Originally posted by black beetleI appreciate the detailed background you provided, its lack of brevity notwithstanding.
Your approach is totally wrong. As an example I will offer Anaximander’s case because his philosophic system is the one that set the pace for the theories of Aristarchus and Copernicus. Copernicus was a Catholic clerk amongst else, and I will show briefly that he brought up his theory based on scientific facts and evidence of his time alone, and not tha ...[text shortened]... ment of the Human.
Your severe criticism and your falsification are more than welcomed
😵
That being said, I believe it is your approach that is in error. The folks I listed were a minute sampling of folks who expressly dedicated their effort toward the furthering of their religious beliefs. No mention of their religion illuminating their various discoveries was made, other than the same providing inspiration. In other words, none of these folks used the Bible as their specific scientific textbook; it isn't intended to be anything less than the word of God.
Originally posted by black beetleI was referring to the concept of religion, which is used because there are always people eager to replace philosophy with theology…
edit: “I'm sorry. To what concept are you referring?”
I was referring to the concept of religion, which is used because there are always people eager to replace philosophy with theology; I think it 's enough to admit that we do not know whatever we do not know, however once upon a time the religious fellas considered that the rainbows were divine sign ...[text shortened]... he given scientific facts and evidence, which they remain under constant evaluation
😵
I think you have the order swapped. There are a handful of people who wish to displace religion (and for good reason) with humanistic thinking. Worse, however, are those people who are hell-bent on replacing truth with human viewpoint. That being said, religion has been around a heck of a lot longer than what is traditionally known as philosophy. Further, truth outstrips both systems.
I think it 's enough to admit that we do not know whatever we do not know, however once upon a time the religious fellas considered that the rainbows were divine signs simply because they were ignorant. Well, are the rainbows really messages sent by the so called "god"?
Once upon a time, the environment on this planet was emphatically different than what it is today. That rainbow in the sky (prior to the once upon a time-time) was not possible until that act of God which preceded its appearance.
Every achievement of ours is solely a product of the science and of philosophy alone, thus a product of the human mind that became possible by means of man’s efforts in these areas alone.
Wow. I don’t know that I’ve seen such a grand display of ignorance for quite some time.
Whether these achievements are made “in the name of all manner of religions” or not, is irrelevant.
Actually, the fact that they were “in the name of all manner of religions” was germane to the issue.
Understanding the core beliefs of a religion, the Christian one included, is not enough to earn us knowledge because theology lacks of reasoning.
Well, of course it does! Human viewpoint reasoning leads to the inevitable suicide, offering no more than what can be ascertained via the senses and the mind. How utterly, despicably unfair and depressing. However, reasoning as it applies to the standards and values which are based upon the character and integrity of God… that’s a horse of a completely different color.
This is the reason why the Human uses science and philosophy instead of theology in order to progress. The superficial vapor is caused by the believers of the so called “absolute truth” and not from the results and the further analyses of the given scientific facts and evidence, which they remain under constant evaluation.
No, the title of 'superficial vapor' is rightly and aptly put to human viewpoint thinking, specifically because the goal posts are always and forever being moved in its two “mainstays” of science and philosophy. Trial and error can only be seen as a successful and beneficial method by those who lack the insight of true knowledge.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou've gone to great lengths to make your point, but it's pretty much the same thing over and over, now summarized by this:
“… just sort of find yourself in a state of deliberation (about what to do or about what is the case)?”
and:
“… rather, it is an instance of being brought into belief by one's interpretation of the evidence.”
and then there's:
“…the individual is then probably just thrust into deliberation on what to do… "
How's my reading progressing?
As us ...[text shortened]... posed to mean? And how would you go about supporting such a claim?[/b]
"For the last time, my claim was something regarding limitation on doxastic control as it regards our theoretical deliberations."
Here, you are saying that people have no control about what type of reasoner they are, whether they are accurate/inaccurate/conceited... and etc., (here I am using Smullyan's list of types). While that hasn't been demonstrated by anything you've put forth, it may or may not be the case and it certainly does nothing for your argument relative to the active aspect of belief.
If we can assume that the maturity of a person dictates their ability to reason, we can also assume that such ability is a growth process, i.e., steps taken prior aid in the steps taken now. If this be true, then all of the values and standards that a person employs now are necessarily a result of previous conscious and intentional decisions from the past. It was intentional steps that got them where they are now, whether or not they consciously articulate those previous steps in making their decision now. In short, active.
You said before that without Christianity's "ruling ideology", there would be no intellectual freedom. I mean, what is that even supposed to mean? And how would you go about supporting such a claim?
That is even supposed to mean that Christianity allows for intellectual freedom. Do you honestly believe that the "freedom" allowed in China or any Muslim-ruled nation would stand for, say, a political cartoon lampooning either of its many sacred cows?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH😵
I appreciate the detailed background you provided, its lack of brevity notwithstanding.
