generally tending to adopt the religious perspectives of their culture, not that in anything dealilng with causality I would reduce to a single sociological element. I think that most religions most of the time do a rather good job of embodying pretty good principles which stem from the basic axiom of practical reasoning which is that good should be done and evil resisted. From this universal principle flow the so-called decalogue or secondary principles. injunctions against certain acts.

It's funny, but people often focus on these gudelines for the morally dumb as being "negative". Only a little thought should reveal that this humble little grouping intends only to preserve the good.

I think your overall summary of religious movement is pretty fair and along with the Archbishop Romero and the priests and nuns slaughtered ommunidads de bas, there may well be bishops considered to be too close to the rotten powers that be. I think the issue tends to be complex in practice and don't have ready and immediate courses of action to suggest.

Marxism believes in radical renewal. A sudden and traumatic break with the past. Christianity is more organic. The church very clearly teahes a social gospel. Pius X stated that capitalism of its very nature is corrupt because its nature is greed. Private means of production and private property are seen as consistent with human nature, but property rights are anything but absolute.

As to the Pope being "conservative". or particularly so, I couldn't possibly agree less. He's is the strongest, most consistent and bravest liberal I have ever seen up close. There may of course be ';"greater" men and women all over the world, probably lots, but he impresses the hell out of me so to speak.

His concern for humanity starts when humans do and only ends beyond the pale. I think he's stunning. I saw him in Abbotsford a few years ago. I think he stands up for and defends every authentic human aspiration and freedom. Catholics are generally the quintessential "bleeding heart liberals" a phrase taken from the Jesuit vision of a heart surrounded and pierced by thorns. Practicing Catholics tend not to be libertarian which is of course something quite different. MY beef with my fellow liberal and social democrats is that they are not nearly as liberal as they like to think they are, and a lot less courageous thatn they imagine themselves to be.

Now that I've had "MY" say (I'm laughing at me, by the way) I think Franko was right about moving this to his baalsy religion thread. I'll try to post somethiong controvertail there!!

As to Communism, it certainly isn't a religion. My feelings about it have been well expressed by George Orwell. It offers a few attractive notions on the surface but in practice it has always turned out to be an abomination. Karl Marx would be horrified to have lived through the 20th century and witnessed what has happened in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Cambodia, for example.

[blaise]

Franko, I have little time to read books outside my professional activities, but I still do occasionally. I'm sure you can infer from my many posts that I read quite a bit in the past.

[Toronthab]

Blaise said:

As to Communism, it certainly isn't a religion. My feelings about it have been well expressed by George Orwell. It offers a few attractive notions on the surface but in practice it has always turned out to be an abomination. Karl Marx would be horrified to have lived through the 20th century and witnessed what has happened in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Cambodia, for example.

What do they call it..dialectical materialism....Coincidenatlly but perhaps not surprisingly Marx once observed that the only place he ever saw "communism" working was during a vist to a monastery..whether England or Russia I know not.

[Toronthab]

Mr. said:

No, I did not acquire my religious "notions" from electrons hitting phosphorous backed glass. In fact, I was brought up in a religious setting.

I wrote a page or two about the "how and when" about my faith but decided not to post it.

You may be a a better human beign then me, or perhaps the reverse is true. I believe it has nothing to do with religion. I believe that religion serves as a facilitator and a comforter. Further, a man may kill in the name of God or love in the name of God. In the end, it's the man who does this and has nothing to do with any devine intervention or wish.

I see philosophy as the persuit of wisdom and speculative understanding. It may help form a theory but by it's very nature, it can not be conclusive. If one has to question everything in persuit of an answers, then one has to question the answers.

That is my opinion........

M. Le Crank

I have no particular interest in your religion or lack therof. I mean no disrespect, but the putative "The Point of the Whole Dam Thing" does not pass out theology tests.

There are just too many examples of religion making a total difference and making no difference for this article of faith of yours to be accepted. After all, faith is a reasoned assent.

Ascribe religion no value whatever, and there is still no sound basis in human thought to support such a proposition (Unless I've missed a critical point you might care to share with me), but ascribe it so in any case and you are still left with the walking sticks and crutches on the walls in Lourdes and Fatima. Ascribe this to a hysteria that mysteriously afflicts only people praying for others, that occurs during the elevation of the monstrance during the consecration segment of the mass. It is religion and religion is the very vehicle of such well investigated phenomena that defy natural medical explanation.

That religious people have better sex lives, stabler families, live longer, earn more, are healthier, suffer from signicicantly fewer psychological disorders etc. etc. has acheived the level of cliche. Odd that such a silly idea in an unintelligible universed should so benefit the devotees. Not that that's a good reason to pusue a religion. It didn't seem to do much for Jesus' earthly prospects.

Whether God is behind human agency is specifically the point being addrressed. You are begging the question. Perhaps you are one of those people who honestly, and I mean honestly think that TEXT are keeping their hearts beating and the CAUSE of their own breathing. Talk about standing too close to the trees!

That you are convinced that good philosophy, or sound reasoning about ultimate causality cannot answer the question begged earlier reduces your statement of atheism to the level of your being a "believer".

I don't know if you intended the following, but you seem to say. Religion isn't except perhaps as empty ritual. God to has nothing to do with anything.
The existence or non-existence of God as necessary explanation of being cannot be successfully addressed by human reasoning. Therefore just believe me bcasuse I always did.

Actually, in fairness, ours is a culture steeped in 17th century materialism and indeed, it is reasonable that I posit metaphysical principles and arguments in defence of what I like to think I know. Then you get to try poke fun at my premises and employment of logic. Which seems more than fair enough.






The very idea of belief is assent to a proposition as true or false, with or without sufficient grounds for the belief.
`
To know is to have what is in your head about reallity correspond with reality beyond reasonable doubt. I submit that one an know that god exists beyond any reasonable doubt. The existence of somthing much like the cliche description, is not something one has to believe. This can be known by reason alone. This is not a religious statement, and such knowledge is just that knowledge nothing less, nothing more.

To begin with, the things we know with absolute certainty, so called self-evident propositions are very, very few in number.

Here's one... Things move.

Do you agree that things move?

[MC Habber]

Toronthab said:

Existence is self-evidently probable. We are here. To suspect as almost everyone in the history of man has , that there is likely a supreme being of some sort is simply and humbly attributing a likely or probable cause commeensurate with the astounding complexity of reality. We don't have to bring epistemological vice into it.

The intellectual error you flirt with or accept is that the specific sciences, and in the case of physics, the calculator's final answer on wave theory renders waves. It of course removes almost every aspect of water and studies that. To say E=MC to the second power is not to explain what energy is. That is what I meand by naive materialism, implicit in your thesis.

I understand what you mean, and I don't feel certain that science has all the answers, but I leave open that possibility.

[Cranky]

Toronthab said:

M. Le Crank

I have no particular interest in your religion or lack therof. I mean no disrespect, but the putative "The Point of the Whole Dam Thing" does not pass out theology tests.

There are just too many examples of religion making a total difference and making no difference for this article of faith of yours to be accepted. After all, faith is a reasoned assent.

Ascribe religion no value whatever, and there is still no sound basis in human thought to support such a proposition (Unless I've missed a critical point you might care to share with me), but ascribe it so in any case and you are still left with the walking sticks and crutches on the walls in Lourdes and Fatima. Ascribe this to a hysteria that mysteriously afflicts only people praying for others, that occurs during the elevation of the monstrance during the consecration segment of the mass. It is religion and religion is the very vehicle of such well investigated phenomena that defy natural medical explanation.

That religious people have better sex lives, stabler families, live longer, earn more, are healthier, suffer from signicicantly fewer psychological disorders etc. etc. has acheived the level of cliche. Odd that such a silly idea in an unintelligible universed should so benefit the devotees. Not that that's a good reason to pusue a religion. It didn't seem to do much for Jesus' earthly prospects.

Whether God is behind human agency is specifically the point being addrressed. You are begging the question. Perhaps you are one of those people who honestly, and I mean honestly think that TEXT are keeping their hearts beating and the CAUSE of their own breathing. Talk about standing too close to the trees!

That you are convinced that good philosophy, or sound reasoning about ultimate causality cannot answer the question begged earlier reduces your statement of atheism to the level of your being a "believer".

I don't know if you intended the following, but you seem to say. Religion isn't except perhaps as empty ritual. God to has nothing to do with anything.
The existence or non-existence of God as necessary explanation of being cannot be successfully addressed by human reasoning. Therefore just believe me bcasuse I always did.

