02-10-2008
|
#16 (permalink)
| | |
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamplight  Well, I understand what you mean... But i genuinely think that he has a map to bring to the table. All you have to do is use it actively for it to stick. How do you use it actively?
And I know it has helped me a great deal in maturing a lot during the last year. Though I really can't wrap my head around it yet. I'm only 24, so I'm gonna give myself some slack... hehe... Here is where I can agree with you. We can benefit personally by all kinds of paths to truth that are not logical, rational, or empirical. We can listen to music, look at great paintings, love your own child, lose a loved one, become spiritually centered, meditate, do yoga, etc. Life is something that is learned about from every faculty that you have going for you. So I can believe that something like this can mature you if it makes you aware of many different modes of thought. The questions is, how does one actually apply this in any different way than just living life and learning its lessons? What technique would you use to have religion inform public policy, for example, without doing as much evil as it does good? How does one separate a true belief from a false one? For example, which Christian value should we use when we create policy about homosexual marriages? Should we be informed by God's infinite Grace and forgiveness, or should we be informed by a Christian zeal for purity and sin aversion? Tell me how you would apply Christian theology to that problem? And tell me how you would know it was true?
But I'm sure if we all put our heads together, we could come up with something helpful in this thread.  | Ok, lets get to it! | | | |
| | |
02-11-2008
|
#17 (permalink)
| | |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAsking The questions is, how does one actually apply this in any different way than just living life and learning its lessons? What technique would you use to have religion inform public policy, for example, without doing as much evil as it does good? How does one separate a true belief from a false one? | Ah, there's the whole crux of the matter, right? Usually, that boils down to "Oh, that's easy - my belief is the true one, yours is the false one." How messed up would a person have to be to believe something he knew (or even suspected) to be false? Could that even be a belief? Of course, I mean discounting people who intentionally lie about what they believe (as in the case of politicians and attorneys). | | | |
| | |
02-11-2008
|
#18 (permalink)
| | |
I was not aware of this movement. It is very interesting, trying to combine religion with science. That is the way to make progress in today's world | | | |
| | |
02-11-2008
|
#19 (permalink)
| | |
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffery_stelesvyle I was not aware of this movement. It is very interesting, trying to combine religion with science. That is the way to make progress in today's world | Or is it a way to roll the clock back to pre-Enlightenment days? I am definitely one to argue for post-modernism. I just don't actually know how to apply it to science or to public policy. | | | |
| | |
02-11-2008
|
#20 (permalink)
| | |
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAsking David,
I am not sure what you mean by "match". Its obvious that any given individual understands the world through any number of kinds of "truths" at the same time. We do relate to the world emotionally, symbolically, allegorically, mythologically, anecdotally, religiously, empirically, and who knows what others. In fact, empirical truth is the newcomer on the block, and mankind surivived thousands of years without it.
Those categories make sense, but how does one apply it? | I was replying of one of your posts that you say that you are interested in how faith and science truths can be combined. 2 basics types of truths exists : absolutes truths ( the ones that science are trying to find and study , the nature of the phenomena that are around us and relative truths ( those type of truths emotionally , symbolically . allegorically , religiously , anecdotally etc )
Science is TRYING TO FIND ABSOLUTES truths but that is very hard because all science studies can't be done without some biases. Truths that are based on faith are really relative truths , not matter how hard some religions claim that their truths are absolute. Science and religion are really different of the method to finding truths . Science is based on investigation or research to find a " truth" and the "truths " of religion are based on "divine " revelations. | | | |
| | |
02-12-2008
|
#21 (permalink)
| | |
Quote:
Originally Posted by HungDavid I was replying of one of your posts that you say that you are interested in how faith and science truths can be combined. 2 basics types of truths exists : absolutes truths ( the ones that science are trying to find and study , the nature of the phenomena that are around us and relative truths ( those type of truths emotionally , symbolically . allegorically , religiously , anecdotally etc )
Science is TRYING TO FIND ABSOLUTES truths but that is very hard because all science studies can't be done without some biases. Truths that are based on faith are really relative truths , not matter how hard some religions claim that their truths are absolute. Science and religion are really different of the method to finding truths . Science is based on investigation or research to find a " truth" and the "truths " of religion are based on "divine " revelations. | David,
This is a very interesting comment, my friend. I agree with almost everything you said. Science is based on discovered truths, and religion is based on revealed truth. Also you are correct that there are no theory-neutral observations in science, so science cannot claim it is based on direct observations. However, the verifiability and the predictive power of scientific theories allow us mitigate the effects of bias and evaluate their effectiveness.
The one thing I must disagree with is your claim that science is looking for absolute truth. Science has no way of knowing if it is finding absolute truth or not. And the fact that all scientific theories are ultimately replaced by very different ones implies that science is probably not finding absolute truths. | | | |
| | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 AM. | | 
Latest Threads | | |
|
Latest Posts | | |
|
Latest Blogs | | |
|
