How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Logic 101   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Logic 101

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


25 posted 01-09-2007 11:35 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Of course not, butterflies are insects.

Am I missing an inside joke here?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


26 posted 01-09-2007 11:47 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

No.  I was just trying to emphasize that I don't think that worm (science) and butterfly (religion) are two different things overall.  I see them as the same oneness just varied into two different shapes or states that differ enough that we give them two different names "worm" and "butterfly".

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-10-2007 12:03 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


27 posted 01-10-2007 12:09 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Yeah, I get the alternate description bit. My point is that worms aren't caterpillars.

Bur fair enough. I just checked the dictionary. You can call a caterpillar a worm (or insect larvae in general)-- loosely.

But I wouldn't spend my time waiting for an earthworm or a tapeworm to sprout wings anytime soon.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


28 posted 01-10-2007 02:11 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad:
quote:
The problem with fundamentalism of all stripes is that it forgets a fundamental tenet: humility.


I guess you're more fundamentalist than you admit then Brad, since you are so insistent on humility as a cardinal virtue?    


Your above observation is fair enough.  But I would like to point out that we are in a time in which knowing anything beyond doubt, is considered arrogant.  And yet, such critics seem to know at least this much beyond doubt: that you can't know anything for sure ... and share that certain knowledge with religious-like passion.  We've seen it here, on these forums haven't we?  I'll be the first to admit we've seen religious arrogance too, though I've never denied that true knowledge (and especially divine revelation) harbors a unique temptation to arrogance (though there are definite aspects of that Revelation which ought to dissuade it).  


My point, like Jim's, is that haughtiness is a symptom of sinful human nature ... not of fundamentalism, or absolute knowledge.  So ad hominem never gets us to the truth of the religious question either way.  I'm certainly not going to sit here and argue that scientists are more arrogant than theologians.  


I'm sure for Bertrand, as well as for any of us, this kind of argument was an alluring way to advance one's own position ... appealing to those who have been hurt in religious community and ready to embrace an argument because of its suitablity to nurse ill feelings.  


quote:
I have no problems if you want to argue that in order for a theist to be a theist, doubt is integral to that role, but I don't see it.


You seem to be wrongly equating partial-knowledge with doubt.  Does Divine Revelation need to be exhaustively understood before it is to be accepted?  Nothing in Life works that way.  And religion adds an element of personal authority ... where things certainly don't work that way.  It's not that authoritative statements can't be personally confirmed by observation, or expanded upon by knowledge.


You'll simply always have this tension to deal with, wherever this is a mind and a heart.  But the tension doesn't rule out revelation any more than it rules out science.  Blaise Pascal once wrote that "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."  Though that statement can be misconstrued to mean that faith is unreasonable, I feel like it best conveys the necessity of something more than reason, not less.


Stephen.
  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


29 posted 01-10-2007 02:14 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
I guess you're more fundamentalist than you admit then Brad, since you are so insistent on humility as a cardinal virtue?


Well, nobody's perfect.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


30 posted 01-10-2007 02:19 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

lol.

Um, what does perfect mean?



Stephen.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


31 posted 01-10-2007 08:42 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze



I swear I have tears in my eyes, you guys have me laughing so hard.

Shaking my head.

This entire exchange has made me homesick for my siblings.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


32 posted 01-10-2007 08:57 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
On the other hand, theists, by definition, are in possession of absolute knowledge.

I have no problems if you want to argue that in order for a theist to be a theist, doubt is integral to that role, but I don't see it.


True, theists rely on revealed knowledge (or "absolute knowledge," as you call it) in order to frame their system of beliefs.  But I think many theists fall into the trap of believing that more is revealed in their sacred texts than what actually is.  Belief, for example, that the Genesis accounts of creation must be understood as literal accounts of how it really happened are reason enough to oppose scientific discoveries (and therefore, wrongfully place science in opposition to theology) is one reason for both fundamentalism and for the church's loss of credibility with the scientific community.

If you believe as I do, however, that the Biblical record is primarily an account of man's inability to reconcile himself to God and God's initiative to reconcile man to Him, then scientific discoveries that seem to question literal interpretations of ancient events causes no crisis of faith.  On the other hand, scientists should not automatically discount extraordinary events recorded in sacred texts if the evidence supports their veracity.

So while I wouldn't suggest that doubt is integral to being a practicing theist any more than it is integral to being a practicing scientist, I would argue that doubt is integral to being a good theist and a good scientist.  Why?  Because doubt leads us to ask questions and seek answers, and then ask other questions raised by those answers.  In this way, the theist and the scientist stands the best chance of advancing knowledge in their respective fields.

Jim

P.S. An off topic aside ... did you ever notice that you never think about coffee filters until you have none?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


33 posted 01-10-2007 10:21 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

OOOOH.

THAT was really good, Jim.

and serious nods about the coffee filters too.

And thanks guys.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


34 posted 01-10-2007 12:08 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jim:
quote:
I think many theists fall into the trap of believing that more is revealed in their sacred texts than what actually is ...


and


...On the other hand, scientists should not automatically discount extraordinary events recorded in sacred texts if the evidence supports their veracity.

Here's a good article on this very issue by Alvin Plantinga, I thought you'd enjoy.  It seems that Plantiga's thought here is very similar to yours Jim, and presents a very commendable balance.  

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html



Brad,

If you're saying that given the Theist's claimed resources, he should be much more humble than the scientist, then I agree.  But just as you call a loss of integrity (and rightly so) a deviation from true science, the same sort of disclaimer may be made in explanation of bad religion.  Hence we are right back to square one, hopefully ridding ourselves the perennial habit of character attack to make our point.  We are left with this question ...  In the world of science, as well as Theology, what is true?


Stephen.  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Logic 101   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors