The Quarrel between Science and Religion...

Thomas Aquinas argued that the meaning of Scripture is very far from being self evident and that it must often be interpreted in light of other truths. If a literal interpretation is contradicted by an obvious fact; then the literal intrepretation must be false. But as Chesterton points out many scientists have been just as ready to jump to the conclusion that any guess about nature is an obvious fact...just as much as fundamentalists and biblical literalist jump to the conclusion that any guess about Scripture is an obvious fact.

Any scientist who wants to have much of a career doesn't treat guesses as facts. I don't know about Chesterton's time, but I bet not many of them did then.

Thomas Aquinas did not think guesses about scripture were facts, as you pointed out in your first two sentences. And fundamentalists find facts in the Bible by applying their semantic opinions, not by guesswork.

What all collectivists apparently fail to observe is that the elevation of an authority does not at all have a contrast in another activity, as you simply can not not-do something. There is actually no such thing as an atheist; any such is merely a semantic construction with very limited functionality.

The nearest housefly is likely to be an atheist, that is giving no thought to the satisfaction of the demands of any authority for the possible rewards of such, here or in an imagined hereafter, but this atheism is probably not something that crosses its mind at any stage of its life, and calling it atheistic therefore might be technically correct but still as senseless as considering pulling a hand out of the fire if the nerves of that hand is intact.

And so the atheist, if perfectly without belief, would not be interested in the legitimacy of this or that unseen elevated entity’s claim to existence, but merely in the practical relevance of someone’s belief in that existence - something that must then be perfectly comparable to all elevation of authority.

What collectivists all have in common is the expectation of favours for their support of authority, and thereby also their enmity against the undeserving. The road up is also the one downwards: if his majestic bigness is above me, my support of him elevates me above his non-supporters, and if doubt appears of my continued deservedness, the punishment of his non-supporters might be necessary for my assurance of its continuance.

All information that is elevated above its entertaining or instructive function has this character, be the producer Darwin or Einstein, Marx or Hitler, or Sonny Liston, Enid Blyton and Eric Clapton, or one or two, or the whole group, that wrote the texts collected in the Bible. And the battle between the Darwinists and the Christians is merely a gang war for territory, one final truth competing with the other for dominance, the scientists seeking elevation every bit as much as their opponents.

Completely outside such battles stands the individual who finds all truths replaceable with more useful truths, someone who have no use for the dictate in truths at all, but merely its possible instructiveness in felt need’s alleviation. Let’s move out of the collectivism cupboard and move on, let the old schemes be surpassed silently by what works better – the elevation of authority has become an antiquated way of thinking. Or so I think :-)

"Let’s move out of the collectivism cupboard and move on, let the old schemes be surpassed silently by what works better – the elevation of authority has become an antiquated way of thinking. Or so I think :-)"

Good morning. Perhaps you could say something about what you have in mind that works "better"? I must admit to you that I look around me at the world "we" have created in our own image & it's not clear to me that we have any good idea (certainly we have many opines) about what in the world would work better. So, being an ignorant man myself, I wonder if you might be able to shed some light?

I thought I had suggested that: replace final truths with temporary ones. Admittedly some truths look pretty final, but I can see no harm in letting them too be considered eventually replaceable.

We have already moved some way towards that in the West, truth is no longer universally seen as authority’s demand, but there is still a battle going on among the claimants to its ownership.

I don’t see the need to dispute any of those claimants’ particular entitlement to the throne; my argument is that pragmatism works better, considering things solely in its possible consequences: does it work better than what we already have?

"does it work better than what we already have?" --Jahn 5

It comes down then as usual to politics: who gets to decide?

anthonywillard: It comes down then as usual to politics: who gets to decide?

Some places the superior effectiveness of certain processes in alleviating needs proves itself with no authority certifying this; examples are people buying the best product (often helped by critics), and common law being established in an evolutionary way, here and there, there are examples of what is “the product of human action but not of human design.”

Of course this form of spontaneous order can not replace politics tomorrow; and perhaps not totally at any time. Personally I see no better way at the moment of preserving our fish stock than the quotas of the fisheries ministry. But that does not stop me from seeing freedom from authority’s coercion as something better working in the allocation of scarce resources when processes that allows freedom is possible. In the meantime we might try to keep our authorities as limited in power as possible, try to see to it that they keep within their mandate and so on. Democracy works to some degree in keeping politics representative of both the will of the mass and the individual.

Authority elevated above their function in a process is problematic in producing conflicts though,
Consider a little girl given an apple from her mother, she is happy with that gift until her brother receives one that looks bigger and she sees that as proof that she is less secure in her dependence on her parents than her brother is. She may howl in desperation, and demand redistribution. The apple is not in its inherent potentiality relevant; its relevance is here external to it, as are exam papers or church membership - it is proof that one deserves favours, and that such therefore are likely to be forthcoming.

It matters not what name the elevated authority is given, or even if the authority is father, teacher, boss, king or god, it matters only the amount of subservience to this authority. Doubt about being accepted as loyal to Mao or Hitler was at times nearly as fear inducing as must be presumed is observed disloyalty to certain gods by most of their half hearted believers. Though of course if you really believe that this life is only an examination for admittance to an afterlife, and even that eternal torture befalls those who fails, your fear may be worse than even what the Gestapo could have induced.

What you can say of those with a collective identity is that they have their life preservation instinct coupled to the cohesion in that membership. If you really see yourself as only rightfully existing through the fulfilment of membership criteria, what then indicates that the criteria may have changed, or you have lost the ability to observe them, or the accuracy in the control of the relevant demands’ compliance may have become lax, must be seen as threatening your very life. And the redress of this problem, when rightfully deserved favours are not forthcoming, is only the punishment of the undeserving as proof of the presumed order being in operation.

Which regretfully is not alleviating the fear, as the more justice in the form of punishment is seen as being done to the disloyal, the more dangerous it is for the loyal to be doubted, and the higher must be the demand for justice being done. Until one day all of the disloyal people are executed, incarcerated or expelled, and the loyal stand under a to the top elevated judiciary authority, with no one below them. Then new rules for inclusion among the favoured must be constructed, a part in this way expelled, that is civil war, or justice must be directed out of the existing domain of the authority.

If science is just another religion, where's the quarrel?

"I see no better way at the moment of preserving our fish stock than the quotas of the fisheries ministry. But that does not stop me from seeing freedom from authority’s coercion as something better working in the allocation of scarce resources when processes that allows freedom is possible." - Jahn

To continue with your apt example: I have no interest in preserving fish stocks. My interest is in using them while they last. Any mandate to allocate scarce resources is collectivist. And I am not the one making the choice unless I choose to act so as to promote the good of the collective. Could it happen that the good of the collective might preclude my having any use of the fish stocks? If so, what judgment should I make of such a situation?

#8
If science is just another religion, where's the quarrel?

