Tzadeck Wrote:

raharney Wrote:They "make" interpretations of divine law, that is, they try to explain it in a consistent and coherent way within discursive rules about conditions that are not of their making.
They are working with a body of evidence (the Bible etc.) that cannot be ignored. In that way they are like scientists working with theories and hypothesis that they aim to "make" conform to the evidence. Whether the evidence is illusionary or not is another matter.

I don't know the movie Dogma. Sounds interesting.

Now it's easy to look at theology as though it has its base in evidence, but you're looking at it through a way of thinking (the scientific method and empiricism) that wasn't really developed until the 17th century. Theology is much older than that, and there is a whole range of different levels of theology, from those that take philosophical traditions seriously to those who really don't.

My understanding, based admittedly only on a few college classes I took, is that the church I was raised in, Catholicism, is full of beliefs, traditions, and laws that are not based on the Bible whatsoever. As far as I know many of them have no basis in any body of evidence, illusionary or not.

shadysaint Wrote:One theory say that the earth is flat because that is how it is drawn on the flag of the United Nations. What do you think?

Stansfield123 Wrote:

raharney Wrote:But this was never an “objection,” just a theological problem: what happens to the unbaptized. For example, in Dante’s Inferno Socrates is not allowed to enter the highest echelons of heaven because he was unbaptized. I think (you can Google it if you don’t believe me) nowadays the mainstream view is that your are still saved if you are righteous, even if you never heard of Christ. In fact, the Catholic Church now accepts that there may be other messiahs that have lived on other planets at other times. We’ve never heard of them but it don’t matter none.

But your argument seems to be that because many Christians are nuts who believe crazy stuff we can then ascribe any beliefs we want to them. This is a propagandist way of thinking.

Your argument seems to be that even though Christians consider the Bible to be the word of an all powerful, all knowing God, it's wrong to assume that they believe its contents, and better to instead assume that they believe what the Argentinian dude who just got elected Pope says.

raharney Wrote:Note I said "Bible etc."

raharney Wrote:The guiding force behind theology is that you rationalize the answer to certain questions or you rationalize answers that have been already made by previous authorities. Again, the rules governing your rationality cannot be just invented out of your head, there has to be justifications.

Tzadeck Wrote:

raharney Wrote:Note I said "Bible etc."

That's why I said "any body of evidence."

raharney Wrote:The guiding force behind theology is that you rationalize the answer to certain questions or you rationalize answers that have been already made by previous authorities. Again, the rules governing your rationality cannot be just invented out of your head, there has to be justifications.

We're not really in disagreement here, except that I would perhaps make the case that ultimately all theology was invented, just as the Bible itself was. The new ideas came from somewhere, and then they were built upon in an organized and rational way.

I guess really what I had a problem with was your use of the word 'evidence.' Typically ’evidence’ is a word used since the scientific revolution to refer to proof used in empirical knowledge. Theology is done more in the spirit of rationalism, which is an entirely different approach and is kind of at odds with empiricism.

There were attempts to mix religious belief with empiricism, which is why you had the idea of 'natural religion' starting in the 17th century (books exploring this concept remain popular in universities, like Hume's famous "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion."). But I think the outcome of those attempts was Deism, which broke down into atheism in the mid to late 19th century (i.e., when it became obvious that God doesn't exist).

raharney Wrote:Any evidence can be "invented" or "faked" (which means we take leaps of faith about the evidence people tell us is out there for something) and evidence has to be interpreted, otherwise most people would still be assuming it's the sun we see moving in the sky each day. So crude empiricism of the "look then theorize" kind hasn't completely won out.

raharney Wrote:Also, your statement "when it became obvious that God doesn't exist" is breath-takingly self-assured. There is nothing obvious at all about any of this. I envy your ability to be so unpuzzled about life and the universe.

Tzadeck Wrote:

raharney Wrote:Any evidence can be "invented" or "faked" (which means we take leaps of faith about the evidence people tell us is out there for something) and evidence has to be interpreted, otherwise most people would still be assuming it's the sun we see moving in the sky each day. So crude empiricism of the "look then theorize" kind hasn't completely won out.

Well, actually, not all evidence can be invented or faked because depending on the evidence you can get found out pretty quickly. And many experiments have been done independently so many times that we can rely on them with a fair amount of certainty. In fields like science there's also a lot of incentive towards honesty, because you can easily ruin your reputation which will quickly make your PhD (and the many many years of your life it took to get it) absolutely useless.

But yeah, nobody is arguing that theories materialize out of pure experiments. Obviously there is human thought involved. But ultimately I do think that empirical data should be the final judge of physical phenomena, rather than human thought.

raharney Wrote:Also, your statement "when it became obvious that God doesn't exist" is breath-takingly self-assured. There is nothing obvious at all about any of this. I envy your ability to be so unpuzzled about life and the universe.

Quite the opposite I'm afraid. I'm very interested and puzzled about life and the universe. The reason behind my blunt phrasing is long, and you're probably making the wrong assumptions about me based on it.

Actually, on the topic of certainty and being 'self-assured,' perhaps my favorite quote concerning epistemology is this one by Richard Feynman:

"One thing is that I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs, in different degrees of certainty, about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything and of many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit, if I can't figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
(There's a Youtube video of where he says this, if anyone's interested)

But, anyway, I don't think you actually believe that about me. I think you were just trying to be a *snip*--well, good job.

Tzadeck Wrote:Now it's easy to look at theology as though it has its base in evidence, but you're looking at it through a way of thinking (the scientific method and empiricism) that wasn't really developed until the 17th century. Theology is much older than that, and there is a whole range of different levels of theology, from those that take philosophical traditions seriously to those who really don't.