Actually, in fairness, ours is a culture steeped in 17th century materialism and indeed, it is reasonable that I posit metaphysical principles and arguments in defence of what I like to think I know. Then you get to try poke fun at my premises and employment of logic. Which seems more than fair enough.






The very idea of belief is assent to a proposition as true or false, with or without sufficient grounds for the belief.
`
To know is to have what is in your head about reallity correspond with reality beyond reasonable doubt. I submit that one an know that god exists beyond any reasonable doubt. The existence of somthing much like the cliche description, is not something one has to believe. This can be known by reason alone. This is not a religious statement, and such knowledge is just that knowledge nothing less, nothing more.

To begin with, the things we know with absolute certainty, so called self-evident propositions are very, very few in number.

Here's one... Things move.

Do you agree that things move?

It's 2.40 in the morning and my eyelids will not hold up for a proper answer.

One thing you should know, I am NOT “poking fun” at any of your beliefs. That is the last thing that I would ever do because it would violate a principle that is a pillar of my moral center. Tolerance.

Do I understand you? Better then you think. Do I agree with you? No.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"That you are convinced that good philosophy, or sound reasoning about ultimate causality cannot answer the question begged earlier reduces your statement of atheism to the level of your being a "believer". "

1. One can be a “devout” atheist but then he is also closed minded.

2. If one questions everything then one has to also question his own conclusions. One can come to atheistic conclusion and THEN question them but that does not mean that he becomes a theist.

As for philosophy itself, you have an theological approach. I have an analytic approach. Evidence, argumentation, detail. Logic is the master and ambiguity the enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please be gentle when throwing names at me. Aristotle, Plato, St. Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas and I have not sat down and broken wind for over 35 years. In fact, they were instigators for some fascinating discussions but were excused when Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, Boyle and I launched our quest to create fire and invent the wheel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Motion? Is this a space and time question or have I missed something and this is a theist/metaphysical question with an equivalent answer?

Anyway….some thoughts tomorrow……….

[BadCompany]

Toronthab said:

Here's one... Things move.

Do you agree that things move?

Are we heading towards the maddeningly frustrating Zeno's Paradox here?

[franko]

BadCompany said:

Are we heading towards the maddeningly frustrating Zeno's Paradox here?

A thought, for what it's worth:

The only use for Zeno's paradox is to demonstrate how easy it is to construct a fallacy with words when you don't pay attention to what's going on outside the tiny little box on which you've focused. Most of the time people make this mistake in much more subtle ways, Zeno just made up some really ridiculous brain games to demonstrate it clearly.

Philosophy can be fun, but when it tries to poke at physics, it's usually just being stupid. Philosophy is largely the art of wishing making things so. A cardinal rule of physics, and indeed all science, is that wishing doesn't make it so.

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

What do they call it..dialectical materialism....Coincidenatlly but perhaps not surprisingly Marx once observed that the only place he ever saw "communism" working was during a vist to a monastery..whether England or Russia I know not.

Dialectical materialism (thesis--antithesis--resolution) is a takeoff on Hegel's writings, with which Marx and Engels were very familiar. They really did use the term communism. After all, they wrote a slimmer forerunner of Das Kapital, which they published as The Communist Manifesto. You know, "Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains...." One basic difference between Hegel and Marx is that Marx focused on economics, whereas Hegel was more idealistic and individualistic.

[blaise]

Toronthab said:

What do they call it..dialectical materialism....Coincidenatlly but perhaps not surprisingly Marx once observed that the only place he ever saw "communism" working was during a vist to a monastery..whether England or Russia I know not.

Marx never viewed communism as agrarian communism or as Jesus might have portrayed it. He always saw it as a development in highly industrialized societies. He expected the revolution to occur in Germany and ultimately percolate down. To him, Russia was not a good candidate, and China would have been one of the last places on earth he expected to see it.

[Cranky]

AHA!

I was wondering how some of you were tossing around names of philosophers like they were condoms in an orgy....

and then I discovered…..

One has spend a year in university debating the existence of God, another one spend time studying philosophy, religion, and the philosophy of religion. Sheesh….poor little me has no chance against the onslaught of professional literati……

I’ll just go to my little corner to ponder about the American dollar, price of steel and real estate values in my favorite red light district.…..

[Toronthab]

Mr. said:

It's 2.40 in the morning and my eyelids will not hold up for a proper answer.