Well you can’t have two truths about the same thing can you?

#9
To continue with your apt example: I have no interest in preserving fish stocks. My interest is in using them while they last. Any mandate to allocate scarce resources is collectivist. And I am not the one making the choice unless I choose to act so as to promote the good of the collective. Could it happen that the good of the collective might preclude my having any use of the fish stocks? If so, what judgment should I make of such a situation?

As far as I can see you are just detailing the problem I readily admitted? (When I solve the "tragedy of the commons" I'll tell everybody.) Another serious problem btw is the initiation stage of ownership, something nobody in the anti-collectivist camp has satisfactorily solved as a unification of interest (in my eyes). And many have not even noticed that this stage must be seen as continuous.

In my country Norway there are two, originally Danish, families, Treschow and Løvenskiold, that together own a fourth (or thereabouts) of Norway. This dates back to the occupation of Norway by Denmark, which began at a time when Norway didn’t even have a written language and there were no legal claims on land. The Danes were not as superior to the Norwegians as the European invaders to the Indians, but still the power imbalance was there. What if they had now owned 90 percent? Would I have been for a land reform? Indeed I would. Do I then renounce my view of private ownership as a prerequisite for freedom? Not at all, I believe measures can be functionally subjective.

As said, I am a pragmatist, I believe in temporary truths – functionality as the ideal. The best not necessarily something perfect weighed against something all bad. I consider collectivism bad in being worse than individualism. I see it as the prime requisite for war to appear, and likely to be a causal factor in it. But tomorrow I and everyone else will have to deal with a humanity largely adapted to and dependent on the world as it was yesterday.

I even believe that the same department in GDR and Communist Hungary may have been very divergent in efficacy, and that a preference between Christianity and Islam may be legitimate.

OK, I didn't understand that we agreed on that point. I don't like being a pragmatist, but you are right, the world will follow its course and I have to deal with it. :=)

What the F does "collectivism" have to do with religion vs. science?

But, yes, "atheist" is an information-poor word. I would say I am a philosophical physicalist or materialist or naturalist. I am a disbeliever in all forms of philosophical idealism.

The word "atheist" is just a club invented by the religious to beat a sane person over the head. Some sane people called themselves atheists as a red badge of courage. Whatever.

Science is based in the default position of materialism. The burden is on idealists to demonstrate some magical claim of theirs is actually real and is something that scientists have been and are over-looking. So far, 100 failure on the part of religionists.

Religion is based in belief in magic - supernatural entities or agencies, invisible and immaterial, creating the universe out of nothingness though an act of intention or will, interfering with the natural order to help this person, harm that person, etc.

The default position for science is that religion is crap, with the burden on religionists to demonstrate otherwise. So far, 100 per cent failure on the part of religionists.

So - did I miss anything? Does someone wish to offer up a weasel definition of "religion" that will pass muster with the sane? Knock yourself out.

12 JGL53

1. "Collecitivism" per se doesn't have any bearing on simple questions of religion's relation to science. It's just how this discussion veered off.

2. Even though you don't accept either one, I think there is some value in distinguishing between religion and philosophical idealism.

3. The notion of the existence of a god or some super-human power in the universe does not imply that god is intelligent in a way analogous to human intelligence, or that god is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, or benevolent. Or immaterial.

4. The default position of science, as you call it, has not so far been able to explain consciousness. Not to say it won't, perhaps in the near future, but it is possible that consciousness is the Achilles heel of materialism.

I am eagerly awaiting further light on all these questions. The most useful additions to knowledge at this point are coming from physics, biology, and cognitive science.

What the F does "collectivism" have to do with religion vs. science?

I used the word collectivist so as to include a religious person deliberately. That may have been stupid insofar as I must expect to be seen as referring to socialists alone, and wrong insofar that that the materialistic collectivism in communistic ideology may then need a new word to describe it.

What I meant was someone with a group identity, which socialists and the religious and anybody acting with uncoerced obedience to an elevated authority of sorts do have, and which I consider as by necessity producing enmity towards the disobedient.

It obviously produced misunderstandings here – I’ll probably use the term group identity the next time.

>13 anthonywillard:

4. The default position of science, as you call it, has not so far been able to explain consciousness. Not to say it won't, perhaps in the near future, but it is possible that consciousness is the Achilles heel of materialism.

------------------

All scientific cognitive research to date, and some amazing things are going on right now, seem to indicate beyond all reasonable doubt that the brain, a material object, produces a function that we refer to as "consciousness" or "mind". All this to date seems rather natural, not supernatural in nature.

A confusion is caused, admittedly by the form of referring to a function, which is verb, as a noun - another kind of gerund. The brain minds or consciousnessess, it does not produce a "thing" called mind or consciousness.

Understanding or explanation of observed phenomena are at different levels of confidence, and many observed phenomena go without any reasonable theory of mechanism, but science marches on under the assumption of materialism or physicalism, not only because it "works" but that it is the only way to even have science. Idealism = magic. Magic = no understanding whatsoever. If we inject magic into science, then science is no longer science.

Here's a way to appreciate science's dependence on and assumption of materialism or physicalism at all times: Go to a library and procure a PDR - a Physician's Desk Reference - or borrow a F&C - Facts and Comparisons - from your local pharmacist.

Look up a number of drugs at random and check the "mechanism of action" section. You will be surprised to find "unknown" listed for many drugs.

Do those who develop these drugs suspect there may be a unknown mechanism explicable by some philosophical idealism? Uh, no. They assume a material mechanism unknown at present but perhaps discoverable in the future.

I'd become a idealist in an instant if there were any evidence for any idealism. Do you know of any? If so, please share.

>14 jahn:

Then under your definition of collectivist I am not a collectivist. OK, then.

(Just so long as I establish the fact that I am not an ayn rand objectivist. LOL.)

15 JGL53:

All scientific cognitive research to date, and some amazing things are going on right now, seem to indicate beyond all reasonable doubt that the brain, a material object, produces a function that we refer to as "consciousness" or "mind". All this to date seems rather natural, not supernatural in nature. --JGL53

I would like to distinguish between the two dichotomies: material/nonmaterial, and natural/supernatural. I have not so far been referring to anything natural or supernatural.

My opinion of the state of understanding in the mind sciences is that there is not any theory of consciousness agreed upon "beyond all reasonable doubt". That the material nervous system is deeply involved in mind, or necessary for mind to occur, seems to be agreed. It seems to be agreed that the nervous system is necessary also for consciousness, but not that it is sufficient for consciousness. That the mind and consciousness are identical, and not two different things, does not seem to be agreed. That the nervous system produces, as you say, mind or consciousness, is perhaps true, but I do not see that there is agreement on how. I agree that it is all completely natural. I agree that work in this area is making great strides. I do not think that natural necessarily implies material, though materiality may turn out to be what everything is.

