@fmf saidIf God created the universe... Science will be able to tell us more about the universe than the Church.
If there is a creator entity and the universe can rightfully be described as "creation", I think science can tell us more [and more and more as times passes] about that "creation" than, say, your Orthodox Catholic narratives and dogma can.
Well, I hope so.
That's science's job.
My priest's job is providing us with the sacraments, edifying homilies, and Christian counsel.
@philokalia saidI don't think your priest knows or provides anything credible about a creator entity if there is one. I think whatever your priest is "providing" you with can be explained by sciences like anthropology and psychology.
My priest's job is providing us with the sacraments, edifying homilies, and Christian counsel.
@fmf said- I am not surprised to hear that you do not believe in my religious tradition's divine revelation.
I don't think your priest knows or provides anything credible about a creator entity if there is one. I think whatever your priest is "providing" you with can be explained by sciences like anthropology and psychology.
- If you do not believe in this as a true, of course some guy providing observations about the content would have more meaning than untrue statements that aren't divine revelation.
@fmf saidIf there is no God, there is no reason to believe in any kind of moral or spiritual truth.
a form of very religious thinking
I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there has been communication between human beings and their various God figures; I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there are instructions, promises, threats, and rewards that have been revealed to human beings.
@philokalia saidUtter nonsense.
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe in any kind of moral or spiritual truth.
There have been some great conversations about exactly this numerous times on this forum.
To my way of thinking, you'd have made a fool of yourself if this was the kind of contribution you'd have made.
@philokalia saidIt's not just your one.
- I am not surprised to hear that you do not believe in my religious tradition's divine revelation.
@philokalia saidBy the way, did you or didn't you agree with this:
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe in any kind of moral or spiritual truth.
"I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there has been communication between human beings and their various God figures; I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there are instructions, promises, threats, and rewards that have been revealed to human beings."
@fmf saidI think religious thinking would involve any form of thought that is not materialist.
By the way, did you or didn't you agree with this:
"I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there has been communication between human beings and their various God figures; I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there are instructions, promises, threats, and rewards that have been revealed to human beings."
@fmf saidIf you believe there is only matter, how would there be spiritual or moral truth?
Utter nonsense.
There have been some great conversations about exactly this numerous times on this forum.
To my way of thinking, you'd have made a fool of yourself if this was the kind of contribution you'd have made.
@philokalia saidHey, you asked me this before when we were having a kind of three-way chat with KellyJay about the basis and nature of morality. My stance has not changed. I refer you to that.
If you believe there is only matter, how would there be spiritual or moral truth?
@philokalia saidThis would be too wishy-washy a definition for me. Perhaps by "any form of thought that is not materialist" you mean "spiritual thinking"? Any definition of "religion" or "religious thinking" that leaves out the worship of an ostensibly revealed superhuman or supernatural, controlling being, falls short to my way of thinking.
I think religious thinking would involve any form of thought that is not materialist.
@fmf saidHaving said this, I have my own notion [and definition] of what "spiritual thinking" is, and it has been accused of being wishy-washy, so there you go.
This would be too wishy-washy a definition for me. Perhaps by "any form of thought that is not materialist" you mean "spiritual thinking"?
@fmf saidOK, cool, not sure how to refer back to that.
Hey, you asked me this before when we were having a kind of three-way chat with KellyJay about the basis and nature of morality. My stance has not changed. I refer you to that.
We can end this line here, if you like.
@fmf saidIt is possible to deny any personal god and still engage in what amounts to religious thinking. This would describe some schools of Buddhism.
This would be too wishy-washy a definition for me. Perhaps by "any form of thought that is not materialist" you mean "spiritual thinking"? Any definition of "religion" or "religious thinking" that leaves out the worship of an ostensibly revealed superhuman or supernatural, controlling being, falls short to my way of thinking.
