| Question for Cow |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ® 10/17/2002, 13:26:42 Author Profile Mail author |
Cow, It's not all that often we get a believer on this board that has a serious interest in philosophy. I think you fit this description. You're LDS, right? I'd like to hear more about your general philosophy of religion and science. You've mentioned previously that you see both faith and science as avenues for discovering truth. You also seem to see the idea of truth within some kind of a postmodern framework. My apologies if I'm not reading you correctly, I'm kind of piecing together statements you've made from a number of different posts. If one accepts the "tenants" of postmodernism, it seems the playing field between science and religion is evened up a bit--I can see the attraction. Going deeper however, postmodernism is a two-edged sword, the kind of religion it allows room for seems very foreign to typical conceptions of religious truth, including the LDS worldview. I've had this conversation with other religious people, curious on your take. |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Question for Cow Re: Question for Cow -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/18/2002, 09:34:23
Author Profile Mail author
What could possibly bring you to imagine that cow "has a serious interest in philosophy"??? He's an clueless child on the subject!
Didn't you see his brain-dead ravings about Descartes being the first Positivist? How stupid is that??? His ravings were also laughably off point since all of his sophomoric attempts to belittle me and to try to show off don't even address my actual position or what I actually wrote! Which was that Plato is generally credited with being the first well-known philosopher to implicitly hold the standard tripartite definition of what constitutes genuine knowledge.
Cowflop also idiotically asserted that I called Plato a Positivist! Such a stupid claim never came from me! It came from his own confabulation based on his terrible reading comprehension skills with which he so scandalously misread my posts. Yet he continued to try to "refute" the position he himself invented!
In other words, cow's too dumb and philosophically uninformed to have even understood what I was actually saying!!
And did you see how he actually relied on Freud's pseudo-scientific, long-discredited mumbo-jumbo about the Id, Ego, and Superego??
And yet you dare to compare this cretinous yahoo to the likes of the brilliant Nevo and mikwut and Vines and such?? On what grounds does that even approach being fair and rationally justified?
In closing, I want to emphasize that I have no objections to the purpose of your post or to anything after the first two sentences of your post; and I, too, am interested in reading cow's reply.
With respect for you and for all but your first 2 sentences,- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Oct 18, 2002, 11:37:43
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Faith, reason and the search for Truth Re: Question for Cow -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: canadacow ®
10/18/2002, 11:47:33
Author Profile Mail author
Anyway, to answer you question, I'm in fact a recovering Fundamentalist. I was born into a conservative, Pentecostal Christian home but since college have decided that I belong to a more liberal camp of Christians. At present, I would consider myself a mainstream Methodist but RC (with whom I share an office at the university we attend) would argue that I am agnostic.
You've read me correctly that I do purport that faith and reason can be valid avenues to knowledge. Unfortunately, Post-Modernism, being the slippery animal it is, would maintain that there is no way of ever really knowing anything for certain. There is no "Truth" to be discovered but rather that each individual has their own model of Truth that works for them. Ultimately, knowledge in a shared sense is only knowledge so far as its usefulness is maintained between people.
Personally, in tying faith and reason together however, I don't feel post-modernism is the way to go. As a philosophy of knowledge approach, it denies any possibility of progress as there can be no shared, external reality for which to study.
With this in mind, I would suggest critical realism as a more accurate philosophy of science. This position is different from classical realism in the sense that it doesn't maintain that every single scientific advancement directly reveals more truth about the world (as does positivism). Critical realism also contrasts with post-modernism in the sense that there is an external reality that is worth knowing. Ultimately, Critical realism suggests that science inherently operates with incorrect preconceptions and that these preconceptions need continual refining as we approach a true way of knowing.
In other words, science is theory-laden. These theories need refinement through inferences from the data and reworking of their presuppositions before they can arrive at some sort of knowable truth. Here in lies the connection to theology and faith. Some theologians would argue that theology works in the same manner, provided with "data" in the sense of revelations, scripture, etc. and the presumptions which need to be tested. Through this same manner of refinement, faith can also help us arrive at truth. I will volunteer that these statements regarding critical realism and faith are not without serious contemporary debate. However, in support of faith and critical realism, I feel that faith ultimately attempts to explain a separate facet of Truth that science may never be able to touch. Faith attempts to tackle the questions of "Who am I?", "Where did I come from?", "Where am I going?", and "Why am I here?" These are all questions that science has absolutely no substantive answer for whatsoever. The realm of science then, apart from faith, is to work in a Socratic manner, asking "Why?" regarding everything else that is empirical.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. I hope I've made some sense. I've tried to be quick since I have quite a bit due for class tomorrow and I apologize.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
scientific theology Re: Faith, reason and the search for Truth -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/22/2002, 03:08:53
Author Profile Mail author
Looks like I had you wrong on a couple of points.
