In considering the mystical and the material

see.......


11800484_476379912540749_5997040657384122017_n.jpg
 
wil said:
see.......


11800484_476379912540749_5997040657384122017_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks wil, Now I'm going to have a migraine trying to figure out how someone can be that horrible at math and in turn science. SMH. This is why creationists (Abrahamics specifically) can't be respected. There are too many people with no knowledge spouting their mouth (or fingers nowadays) off about things they have not even the slightest clue of.
 
Wil, Wil, Wil. This awesomely flawed argument is so over the deep end, I sure hope you meant it as a joke. It's not like when someone drinks water it is locked away for all eternity. Much of the water we take in gets sent back out through ordinary bodily functions. The bulk of living critters are made up of water; when they die that water doesn't disappear. Returns to the environment. Geez.
 
I believe the meme was written in seriousness... somebody, some group actually thinks this is compelling evidence.... we in America have the best wackadoodles around...
 
wil said:
I actually am truly hoping this was made by Atheists that are trolling bible thumpers...
Click to expand...
I'm almost certain you are right. Although I wouldn't put it past some. I've heard the absolute dumbest arguments from the hyper-evangelists.
 
I love how the important part is underlined in red to make it so clear.

Reminds me of a prof I I once was forced to listen to. He'd preface his lectures most days with, "Now this is important!" He taught us the outdated curriculum guide. (He'd helped write it, but i was replaced the year before.) As first year education students, none of us knew any better.
 
Hi DA –
Devils' Advocate said:
Science was never created to do that.
Click to expand...
I think there's a contemporary 'blind faith' in 'science'.

My response is the same as the commentator on 'the Irish Question' when he said, 'if you think you have the answer, then you don't understand the question'.

Devils' Advocate said:
Science cannot 'prove' love. It can explain the physiological processes, chemical and hormonal reactions that lead to the feeling we call love. Is that all there is to love though?
Click to expand...
Quite.

A computerised device could reproduce the Mona Lisa flawlessly. Does that mean the Mona Lisa is worthless because it can be reproduced time and again on demand? I think not.

Devils' Advocate said:
So is religion. ;)
Click to expand...
Oh yes, indeed it is, and that is the crux of my point. I think the human person has more than one way of dialoguing with the cosmos. Empathy, and all that ...
 
BigJoeNobody said:
In your opinion :D. No way to prove it.
Click to expand...
The answer I gave, that religion is a construct, might be read to imply that I think religion has no foundation in reality, which I want to dispel.

To prove that religion is a construct, I would have thought the variety of religious experience is enough in itself.

What that says to me is that the object of contemplation might well be 'It', but 'It' is essentially incomprehensible, and this is axiomatic in all Traditions, which I also happen to think is telling, but only comprehensible from where we are, and this comprehension is variously described as 'Revelation', 'Intuition', 'Enlightenment' etc.

This simple understanding, that whatever 'It' is exists in 'a class of its own', is the reason why 'It' will and can never be an object of empirical determination, because empiricism requires a scale by which to make its determinations, a comparison of similar properties.To be an object of empirical determination requires that the object exists in a class that comprises a collection of those things sharing at least one common equivalence by which distinction can be determined according to a common mean.

By the same token, 'It' can never be completely and comprehensibly defined by any science – such as metaphysics or ontology – in terms other than the negative because the positive inescapably infers classification and measure.

So I would say 'It' makes itself known in a variety of religious experience – the human construct – however each is adequate in and of itself to realise 'It' in its own way.
 
Thomas said:
I think there's a contemporary 'blind faith' in 'science'.
Click to expand...

I believe there was a blind faith in science in the late decades of the 19th and early decades of the 20th century. From say the 1880s to 1930s. People have long become disillusioned in science over the next few decades when it became apparent that science was not going to solve all the world's problems. Particularly since the late 1960s, the belief in science has pretty much bottomed out to be considered about as important than blind faith in any other human endeavor.

Thomas said:
My response is the same as the commentator on 'the Irish Question' when he said, 'if you think you have the answer, then you don't understand the question'.
Click to expand...

I do not agree with this. This sort of comment, if it is useful at all, is for the soft sciences like philosophy or psychology. I am not at all sure it is a valid question to begin with. This quote essentially says we do not have the ability to ask a question for which there is an answer. Which is patently absurd.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I believe there was a blind faith in science in the late decades of the 19th and early decades of the 20th century.
Click to expand...
This was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment. The question of religion and a belief in God is discussed by those sciences relevant to the discussion – metaphysics, specific theologies or philosophies – the methodology of the empirical sciences renders them irrelevant to the contemporary discussion, but I do think some people still think the empirical sciences holds the key to everything ... then again, if material prosperity is your goal in life, and owning the latest tech is what it's all about, then I suppose anything with an 'i-' prefix is the key to happiness ...

On the topic of 'mystical and material', it's worth pointing out that many assume 'energy' as in some way a key to the divine. It's not. The visible works of God, energia in Greek theological contemplation (the Divine Act of Creation, as opposed to ousia, the Divine Essence), is not talking about quantum phenomena – that's still within the material realm.

Devils' Advocate said:
I am not at all sure it is a valid question to begin with.
Click to expand...
Its validity was in directing those with 'simple answers' to the matter of 'complex questions'. On the one hand the solution might appeal to the proposer, but not to the proposed, on the other that a better solution might in fact be detrimental to the wealth of those in power and therefore be unacceptable.

For us Brits, for example, the solution to the 'Gun Control Question' is blindingly obvious, but Obama seems powerless to bring common sense (from a Brit POV) into play. Or the solution to illegal immigration across the US-Mexican border.

But the point I was alluding to is the kind of 'solution thinking' that makes you and I palm our foreheads in disbelief! The kind of 'solutions' that politicians come up with, for poverty, for Ireland, for the Middle East ... :rolleyes:
 
Thomas said:
then again, if material prosperity is your goal in life, and owning the latest tech is what it's all about, then I suppose anything with an 'i-' prefix is the key to happiness ...
Click to expand...

All too many seem to think so these days. The fact that the happiness continues to elude them even with all their toys does not seem to ever sink in though. Or is it more that they simply refuse to recognize it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top