One thing you should know, I am NOT “poking fun” at any of your beliefs. That is the last thing that I would ever do because it would violate a principle that is a pillar of my moral center. Tolerance.

Do I understand you? Better then you think. Do I agree with you? No.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"That you are convinced that good philosophy, or sound reasoning about ultimate causality cannot answer the question begged earlier reduces your statement of atheism to the level of your being a "believer". "

1. One can be a “devout” atheist but then he is also closed minded.

2. If one questions everything then one has to also question his own conclusions. One can come to atheistic conclusion and THEN question them but that does not mean that he becomes a theist.

As for philosophy itself, you have an theological approach. I have an analytic approach. Evidence, argumentation, detail. Logic is the master and ambiguity the enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please be gentle when throwing names at me. Aristotle, Plato, St. Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas and I have not sat down and broken wind for over 35 years. In fact, they were instigators for some fascinating discussions but were excused when Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, Boyle and I launched our quest to create fire and invent the wheel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Motion? Is this a space and time question or have I missed something and this is a theist/metaphysical question with an equivalent answer?

Anyway….some thoughts tomorrow……….

I knnow what you mean about bing tired. I was poking a little fun at you, and you don't really understand what I write. My fault or not, it seems true.
I offer no theological arguments unless discussing theology.

I made a special point as I recall of stating that sound arguments begin with self-evident or agreed incontrovertible premises and proceed on logically entailed steps to a conclusion that is true or false. There is nothing theological about this.

You seem to think that affirming a sound argument as sound, or an unsound argument as unsound is to have a closed mind. Tell me you're kidding please. That's not closed, that's functioning. The human mind works exactly on the principle of identity and contradiction. You have attempted to emplay them througout what you have written, but you were tired. Logic is no master of anything it is only a tool, the value of which is defended by sound philosophical arguments. You seem to be deriding the idea of truth, which I assume you are offering as truth. The master is a sound argument as I outlined above, but to deal with what I assume you were trying to say, I was not at all kidding when I asked you if you believe some things move. If you are a fan of Descartes self-contradicted line of reasoning, you shoud in fact say no.

As for the discovery of fire and other thougtful analyses of Aristotle et al, you would do well to try to understand him as Leibniz, who by the way seemed a little less dismiisive of Aristotle, still made the huge boo-boo of Descartes in denying the reliablilty of the senses.

Aagin, do you believe that things move?

[franko]

Mr. said:

AHA!

One has spend a year in university debating the existence of God, another one spend time studying philosophy, religion, and the philosophy of religion. Sheesh….poor little me has no chance against the onslaught of professional literati……

As a wise man once said,
Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:9-14

And another I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Corinthians 1:19

And yet another, a good friend of mine once said Earning (if that's the word for it) a PhD won't necessarily get you a job . . . but it will give you the tools to explain why you can't get one

So what good is knowledge? What value is learning? Why spend time arguing and discussing (that one I can answer: the Bob and Gary show is still in commercial break )

[Toronthab]

MC said:

I understand what you mean, and I don't feel certain that science has all the answers, but I leave open that possibility.

Hate to disabuse you of a comforting allusion, but if you understood what I wrote, you woud know beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that reality is forever beyond the reach of science. Science is of course wonderful enough at what it does magnificently.

You are a victim of "Scientism.", a false belief in the explanatory power of science. A fase hope and the source of very deep human frustration, for as Aristotle said, "All men by nature desire to understand."

Truth is the conformity of mind to reality. So love science and empiriometric and empirioschematic methodologies to what they excell at, and then look at what happens when you don't make the self-contradictory mistake of denying the senses.

A hint: When you put your hand around a cold beer, when you analyse it, in a real way, you become it. Your hand takes its shape, it becomes cold, you absorb its weight and all of this becomes the immediate content of the imaging power we share with cats and porpoises, to become the subjectmatter of the abstracting power of the intellect.

Humankind lost its big picture when it threw out Aristotles metaphysics is based upin that science which precedes and evaluates science itself.

Next time someone wants to tell you about "possible universes" on the basis of quantum physics, tell him or her to slowly step back from the calculator and go for a long walk with a kid or senior.

As for those true believers who actually think that the universe does not exist when they stop observing it...tell them too. Say in a firm voice "Step back from that calculator and go feed the squirrels."