A confusion is caused, admittedly by the form of referring to a function, which is verb, as a noun - another kind of gerund. The brain minds or consciousnessess, it does not produce a "thing" called mind or consciousness. --JGL53

In the preceding paragraph you noted that "the brain . . . produces a function." You say here that the function it produces is not a thing. Similar, I suppose, to saying that a visual impression, produced by the eye, or light, or the optic nerve, is not a thing. Or even that a table is not a thing. This is a separate question and has no bearing on my statements in this thread. It makes no difference to what I am saying if consciousness is regarded as a thing or as a process.

Understanding or explanation of observed phenomena are at different levels of confidence, and many observed phenomena go without any reasonable theory of mechanism, but science marches on under the assumption of materialism or physicalism, not only because it "works" but that it is the only way to even have science. Idealism = magic. Magic = no understanding whatsoever. If we inject magic into science, then science is no longer science. --JGL53

Science deals only with material causation. That is its premise. That this is so is well understood. To say that "Idealism = magic" is sort of a crude metaphor. I hesitate to think of Kant or Descartes as necromancers, but perhaps it will be shown that that is what they were. But to complain about your interlocutors interjecting magic into science is battling with a straw man. I do not interject magic into science.

I pass by your suggestion regarding the mechanism of action of pharmaceuticals. You assume I am an idiot.

I'd become a idealist in an instant if there were any evidence for any idealism. --JGL53

I can't say as much for myself. It would depend on the evidence. It would take plenty of evidence and of a high quality to convince me to become an idealist.

natural/supernatural

Worst fucking dichotomy ever.

18: Right on.

But at the end of the day, what do we have? Materialism + agnosticism. What else?

@ 20 JGL53:I would say we have less. We do not have completely unassailable materialism (though as stated, in the disciplines of science, the assumption of materialism is prerequisite). We do not have agnosticism in the sense of an assertion that knowledge is not possible, only that knowledge is not yet certain. We can make assessments of probability, to guide our researches in the most profitable channels, we have the realms of imagination to spur our creativity, and we still have a lot of work ahead of us. At this point in history it is mainly the sciences that will show the next steps.

Obediently following someone into a war because he is supposed to be in contact with a top god, or obediently following someone who is presumed to have himself better knowledge of the reasons for going to war, in possessing a Nobel Prize or whatever, makes no bloody difference to the final body count. To an individualist, any claim for a divergence in opinion between the two obedient ones must be an exercise in futile semantics.

12

Religion is concerned with life and existence as a unity and coherence of meaning.

In so far as it is impossible to live at all without presupposing a meaningful existence, the life of every person is religious, with the possible exception of the rare sceptic who is more devoted to the observation of life than living it, and whose interest in detailed facts is more engrossing than his or her concern for ultimate meaning and coherence. Even such persons have usually constructed a little cosmos in a world which they regard as chaos and derive vitality and direction from their faith in the organizing purpose of this cosmos.

Reinhold Neibuhr distinguishes high religion from the religion of both primitives and ultra-moderns by its effort to bring the whole reality and existence into some system of coherence. The primitives are satisfied by some limited cosmos, and the moderns by a superficial one. For primitive man the unity of the tribe or the majesty and mystery of some natural force- the sun, the moon, the mountain, or the generative process- may be the sacred centre of a meaningful existence. For modern man the observable sequences of natural law or the supposedly increasing values of human cooperation are sufficient to establish a sense of spiritual security and to banish the fear of chaos and meaninglessness which has hung over the humanity throughout the ages.

> 23

So I practice high religion even though I am an atheist.

Gee. Who would have thunk.

One of the best quotes I've seen in this argument is "If science is just another religion, where's the quarrel?" (by Jesse_wiedinmyer)

How can us humans claim to be in authority but not under authority? Especially when we as humans only have the "power" (ability) to make things, not create things. Asolute truth does exist. Anything without order ends up in chaos. All or any human that claims absolute power also ascribes to absolute corruption.

"Expect nothing to gain "everything!"
M.D. Birmingham

#25: mdbirmingham

One of the best quotes I've seen in this argument is "If science is just another religion, where's the quarrel?" (by Jessewiedinmyer)

My reaction to that, which I will stick to, was that more than one claim of possessing the truth is exactly what provides ground for quarrel. So the question is unqualified. Disqualifying superstition is perhaps better done with pragmatism – not denying anything but the workability in superstition. You simply can not prove that lamp posts are not Martians in disguise, but you can logically show that this is not useful information – and that it might be the very opposite.

How can we humans claim to be in authority but not under authority?
Especially when we as humans only have the "power" (ability) to make things, not create things.

The premise here is that a creator with great affinity to a human “maker” (carpenter, shoemaker etc) must have fashioned what exists out of nothing for it to exist. This premise has faults: it demands a prior stage of nothingness apart from a creator, and the ability to fashion something from nothing. “Per causam sui,” it’s own cause, Spinoza begins his explanation of his god - from such a premise nothing can be accepted as a conclusion.
The alternative to “I know,” need not be “I know better” – it can simply be: “While I do not see the claim proven, I lack the ability to explain what is to be explained with my available methods of explanation, but I still do not consider those methods perfect.”

Asolute truth does exist.

That is merely a claim, like “Elvis is alive and living in Guatemala.”

Anything without order ends up in chaos. All or any human that claims absolute power also ascribes to absolute corruption.

As far as I understand the two sentences I agree. Order exists and dictatorship is damnation. With an elevated authority, be that one alive and commanding a great army, or only one represented by books and priests, subjugation to him or her must be an elevation of oneself above those not so subjugated (or the elevated one is not worth elevating). And those non-obedient have been persecuted as long as elevated authority (authority beyond proven competence) has existed.

The problem with religion is not the beliefs in supernatural entities, or its rites, but the belief in authority, in seeing it as proved what has not been examined and found instructive in control of processes. It makes one a marionette puppet of authority, and one with a vested interest in the discrimination of the non-loyal.

One might see all those in uniform killing people they have not come to know as all suffering from a lack of mental autonomy, and so to be searching mental imprisonment (loyalty) in fear of chaos. And with the possibility of everyone and his aunt soon possessing atom bombs, and with a lot of them also in need of proving his or her loyalty by killing infidels for guaranteed admittance to a heaven, letting the religious just keep their soothing faith may not be an option we can any longer allow ourselves or them.

Jahn, I have no idea what you are about in this discussion. The original topic was The Quarrel between Science and Religion.... That, of course, presumes that there is a "quarrel," which is far from clear, but it also presumes that one has a clear conception of what constitutes science and what constitutes religion. So far you have alluded to magic, a servile mentality, the "supernatural," and a variety of other terms, which, apparently you think are associated with religion. Maybe they sometimes are, but is that what you really believe religion is all about?