My understanding, based admittedly only on a few college classes I took, is that the church I was raised in, Catholicism, is full of beliefs, traditions, and laws that are not based on the Bible whatsoever. As far as I know many of them have no basis in any body of evidence, illusionary or not.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:I liked this part of the website:

Quote:Hitchhiking, physical / spiritual health, KJV truth, Linux, Wordpress, exposing the Illuminati Masonic Zionist Jesuit Roman Popery New World Order

Tzadeck Wrote:Actually, in all seriousness, thanks for this website. It's comedy gold if you go to the homepage and look at the other articles.

"The Fourth Reich – A Continuation of the Roman Empire"
"WASHINGTON IN THE LAP OF ROME"
"The Gospel Story in the Zodiac"
"Oklahoma Monster Tornado caused by HAARP?"
"Former Canadian Cabinet Minister Testifies to the existance(sic) of Extraterrestrial beings visiting Earth"

Stansfield123 Wrote:Reason is our capacity to process observed reality to reach conclusions about it that are not immediately obvious. But only by using logic, a law of that reality. Key point here is the observed reality part. That's what evidence is, in science, not whatever the Pope or whoever wrote a book of the Bible has to say. Theologians also use logic on a grand scale (ever since Aquinas rediscovered it), but they don't apply it to reality (evidence), they apply it to fables and fabrications they pick and choose from. When used this way, logic becomes a tool for falsifying reality on a grand scale, instead of understanding its hidden complexities the way science does.

raharney Wrote:You are kind of romanticizing the whole science thing there. We have to decide what we are looking for before we see it. The only difference between science and religion is that science has very high entry barriers for submissible evidence (and that is a good thing) but it still has barriers none the less and it still decides how to deal with the evidence before it comes in. Barriers and preconceptions prior to observation will always generate some kind of historically embedded arbitrariness.
Science is great and I am so happy about that whole Age of Enlightenment thing but let's not loose the run of ourselves. Science has its inherent limitations. That's why it will never provide ultimate answers for those seeking them.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

raharney Wrote:You are kind of romanticizing the whole science thing there. We have to decide what we are looking for before we see it. The only difference between science and religion is that science has very high entry barriers for submissible evidence (and that is a good thing) but it still has barriers none the less and it still decides how to deal with the evidence before it comes in. Barriers and preconceptions prior to observation will always generate some kind of historically embedded arbitrariness.
Science is great and I am so happy about that whole Age of Enlightenment thing but let's not loose the run of ourselves. Science has its inherent limitations. That's why it will never provide ultimate answers for those seeking them.

Can you give an example of an arbitrary preconception that passes the test of the scientific method, and is indistinguishable from objective facts?

Please, keep in mind that I'm not asking you to find fault with people who might apply the scientific method and make an error. I'm asking you to provide some kind of evidence of your claim that the scientific method itself is flawed in some way. I'm not asking for a lot of evidence. I'm asking for just one example of such a failure.

raharney Wrote:Wow you're so rude. What insecurities did I accidentally poke.

raharney Wrote:I envy your ability to be so unpuzzled about life and the universe.

raharney Wrote:You are missing the point. The whole history of science has been about flawed hypotheses that were replaced by less flawed ones. Our objective knowledge is only as good as the last yet to be falsified hypothesis we've managed to come up with. This is how science works.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

raharney Wrote:You are missing the point. The whole history of science has been about flawed hypotheses that were replaced by less flawed ones. Our objective knowledge is only as good as the last yet to be falsified hypothesis we've managed to come up with. This is how science works.

Not even close. Hypotheses are the first step towards developing scientific theory. Science DOES NOT consist of hypotheses. Hope this helps. Yes, it's a children's drawing. Don't take it as an insult, take it as a wake up call:
http://www.biology4kids.com/files/art/study_scimeth3_240x180.gif

I would also recommend understanding the role of context in human knowledge. Truth, like everything else, exists in context. Scientific theories aren't falsified, they change as the context of human knowledge grows. That doesn't make them false in their original context.

The only way to create false theories is by mis-applying the scientific method (or by ignoring it altogether, the way religious scholars do).

Tzadeck Wrote:

raharney Wrote:Wow you're so rude. What insecurities did I accidentally poke.

Actually, what happened was, you said this:

raharney Wrote:I envy your ability to be so unpuzzled about life and the universe.

I thought it was rude, so I replied rudely. Wasn't out of nowhere.

raharney Wrote:Your answer was fair enough with Feynman and all that but you completely undermined it by engaging in juvenile invective which sounds aggressive and scary when coming from somewhere anonymous.
I used bad language in another posting last year here and someone correctly pointed out that it made me sound stupid. It was good advice.

raharney Wrote:Go back one more link in the chain. Before the hypothesis. Go on. I dare you.

Helltrixz Wrote:

ashman63 Wrote:You know what's really amazing? My theory that after kana was derived from hebrew, English was derived from kana! Here's the (pretty convincing) proof:

あ----------> a
い、イ----------> i, I
う ----------> u (just rotate it 90 degrees)
く ----------> C
ケ----------> K
そ----------> S (flip it horizonatally, and squint really hard for this one)
し----------> ʃ (okay not technically English, but close enough; at least it shows that this IPA symbol was derived from Japanese)
た---------->ta
て----------> T

QED

This explains my other theory that the ancient children of Fuji-san did actually come to Australia (the birthplace of English) in the early 20th century.

I knew it!

CharlesManslaughter Wrote:you already know Japanese already has thousands of words with Hebrew origin and similarity recorded.

yudantaiteki Wrote:I think there's a good possibility of it being sincere. He has other posts on his site about how Christianity supposedly reached Japan in pre-written historical times but was suppressed.