That being said, I believe it is your approach that is in error. The folks I listed were a minute sampling of folks who expressly dedicated their effort toward the furthering of their religious beliefs. No mention of their religion illuminating their various discov ...[text shortened]... their specific scientific textbook; it isn't intended to be anything less than the word of God.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNever mind😵
You've gone to great lengths to make your point, but it's pretty much the same thing over and over, now summarized by this:
"For the last time, my claim was something regarding limitation on doxastic control as it regards our theoretical deliberations."
Here, you are saying that people have no control about what type of reasoner they are, whet ...[text shortened]... would stand for, say, a political cartoon lampooning either of its many sacred cows?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “I think you have the order swapped. There are a handful of people who wish to displace religion (and for good reason) with humanistic thinking. Worse, however, are those people who are hell-bent on replacing truth with human viewpoint. That being said, religion has been around a heck of a lot longer than what is traditionally known as philosophy. Further, truth outstrips both systems.”
[b]I was referring to the concept of religion, which is used because there are always people eager to replace philosophy with theology…
I think you have the order swapped. There are a handful of people who wish to displace religion (and for good reason) with humanistic thinking. Worse, however, are those people who are hell-bent on replacing truth ...[text shortened]... seen as a successful and beneficial method by those who lack the insight of true knowledge.[/b]
I think that this is worth of a brief reply. Well, in my opinion religion and theology were never actually replaced by common sens and philosophy -in fact, the theologian is merely a bad philosopher due to the following reasons amongst else:
1. The philosopher has to produce a clear and reasonable thesis which it has nothing to do with the "faith" or the "non-faith" factor; the theologian stands on his personal “absolute truth”, he builds an irrational system and he then he tries by any means to indoctrinate the other people in full by any means
2. The philosopher has to take into account the given scientific finds and evidence; the theologian takes into account solely his personal “holy scripture”
3. A philosophic theory must be fair and based on common sens, intuition, facts and evidence; a religious system is totally metaphysic
4. The philosopher proceeds through the evaluation of the mind; the theologian surpasses the unsolvable problems of his religious system by means of presenting them as “holy mysteries”
5. A philosophic theory is not a means of a mental doctrine, which it has to be absorbed "as is" in order to "free" the "people" from their so called "theological and/ or philosophical delusion"; a religious system is the opposite
6. A philosophic theory must not be seen as a tool that it can be used in order to promote a solution for problems that have arise or that are supposed to arise in the future; a religious system is the opposite
8. A philosophic theory has to survive severe criticism, therefore it must be well versed; a religious system is based on evidence and conclusions that they are both irrational to the hilt
9. A philosophic system is looking for the truth herenow, and this is the reason why it goes hand to hand with science: the philosopher is aware of the fact that there is no such a thing as the so called “absolute truth”; on the contrary, religion promotes a stable “absolute truth” and the theologian will do everything in order to indoctrinate the humanity with his personal “absolute truth”
Your claim that “…truth outstrips both systems” is false due to all the above. However I understand that we disagree because you see your religion as a divine doctrine whilst I assume that it’s just another ill-considered metaphysic theory
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlei don't think that point two is particularly accurate beetle my friend, for the theologian may also look at the scientific data, and so called 'facts', and form a different evaluation. secondly, there are it is true, many instances within the theologians framework, which he attributes to 'faith', but normally there is, in his reverence of his Holy scripture, a reasonable basis, for adopting his particular stance, based on the integrity of the text. that just my two pennies worth, i need to go to work, for my dame sits at home, gathering her brows like gathering storm! gulp!
edit: “I think you have the order swapped. There are a handful of people who wish to displace religion (and for good reason) with humanistic thinking. Worse, however, are those people who are hell-bent on replacing truth with human viewpoint. That being said, religion has been around a heck of a lot longer than what is traditionally known as philosophy. doctrine whilst I assume that it’s just another ill-considered metaphysic theory
😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie my feer, the different evaluation must be scientifically and philosophically accepted.
i don't think that point two is particularly accurate beetle my friend, for the theologian may also look at the scientific data, and so called 'facts', and form a different evaluation. secondly, there are it is true, many instances within the theologians framework, which he attributes to 'faith', but normally there is, in his reverence of his Holy s ...[text shortened]... ed to go to work, for my dame sits at home, gathering her brows like gathering storm! gulp!
On the other hand, the “reasonable theses” that you described are actually reasonable solely if we accept the unreasonable/ irrational religious core beliefs, therefore it seems to me that they are in fact unreasonable;
Go on work hard now, for your lady lass needs your attention and deserves luxury
-and when them lasses are gathering brows, well, you know the drill😀
And have a great day with you and yours😵