"These theories need refinement through inferences from the data and reworking of their presuppositions before they can arrive at some sort of knowable truth. Here in lies the connection to theology and faith."
Are matters of theology even open to reworking and refinement?
And if so, what do we know today that we didn't know a couple thousand years ago?Do we know more about the resurrection, the trinity, or grace?
I can vaugely understand the idea of reworking religious ideas from an existensial standpoint. But are the divine, inerrant revelations as purportedly found in the Bible (propositional knowledge) open to refinement?
If so, can you give me a concrete example?
Modified by Fer-de-lance at Tue, Oct 22, 2002, 03:16:03
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Jainism, Buddhism Re: scientific theology -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/23/2002, 03:11:17
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The evolution of theology Re: scientific theology -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: canadacow ®
10/24/2002, 22:52:48
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Zoroastrianism Re: The evolution of theology -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/25/2002, 01:43:19
Author Profile Mail author
http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htmQuotation:
"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." Mary Boyce.
Introduction:
Zoroastrianism is a small religion with about 140,000 members. Yet its importance to humanity is much greater than its current numbers might suggest, because:Their theology has had a great impact on Judaism, Christianity and other later religions, in the beliefs surrounding God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, savior, resurrection, final judgment, etc.
It is one of the oldest religions still in existence,
It may have been the first monotheistic religion.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Zoroastrianism Re: Zoroastrianism -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/25/2002, 13:22:08
Author Profile Mail author
Would you please elaborate as to how Zoroastrianism "may have been the first monotheistic religion" considering that it's not monotheistic, at least in present form?
Thank you!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Not Monotheistic? Re: Re: Zoroastrianism -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: james ®
10/26/2002, 04:12:44
Author Profile Mail author
I suppose this could be something like Buddhists that believe in souls, or that Buddha is 'god', not in the original buddhism which questions the existance of soul, self or deity.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Not Monotheistic? Re: Not Monotheistic? -- james Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/26/2002, 10:23:16
Author Profile Mail author
Along with / co-equal to Ahura Mazda, there is:
Spenta Mainyu and six sub-deities/sub-entities: Good Mind, Truth, Power, Devotion, Health, and Life.
Then there's Angra Mainyu and 6 other sub-deities/sub-entities.
If you accept the notion that over a dozen entities constitutes a single God, then I guess Zoroastrianism is "monotheistic", but like the idea of the Trinity, in my view that's stretching the definition a bit too far on a questionable technicality.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Is there any non-scientific thought? Re: The evolution of theology -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/27/2002, 01:53:39
Author Profile Mail author
One problem is that ALL thought goes through transformations, but that doesn't mean all thought is scientific, or has a close parallel to the scientific method. Is there any class of ideas out thad doesn't mirror the scientific method in the way you're describing it?
Psuedo-science and the hmmm, occultic sciences change and evolve, are reworked and developed. In your mind, is there a difference between say, the way theology mirrors science and the way psuedo-science mirrors science?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Is there any non-scientific thought? Re: Is there any non-scientific thought? -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: canadacow ®
10/28/2002, 09:25:17
Author Profile Mail author
The creationists practice pseudo-science since they claim to use the scientific method but work in a non-falsifiable manner (i.e., they will always, always fall back on a Biblical explanation when their results conflict with the Bible). With fiction, however, it creates pseudo-science phenomenon to explain and sell the story.
This absolute resistance to change (given conflicting evidence) is what separates pseudo-science from real science and knowledge.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
resisting change Re: Re: Is there any non-scientific thought? -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
10/28/2002, 10:27:56
Author Profile Mail author
I don't think creationists are absolutely resistant to change. They are certainly resistant to certain kinds of change, but the fact is, creationist theories have changed over time.