What you SEEM to be doing, and, again, I don't really have a clue what you think you are doing, is equating religion to ideologies such as fascism and Marxist-Leninism-Stalinism. That is peculiar, since those ideologies have been, at best, neutral toward religion and the latter was openly hostile toward it.

On the topic of science, similar remarks seem appropriate. Science, in my understanding, is not a quest for one TRUTH contrary to another TRUTH. It is a method for reducing errors by eliminating hypotheses that might be true but turn out not to be true. Actually, it is not even that. It is, rather, a method for reducing the range of certain hypotheses about causal connections. Methods tell us little about the nature of REALITY AS SUCH, which seems close to what you are seeking.

Perhaps you would like to start over with some definitions and premises and show us how your views flow from those definitions and premises to the many conclusions you have thrown out above?

@ 26 jahn:

Good critique, Jahn. I am copying out some of your points for further thought.

To my understanding one of the quarrels between science and religion is the method used to find the truth. My religion relies on revelation and faith. Truth to the scientist is an experiment that can be duplicated.
I do feel that I can accept the use of both methods depending on the question to be answered.

@ 27 lawecon: Jahn did not initiate this thread, so he need not be held strictly responsible for defining its scope. He did head it off in another direction, and the opening topic did not get discussed much.

Jahn has claimed that organized religion (churches, etc.) have sociological characteristics in common with all other forms of social authority, and he has drawn various conclusions from that.

I appreciate your succinct definitions of the aims of science.

-30

Yes, I know Jahn didn't initiate this thread. I must say that I was rather interested in what the initiator had to say, but he seems to have disappeared. If Jahn had paid some attention to the initial post, rather than launched off into a sermon of his own, he might have realized that what he has in mind by "religion" apparently wasn't the same as what the the initial poster seemed to have in mind.

In any case, thank you for the clarification. If I understand the distinction you have made, it is similar to the distinction often drawn between "separation of state and religion" vs. "separation of church and state." Another interesting discussion, but, perhaps, one better reserved for another thread where that is the topic at hand.

I'll tell you what, since Jahn wants to have a discussion about the sociology of religion, and since I think a discussion about the sociology of religious institutions is vacuous for lack of specificity, let me initiate another thread on types of belief, religious and otherwise, and see where that one goes. Let's call it "fundamentalism."

I must say I agree with Lawecon in that "Jahn, I have no idea what you are about in this discussion," but I will offer a response to your "rebuttals."

1st
One of the best quotes I've seen in this argument is "If science is just another religion, where's the quarrel?" (by Jessewiedinmyer)

I believe the point you attempt to make per your example provided is better thought of as the difference posed between inductive reasoning versus deductive reasoning.

My point better clarified is religion versus science is like one trying to compare "apples to oranges." Religion is based on faith, magic is superstition, science is empirical data. Consequently regarding religion one cannot "compare" catholicism, hindhism, buddhism, muslims, etc one against the other. They all use different "sacred texts" and within the religion they hold it to be true via faith (belief w/o empirical data for each individual matter).

A "religion" is the "belief in something, be it a completely understood system or not." Therefore the "belief" in science can as well be easily ascribed to of it being its own religion. One problem is our finite level of knowledge despite the 1000's of years of cumulation. Think of this question, what is the percentage of our brain that we use?

Lastly, I put your rebuttals to these two following parts together:

2nd- "Asolute" truth does exist.
3rd- Anything without order ends up in chaos. All or any human that claims absolute power also ascribes to absolute corruption.
I put them together and will state that your response appears to be very pragmatic in approach or relativistic to my initial post. So, any response provided wouldn't suffice to accurately deal with your views responses because they are very mutable in that school of thought (you seem to use) I previously stated above. However, I will offer one question towards your nature of views. What of free-will? Why would humans have free-will if they were to be controlled strictly by the "puppet master?" Why would there be "one with a vested interest in the discrimination of the non-loyal?" (key aspect is the discrimination towards "non-loyal" if you have free-will aka choice)

Lawecon

The expression of displeasure within a debate (I am referring to your posting # 27above) - be the words meant as such, or merely seen as such - can only be replied to with the same, although possibly with an escalation, as in “ditto - and then ditto.” And this again only with perhaps one more up, as in: “I double ditto your double ditto!”

The regrettable problem that reveals itself is that the past is already chosen, and where alternatives are lacking, as with offense already taken, more of the same is the only option. Although more of the same may be in the opposite direction on the same road – an attempt to redress a felt imbalance so to say.

This failed attempt at disagreement happens by necessity where a periphery – “a choice space” – is lacking, and this is always lacking within a membership identity, as the criteria for membership that is to be continually satisfied lies in ones remembrance. Believers are, in lack of the individualist’s periphery, surrounded by disbelievers like a skin; counter pressure is the only option to imagined or real pressure – the brain is given a body function.

What have I tried to say? – I have commented upon your anger by calling it a necessity; and by claiming - exactly as I have done earlier – that this anger happens by necessity with the elevation of authority (the glue in membership cohesion). I have done so with a geometrical illustration; that is with the consideration of history as lacking a periphery, any alternative roads beyond the opposite on the same road – and I have claimed that in a group identity (which I take to be the same as elevation of authority), you always lack a periphery of alternative futures.

Now, the possibility of you accepting this as understandable I take to be slight, I could bet a couple of dollars you’ll see it as grossly offensive while still perfectly illogical, so Ill try to put it in a less comprehensive way (you may consider only the rest of this paragraph): The capacity to follow blindly must be in place before one does so, and therefore represents, so to speak, “an open door.” The argument is alike to Spencer’s warning against Communism through the ease of making a coup with strongly centralised power. The fault is seen as systemic, you can not choose what’s not to be chosen.

As for scientists battling religions for possession of the absolute or final truth; I have used this illustration from Santayana here before, but I think it is a good one: The Universe of Ptolemy was a perfectly adequate explanation of the phenomena that was then to be explained, those that believe in a different destiny for Einstein’s Universe than what has happened to Ptolemy’s (replace Einstein with Hawking or whoever is most modern) suffers from superstition.

If “true” scientists never suffer from such a superstition, never elevates themselves to representatives of “scientific geniuses” in competition with representatives of gods for the handing further down of final truths, never elevate themselves up towards the elevated in making distance to those left below, then of course my comparison is wrong for “true” scientists.

It is amazing to me, Jahn, that you perceive what I have said as anger or a personal attack. What I have done is expresss disappointment and perplexity.

I am disappointed that what appeared to be an interesting thread was hijacked into an unrelated discussion about "collectivism." The generally acceptable way to raise a new topic is to initiate a new thread.

I am perplexed by much of what you have to say - it appears to be rambling, rather than having any unified theme, to the point where even individual sentences don't seem to be internally coherent or coherent at all.

Please do not project your frustrations on to me or attempt to transform observations about reality into some sort of personal offense. Things are as they are. If you find them distasteful, change them.

