User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 67

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, all of that is supposition.

    I think the most that can be said is that someone has chosen to believe, and their faith overrides other measures of criteria. It's values-based.
    I'm sorry? Supposition? Please clarify.

  2. #52
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont see a dichotomy between science or evolutionary theories and religion, the same way I dont see a dichotomy between, say geography and the performing arts, they're two different things. The important thing is to pursue truth and acknowledge that you dont have all the answers.
    While you might not believe that belief in god is incompatible with the latest scientific findings, many others do. The reason is because many religious teachings deviate from the scientific viewpoint. If our understanding of science is to be more correct, then those teachings in part, must be wrong, or at least merely figurative.

    The point about the enlightenment period was to implicate more sophisticated views of epistemology and the birth of the formal demarcation problem to separate those facts which can be known (physical) and those which cannot (metaphysical). A lack of scientific demarcation would mean that young earth creationism is equally as scientific as our recent evolutionary theories.

    How well those methods of demarcation fared is of course an interesting discussion, but probably not suitable for this thread.

  3. #53
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I personally hate this strain of evangelical thinking, it seems small minded and myopic in the extreme and more about the person feeling "right" than what is or isnt truth, it reeks of the strains of choosen elects which I despise as a variety of sectarianism and psychological superiority/inferiority loops.

    Its part of the reason why after hoping for a long, long time that reconciliation or ecumencism within fragmented Christianity could have a chance that I just gave up on the idea altogether. I used to think that it was a peculiar lingering legacy in my own society of historical sectarian divisions, the reformation and protestantism but most of that input to the North of Ireland is actually from the US now, things like the Alpha Course and other visiting preachers, I'm not saying that there's not a market for it and people want any excuse, a lot of the time that appears to be the case, but the US is a society I wouldnt believe there was as much of a reason for this sort of thing to have endured and persisted but it appears to have done.
    I think it fits right in with the general US attitude of superiority, and many high church writers have long associated these low church trends with the "American spirit of the frontier" or "individualism".
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Architectonic View Post
    While you might not believe that belief in god is incompatible with the latest scientific findings, many others do. The reason is because many religious teachings deviate from the scientific viewpoint. If our understanding of science is to be more correct, then those teachings in part, must be wrong, or at least merely figurative.

    The point about the enlightenment period was to implicate more sophisticated views of epistemology and the birth of the formal demarcation problem to separate those facts which can be known (physical) and those which cannot (metaphysical). A lack of scientific demarcation would mean that young earth creationism is equally as scientific as our recent evolutionary theories.

    How well those methods of demarcation fared is of course an interesting discussion, but probably not suitable for this thread.
    I dont agree with you that there is any deviation, although it does depend on how you frame the debate or discussion, for some people their entire devotion to science rests upon the corner stone of its being in origin and continuity anathema toward religion, otherwise they would not care, I think that is a very poor understanding of science.

    The second part which I've highlighted I dont agree with either, the demarcation between metaphysical and physical is an important one and its fair to mention but there are more reasons than this simple demarcation, which isnt the whole of science either, as to why creationism and evolutionary theories are not comparably scientific.

    To be honest the mechanism of evolution appears to do far greater homage to God than creationism which is a pale projection of the human act of creating upon the cosmos and therefore also God.

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I think it fits right in with the general US attitude of superiority, and many high church writers have long associated these low church trends with the "American spirit of the frontier" or "individualism".
    I dont understand the high and low church distinctions, are those distinctions between the established churches, originally the Church of England, Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland and the various protestants or dissenters?

    I see it as connected to the reformation and something akin to the Christian spiritual equivalent of trotskyism, the prepetual revolution, the problem with that is that it is objectively stuck in a moment, unable to learn from the past as event which is finished or move forward into a future which is after that event and not a return to it, repetition or renewal of it.

  6. #56
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Architectonic View Post
    While you might not believe that belief in god is incompatible with the latest scientific findings, many others do. The reason is because many religious teachings deviate from the scientific viewpoint. If our understanding of science is to be more correct, then those teachings in part, must be wrong, or at least merely figurative.
    Many religious teachings deviate from scientific findings, but not all do. This suggests that acceptance of established scientific theory is incompatible with certain religions or religious teachings, but not necessarily with belief in deity altogether.