The flat-earthers are an interesting bunch because they aren't exactly a psuedo-scientific group, but primarily a religious group--maybe a little of both. So these guys would represent an example in both religion and psuedo-science where change is very, very slow (and opposite in direction to the rest of the world). However, even the scientific community is resistant to change. In some cases, human scientists are dogmatic. Also, a scientific community might demand a high level of evidence, and this may be interpreted as resistance to change (this is good).
I'm interested in the general approach of religion and psuedo-science. I don't think the difference between the two can be easily explained as simply resistance to change. In fact, the very large population of religious conservatives don't believe in change much, but that doesn't prevent it from happening.
"The creationists practice pseudo-science since they claim to use the scientific method but work in a non-falsifiable manner"
Does the religious method work in a falsifiable manner?
I think that the practice of religion and psuedo-science are very similar.
Like you say, religion uses data--but so does psuedo-science. Both have certain standards for evidence, and both change. Both develop new ideas based on "evidence".
Catastrophism is an excellent example. Immanuel Velikovsky, hmm, revolutionized this field of research, and his work has been built upon in a coherent way by other catastrophists. Catastrophism makes claims that are in fact falsifiable. However, the rules aren't what we'd normally expect. A catastrophist would perhaps, judge a theory by how closely ancient myths around the world line up to tell a story compatible with that theory.
I've had LDS tell me something similar to what you're saying in regard to evidence. Some have claimed that the LDS testimony is very much like the scientific method. You gather data--you read the BOM. You make tentative coherent conclusions based on the data. Then you test the conclusions by taking the matter to the Lord and seeking confirmation of the holy spirit.
Let me rephrase my question to you. How is the methodology of religion better then the methodology of psuedo-science (speaking very generally)?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: The evolution of theology? Re: The evolution of theology -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
10/27/2002, 05:06:54
Author Profile Mail author
"...Occasionally, some data comes along that either generates a new, revolutionary religious movement, or further refines the beliefs within the theological framework.What data? Isn't data something that can be independently verified? Could you give an example of religious data?
regards,
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The evolution of theology Re: The evolution of theology -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
10/27/2002, 09:16:17
Author Profile Mail author
I do not see how you can assert that religious revelations converge on monotheism (How do you account for Hinduism and Buddhism?) or that the revelations of religion mirror scientific methodology.
If you plot religious "data", you do not get the clear dot-to-dot pictures that eventually emerge from the analysis of scientific data. You get a scatter plot, One reason for this is that scientific data passes rigorous quality control tests, including peer review and statistical analysis; religious "data" has no quality control. Another reason is the use of controls in science to eliminate spurious associations and bias; religion has no controls.
Theology does evolve, but the reasons for change are the pressures that accompany changes in societal norms (such as the civil rights movement) and conflicts with science. More often than not, when a theology does change, it typically does so reluctantly - and only after a lot of kicking and screaming,
,
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Sun, Oct 27, 2002, 09:17:19
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
2 cents Re: Re: The evolution of theology -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/27/2002, 11:01:55
Author Profile Mail author
Throwing in my 2 cents here.
You: If you plot religious "data", you do not get the clear dot-to-dot pictures that eventually emerge from the analysis of scientific data.
Me: I'm not certain what you mean by "religious data" but I sense you're referring to proof of some sort. Religious belief is based on concepts such as faith, hope, and spiritual perceptions that defy measurement. The faithful (for lack of a better word) are often seen as naive because they have come to believe in something that lacks concrete proof. The unclear picture with out every dot connected. What of it? Something inside the spiritual mind has received indication that something larger exists, something powerful. It could well be that we're actually talking to ourselves when we pray, or that we choose to believe in something transcendant when we have no "logical" proof but to some...what we do have seems to make sense to us. We can't see God/Spirit. Does that mean God/Spirit doesn't exist or does it mean we haven't figured out a way to "measure" him? Can you measure a spirit? I can't see the air but I know it's there. I feel it, I see it moving the pines. What if I say to you that I feel God? Or that I see evidence in my life that he/it "moves" me? That there seems to be something more going on than I can put in my hands and show you? Or if I look back on my life I *do* see dots connected? What about love? Can we measure love? We perceive love, does that mean that what we perceive is always love? I maintain, as I have previously that there is no concrete empirical evidence for love. Love is a perception. Love is an action. Love is an emotion. We cannot know, when an act is performed, if love motivated it or not. We believe what we perceive is love. We cannot know it for certain.
You: Religion has no controls.
