The Winding Path – 030

For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.

28 August 2013 08:37 AM

I had planned to apologize first thing this morning. Now I realize that my rudeness is something I’m picking up vicariously.

My thought even before the delightfully thoughtful feedback, was that it’s time to wrap it up. There is obviously not much left that I can say. Having tried many angles for the sake of triangulation. This isn’t working.

Summary:

The Entirety is real. Pretending it isn’t, is just that.

The Entirety is either “Self Aware” or it isn’t. If it isn’t, what then, is the scope of awareness?

Adios.

27 August 2013 04:07 PM

PlaClair – The point, which you continue to ignore, is that all our progress in better understanding nature has come from science; not a speck of it has come from theology. You can say “God sustains the possibility of science” all you like. Those are just words that don’t relate to any observable reality. The fact is that more and more scientists are atheists than ever before. Scientists do not need to believe in a god to do great science. That is not just a string of words but a proven fact.

I have not ignored your point, I’m only holding it to a more honest standard than you seem capable of.

To me, your fixation on “observable reality”, indicates a major lapse in reason. The separating of science from philosophy/theology, an autistic artifice. Not to be taken seriously.

27 August 2013 03:36 PM

brmckay – 27 August 2013 08:39 AM
Yes, our schools, (at least the public ones), should teach about religious expression, it’s history, psychology, and cultural value. This, alongside, science.

The pressure of any religion to dominate a culture is a political and temporal phenomena. It may or may not serve the common good. It’s value is limited by it’s relative fidelity to Truth. Either way. It does not represent, other than metaphorically, the nature of God.

Lausten – It is unlikely you will see religious history taught in the US High schools anytime soon. In the UK, it has been shown that when children are taught many belief systems, they realize that no single one can be correct.

I appreciate that you acknowledge the pressure of religion to dominate, and that religion is only a metaphor. We disagree that it is a metaphor for something that really exists. It is a metaphor for an idea, at best.

The problem is, those here that are arguing against you are arguing against what religion really is. There aren’t any real churches that talk about metaphors every Sunday, and only a few that say they are only approaching God. Even those still say God is real and say they are on the right path toward it and you should follow them. If you want to convert churches into admitting they are metaphors, please get on with that, and leave us alone.

Several thoughts about this:

Skilled teachers are hard enough to find in mathematics. I’m sure it is at least as hard to find teachers who can cultivate “intuitive” thinking.

Just to be clear, I do not consider metaphor and the intuitive capacity, any less integral for comprehension of existence than the tools of reason. This includes mathematics.

As mathematics gives us an abstraction of certain aspects of nature, so too, metaphor. This is apparent in the language of dreams, myth, religion, and the cause and effect of karma.

Understanding the above paragraph, requires a paradigm shift. The ability to make that shift, when it rings true, is what I call “Free Thinking”.

But…

I conclude from your statements, that you do not believe that God is real. Period. This is different than wanting people to understand, that their metaphors are by nature imperfect representations of God.

27 August 2013 08:39 AM

brmckay – 26 August 2013 12:43 PM
When I asked how old science was (setting aside the nuance of association included), what answer have you provided? Perhaps if you see science in the mix of inquiry from the beginning of our species, or even as a universal absolute, then I might reconsider the merit of you statement. We have been, and remain a species with Theistic and Logistical tendencies. We are the species that wonders why and how we exist. This is the very root of the scientific method. Science has not replaced God. God sustains the possibility of science.

I think maybe that science, as you represent it, remains “half baked”.

Lausten – I’ve addressed wonder. I’ve addressed why LilySmith is not informed. I’ve described my premises and discussed the meaning of proof. I provided the link to answer how old science it. Most of this was done on other threads.

LilySmith doesn’t stay on the topics as much as I’d like, so it is hard to pin her down. I’m sure she thinks she is, but talking about hospitals and early universities and using the Bible to teach reading is an evasive maneuver that I am familiar with. Why not teach reading of all ancient scripture to teach reading and let children figure it out for themselves? The answer to that is fairly obvious.

That’s why I started the “Does religion lead or follow” thread.

I was responding to PlaClair. This does get confusing at times.

I just now took a look at the excellent wikipedia article on the history of science. Thank you for the reference. I was pleased to see that my adhoc “off the top of my head” recitation of scientific knowledge contributed in theological context, was not negated. And, though the context of LilySmith’s examples were perhaps more specific to Christian contributions, they were in the same spirit as mine. We answered PlaClairs challenge according to our understanding of the issue. Insisting on a “wholistic” and “balanced” adjustment to an “absurd” statement is not setting up a “strawman” to knock down.

Neither LilySmith or myself is denying the value of empiricism. It is an essential capacity of the human being.

There is a valid competition between the rational and intuitive (used here in a broad sense). Wisdom is found in surfing the balance between these capacities. Neither must be allowed to win “the war”. War is stupid.

Yes, our schools, (at least the public ones), should teach about religious expression, it’s history, psychology, and cultural value. This, alongside, science.

The pressure of any religion to dominate a culture is a political and temporal phenomena. It may or may not serve the common good. It’s value is limited by it’s relative fidelity to Truth. Either way. It does not represent, other than metaphorically, the nature of God.

The strict objectivity of the scientific method is an essential discipline of a technique of inquiry. The knowledge that results is limited by it’s relative fidelity to Truth. It can not represent, in absolute terms, the nature of God.

The common denominator of all phenomena is the nature of God. A fitting subject of enquiry. Both by religion and by science. At the individual level this translates to a balanced engagement with rational and intuitive mind, in purposeful quest for Truth.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in logs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.