[Toronthab]

franko said:

As a wise man once said,
Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:9-14

And another I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Corinthians 1:19

And yet another, a good friend of mine once said Earning (if that's the word for it) a PhD won't necessarily get you a job . . . but it will give you the tools to explain why you can't get one

So what good is knowledge? What value is learning? Why spend time arguing and discussing (that one I can answer: the Bob and Gary show is still in commercial break )

An excellent, if attitudinal and not well-founded expression of exactly the anti-rational and therefore somewhat anti-human ideology that makes that particular flavour of belief unappealing to thinking people.

Socrates observed that the worst sin a human can commit is "mysologia"
a distrust or hatred of reason. Reason, and the slightest familiarity with history confirms its inexorable complementarity with faith, is that which sets humnan beings apart as human. Faith is a reasoned assent made by reasoning creatures. Specious use of specious quotations taken out of context from the bible, does not a compelling argument make.

That faith is suprarational is axiomatic, that it is anti-rational or opposed to it is heretical and absurd. "If it is against reason, it is sinful." Acquinas. Repent Franko and go stand in the corner with the cartesians who ironically distrust reason while they indulge scientism.

While you're in the corner, watch out for the quantum physicist. He's imposssible.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Toronthab said:

Next time someone wants to tell you about "possible universes" on the basis of quantum physics, tell him or her to slowly step back from the calculator and go for a long walk with a kid or senior.

As for those true believers who actually think that the universe does not exist when they stop observing it...tell them too. Say in a firm voice "Step back from that calculator and go feed the squirrels."

A quote from my post at the foot of the first page of this thread:

The most profound lesson of quantum mechanics, he remarks, is that physical phenomena are somehow defined by the questions we ask of them. " This is in some sense a participatory universe," he says. The basis of reality may not be the quantum, which despite its elusiveness is still a physical phenomenon, but the bit, the answer to a yes-or-no question,which is the fundamental currency of computing and communications. Wheeler calls his idea "the it from bit."

If I, as Man, having been made in God's image and having become like Him by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, see no squirrel, there is no squirrel. Show me a squirrel and I'll give him a peanut.

[blaise]

The dialogue sounds a bit squirrelly to me...or nutty. Take your pick, they mean the same thing.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

The dialogue sounds a bit squirrelly to me...or nutty. Take your pick, they mean the same thing.

Who said that?

[franko]

Toronthab said:

An excellent, if attitudinal and not well-founded expression of exactly the anti-rational and therefore somewhat anti-human ideology that makes that particular flavour of belief unappealing to thinking people.

Socrates observed that the worst sin a human can commit is "mysologia"
a distrust or hatred of reason. Reason, and the slightest familiarity with history confirms its inexorable complementarity with faith, is that which sets humnan beings apart as human. Faith is a reasoned assent made by reasoning creatures. Specious use of specious quotations taken out of context from the bible, does not a compelling argument make.

That faith is suprarational is axiomatic, that it is anti-rational or opposed to it is heretical and absurd. "If it is against reason, it is sinful." Acquinas. Repent Franko and go stand in the corner with the cartesians who ironically distrust reason while they indulge scientism.

While you're in the corner, watch out for the quantum physicist. He's imposssible.

What the heck are you trying to say? You seem to take great joy in the use of words . . . which is fine as long as you are coherant. Perhaps you are . . . perhaps I am too simple . . . but like Saint Paul I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:19

The passage, of course, deals with the problem of speaking in tongues, but at times I ache for an interpreter on this forum . . . all the double-entendre and puns and witticisms and . . . you con't have to prove your intelligence to me (maybe to others, I don't speak for them).

I was merely reminding Mr. C. that anyone can study but that doesn't make him a scholar.

And as Ecclesiastes is a search for meaning, it seems to fit in well with this discussion.

[Cranky]

Toronthab said:

I knnow what you mean about bing tired. I was poking a little fun at you, and you don't really understand what I write. My fault or not, it seems true.
I offer no theological arguments unless discussing theology.

I thought I was talking theology with you but in the end, what you want to do is go into an philosophical debate. What you want to debate is what interested me 30 years ago and to be honest, I am ill equipped to debate you because I have forgotten most of it. Secondly, my world became and is "as real" as engineering can possibly make it.

As for the "poking a little fun", that is condescending. As for not "understanding" what you wrote, Franko already addressed that.