Me: Human beings have no controls except those controls they choose to place on themselves. Religion is the same way. Which part of religion should we control or regulate? Which part of our society do we control and regulate? Does it work? Religion has it's "laws" and society has laws. There are no guarantees that either types of laws will deter humans from committing harmful acts toward eachother. When the rubber meets the road, the decision to act perversely, harmfully, or extremely...belongs to the individual. How do we regulate extreme perspectives? We can't! Anymore than we can regulate extreme behavior...the sniper shootings in DC come to mind at the moment. Some people are comfortable with uncontrolled passion (am I rambling? I thought so.) and others are receptive to it so long as the effect is positive yet, uncontrolled passion that makes us act out against and harm our fellow/sister human being is hurtful to us all. There is no way to guarantee moderation on the part of individuals. There are no guarantees for anything.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: 2 cents Re: 2 cents -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
10/27/2002, 12:22:36
Author Profile Mail author
When I referred to "religious data", I was referring to individual descriptions of spiritual experience. I was simply trying to point out that the experiences reported by different individuals are highly variable and do not provide a coherent picture. This is unlike science where the same experiment can be repeated by different individuals with the same outcome.
The one exception to this generality seems to be meditation practice; some such practices apparently yield a consistent experience among different practitioners, including similar brain wave patterns.
When I referred to "controls", I was not referring to control in the sense you interpretted it. I was referring to experimental controls in the scientific sense. For example, a study of spiritual experiences might examine the experiences of identical twins separated at birth where one set of twins are subjected to religious indoctrination and the other are unexposed. The unexposed twins would be the "controls" .
Craig
Modified by Craig C. at Sun, Oct 27, 2002, 12:23:28
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Just FYI... Re: Re: 2 cents -- Craig C. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/27/2002, 20:04:27
Author Profile Mail author
You wrote: "The one exception to this generality seems to be meditation practice; some such practices apparently yield a consistent experience among different practitioners, including similar brain wave patterns."
I've read of studies that show that the same brain wave patterns are just as easily induced by listening to soft music or even just sitting comfortably for a few minutes. I suspect you've read much the same, since these results were fairly widely reported...
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Good point, thanks! Re: Just FYI... -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Craig C. ®
10/27/2002, 23:40:59
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Hilarious! Re: The evolution of theology -- canadacow Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
10/28/2002, 18:00:11
Author Profile Mail author
Your thesis is transparently stupid and irrational in so many ways it's not worth enumerating. But let's just look at a few of your many moronic howlers in your post...
You explicitly asserted that: "if you look at the history of world religions, their transformation mirrors very closely the transformation scientific thought goes through as well."
No, it doesn't! What a massively deluded thing to say! Only a post-modern irrationalist sociologist like yourself might "think" as sloppily as you do! The history of science has been one of increasingly accurate and powerful theories that have allowed increasingly accurate and powerful explanatory, predictive, and technological utility. The history of religion, on the other hand, shows nothing of the kind! Religion's history has been essentially random and arbitrary, and provides no better explanations or predictions today than it did to our ignorant savage ancestors.
And while the humaneness and tolerance of religion has been significantly improved by advancements in science and secularization, religion has not contributed anything at all of value towards science or any other type of legitimate human knowledge. It is the scourge of our species. While the evolutionary strategies that accidentally resulted in religion were beneficial in the very distant past, today they represent the greatest threat to the survival of our civilization and even the habitability of our planet.
Let's now turn to your ludicrously idiotic thesis about the alleged progress of religion and how you've laughably mocked your own arguments!
You foolishly wrote: "Initially, Polytheism was the main order of belief, but as time progressed revelation became clear that there was only a single God, and now, the major world religions are monotheistic. ... Even more recently we have the LDS church building upon Christianity, though some believers here would argue that it is a restoration of Christianity. This however, proves my point even more, that theology functions very similar to the scientific method."
That's absolutely hilarious!
For one thing, on what grounds can you possibly assert that it is "clear that there was only a single God"? Whereby did you come upon this alleged "knowledge"?
You asserted that religion is conceptually parallel to "the scientific method", but what your "argument" actually reveals is that the path of religion is random and arbitrary and does NOT progress, which we can see from the self-refuting facts you report that polytheism "led" to monotheism (the Abrahamic faiths) and then "led" to polytheism (Mormonism) again!!
As I said, hilarious!
'Round and 'round the arbitrary irrationality of religion goes...
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Oct 28, 2002, 18:06:57
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
