Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 91 of 507 (768309)
09-10-2015 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kbertsche
09-10-2015 3:09 PM


kbertche writes:
You've never come across scientists who are dogmatic?!?
Huh? It's irrelevant how individual scientists behave; the practice and strucure of the discipline are built around knowledge being tentatively aquired and subject to better information based on evidence.
Both understandings are necessarily incomplete and subject to correction and improvement. Serious students of both disciplines readily admit this.
That is completely wrong. The religious have certainty of belief. Have you never read Faiths posts? The bible is the inerrant word of god, the church's teaching are correct and you err at the peril of your soul.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 09-10-2015 3:09 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 5:14 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 94 by MrHambre, posted 09-10-2015 6:18 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 09-10-2015 7:17 PM Tangle has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 92 of 507 (768310)
09-10-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tangle
09-10-2015 4:50 PM


Tangle writes:
The religious have certainty of belief.
I am religious. I do not have a certainty of belief.
Tangle writes:
Have you never read Faiths posts? The bible is the inerrant word of god, the church's teaching are correct and you err at the peril of your soul.
Yes, there are people that believe such things just as there are people that do not even believe they have a soul that might be in peril.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 5:19 PM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 93 of 507 (768312)
09-10-2015 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
09-10-2015 5:14 PM


Jar writes:
I am religious. I do not have a certainty of belief.
Then you are an agnostic. (Which is another word for atheist - but lets not start that again).

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 5:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 8:45 PM Tangle has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 94 of 507 (768314)
09-10-2015 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tangle
09-10-2015 4:50 PM


Speaking of Inerrancy
Tangle writes:
Have you never read Faiths posts?
So you're judging the entire construct of religion on the basis of Faith's posts.
Oh. Kay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 09-11-2015 2:12 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 95 of 507 (768316)
09-10-2015 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
09-10-2015 3:18 PM


Faith writes:
kbertsche writes:
You've never come across scientists who are dogmatic?!?
You've never come across religious believers who are humble?!?
In the case of Biblical revelation it is NOT humble to subject it to fallible human scrutiny. THat's in fact the opposite of humility.
Agreed; I was not trying to imply this. Humility is a Christian virtue and a fruit of the Spirit. True Christian believers should have an attitude of humility.
Faith writes:
kbertsche writes:
Science is man's attempt to understand nature. Theology is man's attempt to understand God and holy Scripture.
I don't think so. Not Christian theology. It's an attempt to understand what God has revealed in scripture. Your way of putting it implies something more like working in the dark to come up with something that convinces us.
I'm not trying to imply that Christians are working in the dark; I certainly don't believe this. I agree with you that Christian theology is our "attempt to understand what God has revealed in Scripture". I was trying to word things a bit more generally, to include other religions as well as Christianity.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 96 of 507 (768318)
09-10-2015 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tangle
09-10-2015 4:50 PM


Tangle writes:
kbertsche writes:
You've never come across scientists who are dogmatic?!?
Huh? It's irrelevant how individual scientists behave; the practice and strucure of the discipline are built around knowledge being tentatively aquired and subject to better information based on evidence.
Have you never come across entire scientific sub-disciplines which exhibit extreme dogmatism? Individual behavior often carries over to groups. The history of science is full of examples. Nearly every scientific revolution has had to fight dogmatic resistance from those who held to the old paradigm.
Tangle writes:
kbertsche writes:
Both understandings are necessarily incomplete and subject to correction and improvement. Serious students of both disciplines readily admit this.
That is completely wrong. The religious have certainty of belief. Have you never read Faiths posts? The bible is the inerrant word of god, the church's teaching are correct and you err at the peril of your soul.
Don't scientists have certainty of some things as well? Do you think that scientists are certain of nothing?!?
I don't think Faith would say that any church's teachings are necessarily correct, even her own. History teaches us otherwise. No church has ever been completely correct.
Religious believers may be certain about some foundational elements of their faith, just as scientists are certain about some foundational elements of their science. But if they are honest and thoughtful, religious believers will also admit that some of their views may be wrong and may change in the future.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2015 8:57 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 09-11-2015 2:39 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 507 (768323)
09-10-2015 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Tangle
09-10-2015 5:19 PM


Bullshit.
I am certainly not agnostic; just honest.
Try it sometime.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 5:19 PM Tangle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 507 (768327)
09-10-2015 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by kbertsche
09-10-2015 7:17 PM


Have you never come across entire scientific sub-disciplines which exhibit extreme dogmatism? Individual behavior often carries over to groups. The history of science is full of examples. Nearly every scientific revolution has had to fight dogmatic resistance from those who held to the old paradigm.
Scientists and science branches that behave in this way are rightly criticized. I think this argument is the wrong approach.
Tangle has expressed the idea that religious doctrines must be nothing short of the absolute truth at all times. He also leaves no room for any legitimate way for religion to progress towards truth. In my view, both prepositions are simply preposterous standards to set for any human endeavor and I reject them out of hand absent an argument to the contrary.
I don't think Faith would say that any church's teachings are necessarily correct, even her own.
I would not be so quick to assume that statement to be correct. But isn't it beside the point? We don't condemn all of physics simply because, for example, Einstein was resistant to quantum mechanics, or because his peers were reluctant to let go of Galilean time-space concepts. But there is also no need to elevate poor behavior either.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 09-10-2015 7:17 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by kbertsche, posted 09-10-2015 9:18 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 9:31 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 112 by Tangle, posted 09-11-2015 2:58 AM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 99 of 507 (768330)
09-10-2015 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by NoNukes
09-10-2015 8:57 PM


NoNukes writes:
Scientists and science branches that behave in this way are rightly criticized.
Agreed; I'm just trying to point out that dogmatism exists in science as well as in religion.
NoNukes writes:
Tangle has expressed the idea that religious doctrines must be nothing short of the absolute truth at all times. He also leaves no room for any legitimate way for religion to progress towards truth. In my view, both prepositions are simply preposterous standards to set for any human endeavor and I reject them out of hand absent an argument to the contrary.
Agreed. He wants to apply very different standards to each endeavor.
NoNukes writes:
We don't condemn all of physics simply because, for example, Einstein was resistant to quantum mechanics, or because his peers were reluctant to let go of Galilean time-space concepts. But there is also no need to elevate poor behavior either.
I am certainly not trying to elevate poor behavior. Rather, I'm trying to point out that poor behavior exists in science as well as in theology. Tangle seems to have an unrealistically high view of science and an unrealistically low view of theology and religion.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2015 8:57 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 100 of 507 (768331)
09-10-2015 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
09-10-2015 11:24 AM


Re: Original Sin
And how do you spell tithe?
Excuse me?
Went right past your pretty little head, M'Love. But that's OK. You have enough on your plate right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 11:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 101 of 507 (768332)
09-10-2015 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by NoNukes
09-10-2015 8:57 PM


TRVTH?
Tangle has expressed the idea that religious doctrines must be nothing short of the absolute truth at all times.
Religions claim to have a direct line to god, and claim to have the inside scoop. The implication, or often the actual statements, are along the lines of "believe what we tell you or you are going to hell."
When that absolute TRVTH "inside scoop" changes, it casts a reasonable doubt over the entire shaman class and all of their teachings.
Scientists have no such claim on TRVTH, but rather claim "best current explanation" for their theories.
That's quite a difference in approach.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2015 8:57 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 10:09 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2015 10:24 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 507 (768339)
09-10-2015 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
09-10-2015 9:31 PM


Re: TRVTH?
Tangle is right. But EvC is full of "liberal" religionists who are always willing to change God's revelation to suit their version of science or political correctness or whatever. Or even not bother to change it, just ignore it.
The hundreds of made-up doctrines and practices of the RCC shouldn't bother any of them, or unbelievers either, as long as they like the Pope's politics.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 9:31 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 10:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2015 2:01 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 507 (768342)
09-10-2015 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
09-10-2015 9:31 PM


Re: TRVTH?
Religions claim to have a direct line to god, and claim to have the inside scoop. The implication, or often the actual statements, are along the lines of "believe what we tell you or you are going to hell."
Religious people of one ilk or the other may make such claims, but the claims are often bogus. Among the people who consider themselves to be Christians, many of the details of belief vary quite widely.
The stuff Tangle points to is so far from the center beliefs of Christianity that uncertainty about it is understandable. Individuals make their own calls about much of the peripheral stuff like which day is the Sabbath, which day to celebrate Christmas, whether limbo exists, etc. And in many cases they can cite scriptural bases for their decisions.
And of course every man made decision or interpretation is subject to further review. I don't see any distinction in that regard between science and theology. The entire distinction is the complete dismissal of philosophy and theology as a pursuit by at least the atheists making the argument that religion should never change.
The consequences are different of course. For most people, the fact that some new esoteric scientific foundation is only tentative is of little impact on their lives. On the other hand, decisions about theology might well have daily impacts on the lives of believers.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 9:31 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 104 of 507 (768347)
09-10-2015 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
09-10-2015 10:09 PM


Re: TRVTH?
The hundreds of made-up doctrines and practices of the RCC shouldn't bother any of them, or unbelievers either, as long as they like the Pope's politics.
But there are something like 20,000 or maybe even 40,000 different denominations, sects, or flavors of christianity. Any disagreement over interpretation is likely to result in a schism, with both sides believing they have the one and only TRVTH.
Given all of this, and the multiple tens of thousands of other religions , denominations, sects, etc. over recorded history, why should we trust any one of those to have the unvarnished inside scoop?
Particularly when they all seem to hate facts and evidence as much as vampires are reported to hate garlic.
Why should we believe any of them?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 10:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:32 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 507 (768357)
09-11-2015 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Coyote
09-10-2015 10:49 PM


Re: TRVTH?
No there aren't thousands of different denominations, that's a ridiculous inflation of tiny differences between some groups. There is the RCC and there is generic Protestantism which includes churches of many small differences that would all stand together on the Biblical essentials, there are "liberal" churches that make it all up to suit themselves, that no doubt have differences among them too though they are fairly enough all classed as liberal churches, and there are Christianish cults, that's pretty much it.
If the Bible is God's word you believe the churches that teach that. Everything else is human error.
But nobody said you have to believe anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 10:49 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024