~ 32

My point better clarified is religion versus science is like one trying to compare "apples to oranges." Religion is based on faith, magic is superstition, science is empirical data. Consequently regarding religion one cannot "compare" catholicism, hindhism, buddhism, muslims, etc one against the other. They all use different "sacred texts" and within the religion they hold it to be true via faith (belief w/o empirical data for each individual matter).

==============================

Again, I think we need considerable clarification before we begin discussion. For instance, I agree completely with your point that one cannot compare religions like Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. However, I suspect we mean different things whe we agree on that principle. You believe that these religions cannot be compared because they are grounded in different texts. I believe that they cannot compared because they are about different enterprises. Religions like Baptism or Buddhism, for instance, are largely about the purity of ones thoughts, according to particular standards. A religion like Judaism is largely about the rightness of actions, with the purity of thoughts being at best secondary. Religions like Catholicism and Sunni Islam are in between those two "extremes."

And, again, I think that the conceptions of science that seem to be floating around in a number of posts in this thread are quite unclear.

I'm pleased that you have managed to lay off the capital letters Lawecon, it's an improvement. Next time you could try lessening the repetitions - you would be more convincing then when claiming composure.

There are flutes that only play one note (and poorly).

You're very welcome in the "ditto" crowd here theoria. I hope you will read the first two paragraphs of my message 33 as part of our last encounter.

But (35) lawecon, aren't you in this message comparing these religions? How does one relate to what is ultimate and important? Through the law? Through purity of thought? I don't understand at all the notion that you can't compare religions, having, I thought 'til now, done it and used my comparisons to form my own relations with the universe.

Robert

Just found this and thought I'd pass it on in a few threads:

250 Free Online Courses from Top Universities

http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses

~ 39

Giood clarification. The point I meant to agree with was that merely because we apply the term "religions" to a number of human belief systems does not make them essentially the same. Perhaps that was not what the original poster meant.

As I also meant to convey, I, for one, find it not very informative to refer to a particular belief system - or a particular person - as "religious." For many purposes, it is often much more important to know what the person or belief system is asserting about the role of such beliefs in life. The person who believes that G_d is directing their every action, and that every historical event is part of "G_d's plan," is in many ways not much different than someone who worships "Our Great Leader" or "Our Race" or "The Race" or other focuses of obsession rather than a god.

~36

I am sorry that you apparently don't understand the point of capital letters in some written discussions.

You know, you really should get over this focus on yourself and on the mental state of others. Most of us realize that this is a context where we are mutually anonymous. In such a context a sane person couldn't care less about whether others of us are legends in their own minds or are pleased or displeased with what they preceive to be our mental states.

#42
Thoughts appear within their felt need, and not as self generated in a vacuum. To understand what you are attempting in above posting it is necessary to find a need that the words could represent.

41, lawecon, I do agree that those examples you gave are religious or religious-like depending on your definition of religion. I wonder if Tolstoy would put them among the religions that concentrate on relating to the universe through worldly things (I know I have not exactly captured his categories there)? I also wonder whether or not that is getting off track.

Robert

I haveyet to receive a reply from Jahn which tells me that this philosophical debate is "stalemate." Especially if your approach is one pragmatic in nature then it will not have a "unified" approach (or I will relate it to be simply known as a non-logical approach).

35, Lawecon-You mentioned clarification which I will gladly attempt to do for you. In 32 I stated, "They all use different "sacred texts" and within the religion they hold it to be true via faith (belief w/o empirical data for each individual matter)." Because of their different texts one may also presume that the "enterprise," although may be different, do share a "base" fundamental. That base fundamental, despite the time era, is that we are human and have innate traits that we express throughout time such as happiness/laughter and sadness/crying to name a few.
Additionally, now your opinion may differ, but I say the "enterprise" is within the faith/text because the thought, no matter how brief, always preceeds the action (we can discuss reflexive actions in more detail if you present a by-product argument). This holds to be true if you are in agreement with the idea that humans are "potential" beings, not in the state of "actuality." Therefore the "enterprise" may be of different social and cultural constructs but can share logical fundamental basics.
Is it possible to consist solely of purity of actions and successfully achieve it while maintaing "un-pure thoughts?" Then the following question if "yes" poses questions in the direction of what is a "man's" heart, an organ or his soul? Is man comprised of mind, body, and soul?
These uestions

I haveyet to receive a reply from Jahn which tells me that this philosophical debate is "stalemate." Especially if your approach is one pragmatic in nature then it will not have a "unified" approach (or I will relate it to be simply known as a non-logical approach).

35, Lawecon-You mentioned clarification which I will gladly attempt to do for you. In 32 I stated, "They all use different "sacred texts" and within the religion they hold it to be true via faith (belief w/o empirical data for each individual matter)." Because of their different texts one may also presume that the "enterprise," although may be different, do share a "base" fundamental. That base fundamental, despite the time era, is that we are human and have innate traits that we express throughout time such as happiness/laughter and sadness/crying to name a few.
Additionally, now your opinion may differ, but I say the "enterprise" is within the faith/text because the thought, no matter how brief, always preceeds the action (we can discuss reflexive actions in more detail if you present a by-product argument). This holds to be true if you are in agreement with the idea that humans are "potential" beings, not in the state of "actuality." Therefore the "enterprise" may be of different social and cultural constructs but can share logical fundamental basics.
Is it possible to consist solely of purity of actions and successfully achieve it while maintaing "un-pure thoughts?" Then the following question if "yes" poses questions in the direction of what is a "man's" heart, an organ or his soul? Is man comprised of mind, body, and soul?
These uestions only

I haveyet to receive a reply from Jahn which tells me that this philosophical debate is "stalemate." Especially if your approach is one pragmatic in nature then it will not have a "unified" approach (or I will relate it to be simply known as a non-logical approach).

35, Lawecon-You mentioned clarification which I will gladly attempt to do for you. In 32 I stated, "They all use different "sacred texts" and within the religion they hold it to be true via faith (belief w/o empirical data for each individual matter)." Because of their different texts one may also presume that the "enterprise," although may be different, do share a "base" fundamental. That base fundamental, despite the time era, is that we are human and have innate traits that we express throughout time such as happiness/laughter and sadness/crying to name a few.
Additionally, now your opinion may differ, but I say the "enterprise" is within the faith/text because the thought, no matter how brief, always preceeds the action (we can discuss reflexive actions in more detail if you present a by-product argument). This holds to be true if you are in agreement with the idea that humans are "potential" beings, not in the state of "actuality." Therefore the "enterprise" may be of different social and cultural constructs but can share logical fundamental basics.
Is it possible to consist solely of purity of actions and successfully achieve it while maintaing "un-pure thoughts?" Then the following question if "yes" poses questions in the direction of what is a "man's" heart, an organ or his soul? Is man comprised of mind, body, and soul?
These uestions only are

I haveyet to receive a reply from Jahn which tells me that this philosophical debate is "stalemate." Especially if your approach is one pragmatic in nature then it will not have a "unified" approach (or I will relate it to be simply known as a non-logical approach).