    It is worth noting also that sources like the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, some literal, some figurative. Any literal interpretation must meet the same standards of objective evidence as any other historical or scientific claim. The criteria are indeed different for figurative interpretations, much as the criteria for good art differ from those for good science. These criteria are much more subjective, with benefit, insight, beauty, inspiration for the beholder being a significant component.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    But in general, evidence doesn't matter a ton, as long as it's not a smoking gun bit of evidence. There's a lot of evidence one can provide that I've been replied to with, "Well, maybe that's true, but in the end I think just don't believe the overall conclusion is true and/or I still think I'll be proven right in the end." A lot of stuff along the lines of "No, i don't understand why what you're saying seems to true, but I have faith it's not right."

    Different priorities/standards of criteria.

    It's values-based.
    Yes. The evidence does not substantiate the literal truth of many religious claims, but objective substantiation is not needed for faith. That is why it is faith, and not proof. IME the real truth in most religious traditions is figurative and subjective, much like the lessons of Aesop. It does not matter if there really was a tortoise and a hare.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #57
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    It is worth noting also that sources like the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, some literal, some figurative.
    I agree. But a figurative interpretation is incompatible with the orthodox teachings of many religions, including Islam and Christianity.
    It may however be the case that these teachings are changing due to the pervasiveness of modern scientific findings in disputing biblical inerrancy.

  8. #58
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont understand the high and low church distinctions, are those distinctions between the established churches, originally the Church of England, Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland and the various protestants or dissenters?
    High church is liturgical and very hierarchical and creedal. Low Church is more independent, less creedal or truly "sola-scriptura" (high Protestants use that term, but in practice frown upon ignoring the creeds), and regard baptism and communion as symbolic "ordinances" rather than "sacraments".

    Those Churches you mentioned are all "high".
    (I just last night looked up the difference between the two main "Calvinist" bodies, "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" and saw that Presbyterian came from the Church of Scotland). Low churches are like Baptist, Methodist, independents, etc. and most of the other American bred groups.

    I have read books where high church advocates blame all the problems of the modern church (including the forever increasing schism) on the "independent spirit" of the low church (no creeds, no central authority, etc), and associate it with the American principles of democracy and the frontier. They have a good point there, but they also ignore that this splintering often begins when those high church sytems go corrupt. (Why there was a Reformation needed in the first place).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Architectonic View Post
    I agree. But a figurative interpretation is incompatible with the orthodox teachings of many religions, including Islam and Christianity.
    Really? Have you read a Catholic Community Bible with scholarly accompanying script lately? You cant have if you believe this.

    It may however be the case that these teachings are changing due to the pervasiveness of modern scientific findings in disputing biblical inerrancy.
    Or, you know, it may not.

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I have read books where high church advocates blame all the problems of the modern church (including the forever increasing schism) on the "independent spirit" of the low church (no creeds, no central authority, etc), and associate it with the American principles of democracy and the frontier. They have a good point there, but they also ignore that this splintering often begins when those high church sytems go corrupt. (Why there was a Reformation needed in the first place).
    Interesting, I wouldnt blame independence of spirit per se, or American principles such as frontier democracy, those things where exports and Burke associates democracy not with political revolution but norms derived from the refomed churches.

    In the UK at least I see the splits as a consequence of more radical and splinter groups not caring about traditions or norms, wether they are corrupt or not, and more favourable to fashions and vogues, particularly cultural ones, such as affirming homosexuality, disdain for the family life, intergenerational strife etc.

    I personally dont think there was a reformation required, I think the schismatic fragmentation and then the rise of protestantism were European tragedies which were not repeated in the same fashion in other cultures.

    There were corrections and adjustments carrying on a pace within the hierarchy of the church, Erasmus and others were leading it and it provided a version of Christianity, if you consider the discourses on free will, which is at once more modern but not positively modernist, its a paragon of a sort of reflective conservationism.

    Unfortunately Luther et al didnt see it that way and often unleashed forces they couldnt contain, Luther's horror at the German Peasant war and eventual alliance with the principalities in an authoritarian attempt to end it all by force should have been a forewarning to the revolutionaries political, social, other, which followed in his stead. He was even horrified at Calvin's Geneva's attempts to out do the Inquisition in persecuting dissidents if I'm not wrong.

    I'm sure that the ultimate goals of Luther et al were fine, as are the goals of pretty much all revolutionaries, all those seeking change for the better, but it had terrible and foreseeable consequences when translated into action.

Similar Threads

  1. Type and the Use of Emoticons
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 12:59 PM
  2. Death and the Forfeit of Reason
    By Into It in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 01:24 PM
  3. The Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 12:26 PM
  4. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" review...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 03:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO