|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Would you agree that you have faith that employment is the result of positive, economic approaches to one's lifestyle? Haven't you known people this most certainly has not worked for? People who work hard but get nowhere? Doesn't this shake personal observation of causation for your instance?
You hold the assumption that God is utterly unknowable - that it is the via negativa of the human condition. Have you considered that you already know God, and could know even more, and will some day, at least in some sense? |
Someone is playing Devil's Advocate here. :p
Besides chance (which I did mention) people who work hard and still do not get anywhere are doing something else wrong, like dress carelessly, lack conversational or persuasive skills, are plain s, abusive drunks, don't wear deodorant despite the fact they sweat like pigs (this one is based on the guy that sits right across me, actually), etc, etc, etc.
As a matter of fact I have wondered myself that very same thing. However, there is absolutely nothing that suggests me that is the case. Where you are wrong, is that I assume that "God is utterly unknowable", as I believe that if he does in fact exist, he should be blatantly knowable.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Purgatory is what you're referring to. The church still believes it to exist, what has changed is that they no longer refer to "time in purgatory," as this is not a physical place thus time cannot exist therein. But hey, thanks for illustrating how easy it is to non understand something.
|
Actually, I am not referring to purgatory. If that's what I meant, that's what I would have said. For a person that has claimed for years to have a more than average understanding of religion, God, and the Bible, you are seriously uninformed.
Limbo is the place where the souls of children that died before birth, whether by natural or unnatural causes, and were therefore not washed clean of original sin through baptism are doomed to lie for all eternity.
Purgatory, on the other hand, is either a state or actual place where souls that die "in a state of grace before God" are purified through temporary suffering and punishment before going into God's presence.
Thanks for illustrating how easy it is to not understand something and to twist things your own way.
Here, inform yourself (from a source you would trust without hesitation, no less):
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/st...cns/0702216.htm |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
You could argue the same position for anything. Essentially, what you are saying is that anything is a quick, easy, viable explenation provided that no one asks any follow-up questions. |
True that, but the concept of God seems to have much more credit as a quick, easy, viable explanation than most other ideas I can think of for reasons that are all too human: Thinking that there's an almighty being looking for us is certainly more comfortable than being told you live in a purposeless piece of rock drifting aimlessly in a cold universe full of matter and void. This gives Monotheism preference over Polytheism (because it's easier to follow a lawful God that loves you, has laid down his rules, and won't cheat on you, than obey a bunch of gods that just can't reach an agreement among themselves) and even scientific worldviews divorced of any religious background (because having a description of the world alone is not enough to give it meaning).
That's what makes God praiseworthy: The concept of God is genial because it both explains AND gives meaning, which is why I don't think science should be compared to religion in any sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
This is probably very true of widespread proselytization, but Kabbalah comes to mind as a very complex, yet enduring and transmissive system of religious (sub)consideration. Of course, it has a racial tradition attached to it which keeps it very conservative in its facets, but it is not entirely as simple as saying it's monotheism and little else. |
I should've added that Monotheism has also grown in importance since its advent. This is the difference between the Kabbalah and God: Billions of people believe in God, and just a handful of Jews, Yuppies, and Goa-trancers care about the Kabbalah :p
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
You already know I love this book, Lira. :p
When you read Carl Sagan, his passion for science oozes from every sentence. If you tend to focus more on the hopeless romantic way that it is written, than on the actual point he is trying to convey then I can see how you would think that it's naive.
I never got the impression that he was trying to convert anyone to his own world-view. It was an attempt to get people to have their own world-view by using their observational and critical thinking skills instead of through childhood indoctrination and dogma.
He does stand up for science a lot throughout the book, and that is understandable given how much crap it gets from people who know very little or nothing about it. He doesn't see the undermining of science, logic, and reason as something positive for society. I couldn't agree more. |
But he does see science as the "ultimate salvation": if we all adopted the scientific method, the world would be a much better place according to him. I think that's neither possible nor desirable.
And, mind you, I don't think religion is a good answer either. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
The God argument has always bothered me because it should be clear as day to people that, whether or not a mystical (by our standards) entity lords over us from above, people still pray to one, still fear one, still love one, still observe one - whether these observations are scientifically authentic or verifiable is irrelevant, because the fact still stands that God, at the very least, exists in people's minds. Why is that not enough? |
That's fine and dandy. The problem comes when people believe they know God's will..when they literally believe he has written a book to tell us how we should act, who we are allowed to have sex with, what we should eat, what days of the week are to be kept holy, what should be done with non-believers, etc.