35, Lawecon-You mentioned clarification which I will gladly attempt to do for you. In 32 I stated, "They all use different "sacred texts" and within the religion they hold it to be true via faith (belief w/o empirical data for each individual matter)." Because of their different texts one may also presume that the "enterprise," although may be different, do share a "base" fundamental. That base fundamental, despite the time era, is that we are human and have innate traits that we express throughout time such as happiness/laughter and sadness/crying to name a few.
Additionally, now your opinion may differ, but I say the "enterprise" is within the faith/text because the thought, no matter how brief, always preceeds the action (we can discuss reflexive actions in more detail if you present a by-product argument). This holds to be true if you are in agreement with the idea that humans are "potential" beings, not in the state of "actuality." Therefore the "enterprise" may be of different social and cultural constructs but can share logical fundamental basics.
Is it possible to consist solely of purity of actions and successfully achieve it while maintaing "un-pure thoughts?" Then the following question if "yes" poses questions in the direction of what is a "man's" heart, an organ or his soul? Is man comprised of mind, body, and soul?
These uestions only are asked

I have yet to receive a reply from Jahn which tells me that this philosophical debate is "stalemate." Especially if your approach is one pragmatic in nature then it will not have a "unified" approach (or I will relate it to be simply known as a non-logical approach).

35, Lawecon-You mentioned clarification which I will gladly attempt to do for you. In 32 I stated, "They all use different "sacred texts" and within the religion they hold it to be true via faith (belief w/o empirical data for each individual matter)." Because of their different texts one may also presume that the "enterprise," although may be different, do share a "base" fundamental. That base fundamental, despite the time era, is that we are human and have innate traits that we express throughout time such as happiness/laughter and sadness/crying to name a few.
Additionally, now your opinion may differ, but I say the "enterprise" is within the faith/text because the thought, no matter how brief, always preceeds the action (we can discuss reflexive actions in more detail if you present a by-product argument). This holds to be true if you are in agreement with the idea that humans are "potential" beings, not in the state of "actuality." Therefore the "enterprise" may be of different social and cultural constructs but can share logical fundamental basics.
Is it possible to consist solely of purity of actions and successfully achieve it while maintaing "un-pure thoughts?" Then the following question if "yes" poses questions in the direction of what is a "man's" heart, an organ or his soul? Is man comprised of mind, body, and soul?
These questions only are asked clarify if you still hold we mean different things regarding your agreement but with possibility of us meaning different things?

Mdbirmingham #45 through #49

Sorry Md. You say, seconding Lawecon, that you don't get what I am on about, and I regretfully have to believe you there, even though you attempt a rebuttal of what you say you don’t understand. So an answer along the lines of: "I did not say what you seem to argue against," coupled with: "what I actually meant to say was," does seem a somewhat meaningless activity. I see us both as possibly disappearing in smoke, getting more and more invisible to each other.

That you have spent some time on your last posting directed at me (#32), should of course demand some effort on an answer on my part, I should in politeness have produced at least some kind of answer.

It is not a good substitute for a serious consideration of your rebuttals, but I will make another attempt at explaining my coupling of subjugation to authority to all kinds of authorities, directed towards all here. Consider a robot programmed to do two things: hand out food to starving and kill indiscriminatingly, both jobs which he performs evenhandedly. One might want to squash that robot, or his program, in spite of his good work. If, as I have suggested, humanity’s capacity for acceptance of authority above demonstrated competence (to follow blindly) must exist before anyone accepts authority, then the door is open for one being the instrument (as the robot) of both evil and good. I have not denied one type of “categorical imperative” being legitimately seen as preferably followed to another; I have asked if with the capacity for accepting such you have a robot that kills and saves.

Yes it’s all repetitions of repetitions, sorry about that. It is as simply put as I can manage (the control of the English language may fail me though, English is not my native one). To oppose it, I guess that you may say that good leaders can be discerned as such blindly, that the good leaders “reveal themselves” to those capable of good only, while bad leaders don’t reveal themselves at all, but are followed in criminal un-revelation. Or something along this line?

(The coupling to science is in the last paragraph of #33)

Jahn

During the beginning of my point made in #32 I apologize for I had not read your post#5 stating of your belief in Pragmatism. Interestingly enough, I was able to realize your pragmatic "ways" and its mutable belief system. Because you hold a pragmatic belief system it no logical argument can ever be made with you for even if agreement is made, what you agree as truth/valid today is subject to change at any moment.

The problem with a pragmatic view is that it abhors any idea of "authority" (external authority-outside of itself). Pragmatism when deduced to its fundamental base is a very "selfish" way of thinking. Selfish as meaning "I accept it to be true because it best fits my interests, but if I don't agree with part of the picture, I will find reason to dislike the entire thing." Now having said that, the following quote isn't to be viewed scripturally, but more so logically: "The love of money is the root of all evil, therefore selfishness must be the seed," M.D. Birmingham.

Pragmatism isn't too far removed from atheism in that it ascribes to the belief in one or many objects as a "god" until the circumstance causes for a change, but even in the belief of many objects the idea of authority is still upheld. The authoritative view is holds order by what works best first and then the sequential order continues with the quality of the object's relation of being "best." All I state holds support to my initial belief hence its within one context free of confliction and contradiction within itself as does one with your view of things; pragmatism. Pragmatists have a conflict with their finite knowledge, "it only holds true to what I know." Keyword in that statement is "I." Therefore science does become another religion and all its data empirically known to be true, is an accumulation of "man's" findings which is finite. However, logically, even pragmatism believes in "authority" (authority of order).

Now as my initial post stated, "One of the best quotes I've seen in this argument is "If science is just another religion, where's the quarrel?" (by Jessewiedinmyer)" I still hold true.

Now I am certain your refute will state of some lengthy circumstance based analogy that appears to hold true but when dissected it only maintains circumstanial truth at best, if any.

I have a suggested reading for you specifically, (anyone is welcome to do so as well) if you care to gain knowledge of the "real world." Go read "Getting There... The story within the life becoming the life within the story," to gain a different perspective that will change your ideas of what you hold as true. I dare you and/or anyone to do this challenge but know that within the book no religion is mentioned and there is not scriptural text; a mere autobiography. I dare you because I know you will devise some reason not to partake in this challenge claiming that it holds motives based within money and/or self praise. My challenge warrants neither of those reasons but truly better to see if you believe you have nothing further to learn regarding your perspective of life.

M.D. Birmingham

Getting There... The story within the life becoming the life within the story by M.D. Birmingham.

"If science is just another religion, where's the quarrel?"

