For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
[Responding to Matt Cavanaugh’s response to the the blog post “Do we need Philosophy when we have Science?” by Ben Conroy.]
You think machines can do science without us providing a “meaningful” context for it?
It’s true that “meaningful” is all over the map, that’s the nature of it. It’s called “Life”.
“Philosophy really is a waste of time, if it continues to pose questions that Science has already answered.”
Within the spectrum of relative existence, no question is ever finally answered. There is only the next, more holistic, context to examine.
The process is philosophy. Whether it serves science or art.
[Commentary from the Blog post: “Yes, Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God (But Here’s What That Means & Doesn’t)“, by Benjamin L. Corey.]
It should be obvious to anyone, that there is only one God. Period.
It should also be obvious, that religion is not God.
But alas, it isn’t so, and understanding that there is only God, gets lost in the weeds.
Maria Anderson Huston – “Contradictory views cannot both be true. Either Jesus was the son of God or he was not.“
In the infinite potential of God, all is true. Who are we to argue with it?
It is the habit of seeing in contradictions that keeps us confused. And our confusion that makes us mean.
Since we choose to think that God has sides to choose from.
Maria Anderson Huston – “The God of the Bible is truth, not a lie. Thus, not contradictory.“
God is Truth and certainly not contradictory. But you saying the above, is an approximation.
Same for anything I say. But I will still ask, “What does that mean, ‘The God of the Bible’ “?