There is no problem with deism..in the assumption that an unknowable being "got the ball rolling" then stepped out of the way. But that is not the position most religious people have. Most theists believe their God has commanded them to spread his message and impose his will on others. This where most of the damage has been done throughout history. |
|
|
| woscar |
| That was exactly what I was going to say, Capitalizt. :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Limbo is the place where the souls of children that died before birth, whether by natural or unnatural causes, and were therefore not washed clean of original sin through baptism are doomed to lie for all eternity.
Purgatory, on the other hand, is either a state or actual place where souls that die "in a state of grace before God" are purified through temporary suffering and punishment before going into God's presence. |
My confusion stems from your claim that this is a recently changed position. Limbo of the Infants was never official church doctrine and had been largely abandoned as a belief in the middle ages; whereas, the change in position on Purgatory is recent. |
|
|
| woscar |
And my (lack of) confusion stems from the fact that I clearly mentioned Limbo and described it using babies and magical water. I sense bull.
Limbo was never official church doctrine, but it was never officially rejected either. It is something that was created and widely believed and discussed among theologians, and accepted by a number of church authorities, priests, and regular catholics alike.
Anyways, let's not deviate from the fact that you are just making things up. Purgatory has never been officially rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, and it is, as a matter of fact, included in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from which I shall now quote the following:
| quote: | 210. What is purgatory?
Purgatory is the state of those who die in God’s friendship, assured of their eternal salvation, but who still have need of purification to enter into the happiness of heaven.
211. How can we help the souls being purified in purgatory?
Because of the communion of saints, the faithful who are still pilgrims on earth are able to help the souls in purgatory by offering prayers in suffrage for them, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. They also help them by almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance. |
Stop making things up. That might work when you are discussing things with someone who is not informed, but I can assure you I am not one of those people. ;) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Purgatory has never been officially rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, and it is, as a matter of fact, included in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from which I shall now quote the following: |
Please re-read what I stated on Purgatory... go ahead, I'll wait...
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The church still believes it to exist, what has changed is that they no longer refer to "time in purgatory," as this is not a physical place thus time cannot exist therein. |
Now where exactly was it that I sated the Church had rejected it...
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The church still believes it to exist |
hmmm... still believes it to exist... that doesn't sound like has rejected...
| quote: | | they no longer refer to "time in purgatory," |
hmmm... still doesn't sound like I'm contending that they've rejected it...
| quote: | | as this is not a physical place thus time cannot exist therein. |
Was that it... the fact that the Church does not view it to be a physical place... is that what made you think I was suggesting that they had abandoned belief in it? If so then you really missed the whole "The church still believes it to exist" part. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
That's fine and dandy. The problem comes when people believe they know God's will..when they literally believe he has written a book to tell us how we should act, who we are allowed to have sex with, what we should eat, what days of the week are to be kept holy, what should be done with non-believers, etc.
There is no problem with deism..in the assumption that an unknowable being "got the ball rolling" then stepped out of the way. But that is not the position most religious people have. Most theists believe their God has commanded them to spread his message and impose his will on others. This where most of the damage has been done throughout history. |
I'll certainly agree this can be very problematic for individuals with their own, separate agenda, and that general Evangelism has been the name in which many, countless atrocities and humanistic transgressions have been perpetrated, but the platitudes of people's approaches to the transmission of faith and culture (and politics? and which soda is best? and trance music?) isn't quite what's at question here.
People have their own ideas and interpretations that all draw upon a sort of collective concept of a being that exists on a level at the very least different, if not "superior", to our own.
It is a very basic inference that I would say is generally based on the observation of a natural hierarchy humans have always known - or perhaps more importantly - have not known. But where God becomes complex is in the variable reconciliation with supposed educated observation, and the details that contrive our perspective of what Nature is, and what Nature is not. The concept of God, historically, must have originated as observation, either with the senses or within them if you do not limit us to 5 glandular complexes. Yes, He was used as explanation and scapegoat since His inception, a sort of prescience of sorts, but the advent of the scientific method as establishment made God smaller and smaller, limiting Him only to the unknown details of what could exist to yet be discovered by existing methods of observation and conclusion. But you may as well be subtracting from infinity if you indeed agree that Man created his own Lord, because apart from the endless interpretations of what he could be, the idea of a higher presence is one rooted in the very hierarchical appeal of our successfully social species. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| you tell 'im, Craig! |
|
|
| denys envy |
| don't back down, Oscar! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
you tell 'im, Craig! |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
don't back down, Oscar! |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| lol, Denys. Fun stuff, no? Gotta love how topics drift here. |
|
|
|
|