As someone who doesn't believe that science is just another religion, I appreciate your appreciation, but would like to state that I think you're reading the wrong intent into my statement or appropriating it to your own ends.

I do nnot understand the misappropriation of the statement when all my initial statement claims was that I agreed/like your quote of post #8. It wasn't within any prior context, therefore if you meant to appropriate it differently then so be it, but I only stated that it was one of the best quotes within the argument, nothing more nothing less. The question to be asked is am I accurately appropriating it to my own ends/theory?

By no means does that mean that you believe science is another religion but merely that your quote was one I agreed with and illustrated why.

BTW thank you Mr. Durick for the added attachment.

#51

Nobody but the utterly mad feel free to discount what they do not like, but some of us will accept only as informative what can be instructive in a particular process. And on top of that be willing to leave the door open for even more instructive information regarding the same process to appear – with the claim of it being an improvement upon existing information always demanding empirical verification.

Science does not have to compete with religion; it can limit itself to improvement on what information it has so far produced, and make no more demands for its appreciation than its employability in influencing the phenomena that decides our life’s circumstances. But some scientists - and some philosophers also - have decided they want more, they want authority for themselves, for their vocation and its masters, over and beyond applied competence. And in my opinion – for what it’s worth – this attitude is well represented by those who want to prove the gods non-existence, an absurd endeavour in demanding an opposite on the lever used – an alternative final truth.

I remember De Quincy in some article trying to defend the Christian miracles against logic’s demand on proof being constituent of what is being attempted proved (something obviously bothering him). The dilemma is understandable in the logic of Heraclitus’ words: “Listen not to me but to the meaning.” When you listen to the names of Hitler, Mother Theresa, Stephen Hawkins, or Spinoza instead of a possible verifiable claim of instructive information being presented, then you have discounted the one and only possible method of filtering out dangerous ideas (and also of understanding what’s fundamentally new ideas).

The religious miracles as well as the willing martyrdom of the religious don’t prove their ideas right or wrong, it is simply a faulty argument, as is the gods themselves being gods. What is a legitimate argument against deification of tradition, rationalism, houses, or whatever, is the possible negative influence it may have on endeavours we agree on the worthiness of – like the abolishment of war, violence, misunderstandings, stupidity, silliness … whatever.

Ps: I need no “device” to disregard your “challenge” - that is a non-act demanding nothing of me. I am actually a true giant when it comes to not-doing - there’s billions and billions of things I have not even bothered to eliminate as worthy of attention – I disregard them with no effort at all, and this merely by finding an interest in something else. I think perhaps this ability is more easily acquired on water than on roads, on a canvas instead of a keyboard, in places where the method of elimination is obviously rather time wasting.

To understand what you are attempting in above posting it is necessary to find a need that the words could represent.
=======================

In order to understand English sentences, one must first be able to construct English sentences.

#55 - jahn

"...Science does not have to compete with religion; it can limit itself to improvement on what information it has so far produced, and make no more demands for its appreciation than its employability in influencing the phenomena that decides our life’s circumstances. But some scientists - and some philosophers also - have decided they want more, they want authority for themselves, for their vocation and its masters, over and beyond applied competence. And in my opinion – for what it’s worth – this attitude is well represented by those who want to prove the gods non-existence, an absurd endeavour in demanding an opposite on the lever used – an alternative final truth."

There are no limits on science. There never will be any limits on science in societies that are democracies.

If you don't like the findings of science, then that is just too bad.

Science will not limit itself in any way just to please you or others, or because you or others are made...uncomfortable...by the findings of science.

Science to date has found the gods superfluous, supererogatory, useless as an explanation for anything whatsoever, and meaningless as anything other than human created mythos - a cultural phenomenon anthropologists study, among other things.

Science marches on. Attempts by religion to hold it back will be utterly useless.

Have a nice day.

I'm not after any external limits on science, and I have not declared any of their true findings illegitimate; I just want to declare that not all claims by scientists are strictly scientific, and that every now and then they too want to dictate instead of reveal.

> 58

No human is an infallible god. All humans, including scientists, are fallible and always capable of honest error, or dishonesty, or flights of narcissism.

This is not new information to anyone, I hope.

We all seem to be battling our own private straw man here? I know: it suffices with me speaking for me alone, and besides I am the only one here who claims that as a virtue – speaking for either everyone or oneself only I mean. And perhaps I am the only one who finds the whole theme a bit of a joke too? That there should be available a quarrel without agreement on the value of what the opponent is denied the rightful possession of?

That joke has a certain artistic quality that appeals to me, like that of William Wilson who met his doppelganger in the street one day, went out to kill him in the night, and came back and found out it was himself he had murdered. And on that surrealistic note I just ramble on.

Regarding our theme, blah, blah, blah, I just read Jesús Huerta de Soto, in his chapter on F. A. Hayek in The Austrian School: Market Order and Entrepreneurial Creativity try to indicate a conversion to religiosity at the end of Hayek’s life. On page 78 he writes that we will never know “whether he was able to comprehend and accept that supreme “anthropomorphic” being which far surpasses his own understanding. However we do know that Hayek comprehended better than anyone the risk of deifying human reason…” The paragraph ending with: “To the point that, as Hayek writes in the last sentence of his last book: “on that question may rest the survival of our civilisation.””

De Soto is obviously religious, but, as I am not, the argument seems to be that if all superstition is placed where human impotence is considered the almightiness of someone very much like the powerless one, then, where some amount of power observably does exist, this power will not as easily be considered almightiness. Or more crudely: let’s keep blind faith where it belongs – away from science. But let us consider the quoted from work.

First of all it must be mentioned that that Hayek alone actually wrote the The Fatal Conceit is sincerely doubted by at least two of his biographers. Alan Ebenstein and Bruce Caldwell both are adamant that this book to a large degree is the work of W.W. Bartley III. Which makes things a bit complicated; but chapter nine, “Religion and the guardians of tradition,” which contains the line quoted, does contain Hayek’s coupling of traditions and common law with the market’s spontaneous order and some speculation on the possibility of coupling religiosity to this.

What he does seem to realise in the mentioned chapter is that his evolutionary law, his conservative soul’s elevation of tradition, demands blind trust (my claim for sure), and that this trust being blind makes it a religion. So he is simply suggesting naming social traditions God. Here’s another part of that last paragraph:

“Perhaps what many people mean in speaking of God is just a personification of that tradition of morals and values that keeps their community alive. The source of order that religion ascribes to a human-like divinity – the map or guide that will show a part successfully how to move within a whole – we now learn to see not to be outside the physical world but one of its characteristics, one far too complex for any of its parts to form an “image” or a “picture” of it.”

This is the “God” whose “finding” Hayek (or Hayek & Bartlett) sees the survival of our civilisation depending on. I think I discern in it a suggested correct deification of Conservative social structure in competition with the “fatal conceit” of Socialism (the deification of rationality); which of course parallels my suggestion of enemies agreeing above – if anyone has read it.