If that is your way, well, so much for this discussion........

[Cranky]

franko said:

What the heck are you trying to say? You seem to take great joy in the use of words . . . which is fine as long as you are coherant. Perhaps you are . . . perhaps I am too simple . . . but like Saint Paul I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:19

The passage, of course, deals with the problem of speaking in tongues, but at times I ache for an interpreter on this forum . . . all the double-entendre and puns and witticisms and . . . you con't have to prove your intelligence to me (maybe to others, I don't speak for them).

I was merely reminding Mr. C. that anyone can study but that doesn't make him a scholar.

And as Ecclesiastes is a search for meaning, it seems to fit in well with this discussion.

Franko,

A long time ago (4-5 years ago), before even this version of the forum, there was a group of us that took some pleasure in "spinning" words. Sometimes it took form as obscure knowledge or grabbing something from way out in left field just to confuse and annoy the poster you were discussing with. It was always done in "fun" and no one ever took offense to it. It was never condescending and never written with a burrito generated hot air of "intellectual superiority".

I hope we don't lose our old ways.

We's simple folk ya know, we's here to talk 'bout hockey 'nd woman......

[franko]

Mr. said:

A long time ago (4-5 years ago), before even this version of the forum, there was a group of us that took some pleasure in "spinning" words. Sometimes it took form as obscure knowledge or grabbing something from way out in left field just to confuse and annoy the poster you were discussing with. It was always done in "fun" and no one ever took offense to it. It was never condescending and never written with a burrito generated hot air of "intellectual superiority".

I hope we don't lose our old ways.

My annoyance took me a bit too far. I merely react to the pseudo-intellectualism ^* that is cropping up.

^* of which I acknowledge some participation

We's simple folk ya know, we's here to talk 'bout hockey 'nd woman......

Bring on the games (of both sorts).

[blaise]

Mr. said:

AHA!

I was wondering how some of you were tossing around names of philosophers like they were condoms in an orgy....

and then I discovered…..

One has spend a year in university debating the existence of God, another one spend time studying philosophy, religion, and the philosophy of religion. Sheesh….poor little me has no chance against the onslaught of professional literati……

I’ll just go to my little corner to ponder about the American dollar, price of steel and real estate values in my favorite red light district.…..

You should be aware that red light districts shift kaleidoscopically depending on crackdowns and real estate values. Also, the savvy brothel owner will lease a number of apartments to mitigate the impact of police raids. A raided apartment can't be reopened for business, so what is the brothel owner bound to a lease to do? Buy it out for a minimal sum or sublet it, of course. The landlord generally isn't displeased, because it brings a mark-up, and if news of the raid is published, it saves him the trouble of placing a for-rent ad.

The US dollar currently is in a similar position to an aging prostitute: the demand is lowered (thank George W. Bush), but so is its price. European tourists hit cities like New York with empty suitcases and go home laden.

The price of steel is rising because the Chinese are buying it up like mad, especially the scrap steel from autos and buildings.

[HabbaDasher]

I have questions for the religious posters here: Is it wrong not to believe in your God? What about all the other religions and all the other Gods? Don't all religions boil down to the same things....What is our place and/or purpose? who is our Higher Power? What is right and what is wrong?

And to the non-believers: What's wrong with being religious? Isn't it just another belief system? As humans we are flawed, so are our belief systems. We all have our own ideas of right and wrong, of our values, and we're all hypocrites in some way.


In the end, no one can prove whether or not God exists, so the argument is unresolveable.
It's all philosophy.....

[blaise]

It's OK to be religious, and the right to practice religion is affirmed in the constitution. What is not OK is to impose one's particular brand of religion on people who don't welcome it. There is no established reliion in the US or Canada, although some religious conservative in the US claim that the US should return to its evangelical Protestant roots. The Pilgrims and Puritans who came to North America didn't leave England because it didn't have religion. They did so to escape the prevailing Anglicanism that was laid on with a heavy hand by the monarchy.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

What then, does one make of a religion such as Satanism? Is it allright to worship Evil?

[blaise]

M. said:

What then, does one make of a religion such as Satanism? Is it allright to worship Evil?

Absolutely, so long as the followers don't practice it. Christians don't practice crucifixion nowadays (at least I hope they don't, although I'm not so sure about Toronto ).