Here is Edna Ullmann-Margalit’s criticism of this traditionalistic “God” (Social Research, Summer, 1997):

“…When a social item is to be explained (a practice, a norm, an institution), it cannot in general be assumed that it has withstood the generations-long evolutionary test - it may be too recent for that. Nor can it in general be assumed that it fulfills a positive function that contributes to the survival and well-being of the society incorporating it - it may, for example, promote sectarian interests, or it may lack a function (in the relevant sense) altogether. The attributes of lastingness and of overall positive functionality have to be ascertained, case by case, rather than presupposed.”

“…But for all that this explanation tells us, the social institution thus explained could have come about in any one of a number of ways. It could have originated, somehow, through people's "stumbling upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design," in Ferguson's words. However, it could also, for that matter, have come about as a result of intentional design and careful execution by some enlightened ruler or clever committee--and yet the explanation of its continued existence would still count as an invisible-hand explanation of the evolutionary kind.”

In short: she’s not for any blind trust in tradition, she accepts the Smithian invisible hand as a synchronic spontaneous organization, she rejects Hayek’s diachronistic, or evolutionary one. (Seemingly for socialist use)

I personally reject the placing of blind trust as a safeguarding of blind trust anywhere. I do not think it can be safeguarded, and suggests its total abolishment in radical individualism. And so, though admitting the possibility of blind trust in something paying off – of course fathers, kings, and religious authorities are of variable quality - I still think a total de-deification is necessary if blind trust is to be kept out of dangerous places.

I would prefer for scientist and everyone else to present as maximum claim that they possess the temporarily most useful information, and not claim either hand-downs from Gods or geniuses, or other authorities, as proof of the information being irreplaceable. As I’ve said above, and as I’ve said anew here with a few literary quotes to make it more Librarything like. (5 authors, 2 quoted works - no touchstones working!)
Anyone out there? I thought not, but I’ve been discussing the scarcity of French fries on ferries, and whether there might be a causal relation here to the heat of the oil and to rolling in heavy weather; on that question may rest the survival of our civilisation.

>60 jahn: jahn

"I would prefer for scientist and everyone else to present as maximum claim that they possess the temporarily most useful information, and not claim either hand-downs from Gods or geniuses, or other authorities, as proof of the information being irreplaceable."

Science already does this. Duh.

Religion does not and never will. Duh.

Reading your last schizophrenic post made my head hurt - really badly. I think it may have bamaged my drain.

I will stop following this thread now and leave to others the apparently impossible job of explaining to you the difference between religion and science.

May god help them.

> 61 (JGL53)

I'm thinking of starting a thread on The Philosophy of Religion - maybe later tonight or in the next few days. I'm also v. interested in The Philosophy of Science.

There's a whole group on POS.

~62

Good ideas, both of them.

~63

Could you give us a link?

Jahn

I have heard the phrase "diarrhea of the mouth" but then again, I guess it is a possibility to be attributed towards typing as well, seeing it's not literally verbal.

Honestly, I have already stated the "bottomline" to you but you seem insistent on comparing "apples to oranges." In other words, pragmatism isn't subject to debate with any true logic or absolute truth theory. The fundamental base involved within the two schools of thought are so extremely opposite that it's unfortunate that it doesn't lend (at best) slight room for true philosophical debate.

My last thought I will leave you with to apply towards your pragmatic perspective (as your perception does determine your direction) is this quote of mine:

"The love of money is the root of all evil therefore selfishness must be the seed."
M.D. Birmingham

Philosophy of religion is a thread I willingly look forward to absorbing and partaking within.

Philosophy is the origin of all subjects in study today.

Oh and one ore thing Jahn, for future debates with whomever, kindly do as you earlier did and outline your points as refutes to whichever post. It adds for things you state to at least appear more succinct in idea. You tried to avoid doing what I said you would (#51 Now I am certain your refute will state of some lengthy circumstance based analogy that appears to hold true but when dissected it only maintains circumstanial truth at best, if any).
But you couldnt help yourself.

"Connect to the world"
M.D. Birmingham

>66 mdbirmingham: (mdbirmingham)
I will start a thread on this when I return from my 3 week vacation (or, if I get bored and have access to a computer). I plan on buying a copy of your book - it appears to be be most interesting. Re the Summa Theologica, listed in your library, I studied a lot of it several years ago and, while it is primarily theological, it is, as you know, undergirded by Aristotelian philosophy - "philosophy the handmaiden of theology", a tenet giving rise to all kinds of interesting questions regarding the relation between Faith and Reason, which is basically the topic of this thread.

#65-66
Oh, I admit a failure to communicate, which is why my last long post was mostly a letter to the memory of Monsieur Teste and to myself. (An enjoyable idea that some here should have read it all through though!) And I can assure M.D. Birmingham that he was not addressed with a single line there - though this not in any attempted discrimination, - I rather must confess complete inability to perform this task.

So we actually are in full agreement M.D: I will have to echo your echo of Lawecon regarding my text, and say I have no idea of what you are trying to get across. We both read each other exactly the same way there!

When considering these words: “The love of money is the root of all evil therefore selfishness must be the seed.” “Connect to the world.” (M.D. Birmingham.) They make me suspect you are putting us on, or that you have been smoking something illegal. If I should join in, it would have to be with words like: “If the cows had gods, they’d be cow-like.” But admittedly, those are borrowed words… and understandable to me at least.

Well, I’ll try to keep away from “The philosophy of religion,” If I can’t, I’ll probably get sarcastic, verbose, and even disjointed all over again, and then have everyone here, atheists and Christians alike, spluttering with foot stomping rage (I must be good at goading library listing Americans:-).

Bookmonk8888:
Thank you and I look forward to further exchange of thought.

Jahn:
I have never smoked in my life nor do I intend to start doing so because I need not any vices and/or the need to escape from reality. The beauty of my injury causes me to lack a "filter." A filter is the "mechanism" that many of us have that causes us to "beat around the bush" rather than saying things as they are.
Here's a quote closer to your school of thought, "If feces was sugar then farmers wouldn't plant (sugar)cane." Being "verbose" isn't problematic, although it can lead your writings to be incoherent and maintain a diarrhea like characteristic. The problem (in your case, to me) lies in the idea of making rebuttals that are pragmatic in nature towards a logical statement/idea. Your school of thought lacks rules, laws, and logic to support its entire concept illustrated.

All of human knowledge is cumulative, but I think that for you the question of the chicken or the egg has no answer to hold true despite circumstances or context.

Here's what, I will start a thread of a different topic/question seeing that you made a comment towards that of smoking. I am intrigued to see what your response is although I am certain to already have a prediction of it. You are very circumstance based but if that is truly thought of in all life's aspects, do you think that poses a problem?