02-15-2006, 07:12 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
02-15-2006, 07:27 PM | #12 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Re: On atheism
Quote:
Quote:
Truth is relative, especially scientific truth. Scientific truths 100, 50, 10 and even 5 years ago are more often proved false than they are proved unassailable! IMO it requires greater faith to trust in science than religion requires ... it most certainly does require acts of faith in the purest sense. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
02-15-2006, 07:32 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Consider the irony of your post -you argue with such fervor I might regard you as zealous … a religious zealot!
|
02-15-2006, 09:22 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
Second, I never said the Enlightenment came about because of questions being raised about legitimacy of the Hebreic model. This would be putting the cart before the horse. The Enlightenment was about re-discovery of the power of empiricism, i.e., science (something the Greeks and Romans understood very well in their respective finest hours). What happened was that the Enlightenment led people to question the Hebreic model for the cosmos. This spiritual and intellectual torment in turn begat Kant, et al. Of course the great philosphers of the Enlightenment didn't universally reject the Hebrew model (the vast majority did). As for their refining the model, I don't hear Kant et al. being discussed much over the pulpit at Mormon or Southern Baptist churches. Catholicism has quite a bit of truck with ancient philosphers. Mainline protestantism has taken an ecumenical route with respect to the philosphers, and you see where it has led these denominations--to ruin. Few belonging to these sects (whose bases are in Europe and the U.S. blue states) regularly go to church anymore. It seems that churches born of the Hebreic tradition need to remain fairly pure or they will whither away. On the other hand, more and more this takes them out of the mainstream. It's an insoluble dilema. Finally, my post didn't make any value judgments about whether mankind is better or worse off or closer to the truth because of what I see as the inexorable trend eroding popular belief in the Hebrew model for God. My personal taste, however, is biased in favor of the current trend. I wouldn't have been a happy camper in Twelfth Century Spain or even late Nineteenth Century Salt Lake City.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
02-15-2006, 09:36 PM | #15 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
For me and my kind, Mormonism is a bridge between empiricism in matters of the physical world and faith for matters affecting the unseen world. Insofar as empiricism provides answers which can guide me in my daily life, we rely upon empirical results. Insofar as empirical data fails, I'll rely upon matters of faith. Although I've read Kant, both in English and in German, his categorical imperative being the most famous construct which I remember, I'll admit I don't remember his outlook on Hebraicism. Are you attributing "blind faith" ignoring the physical world to Hebraicism? Do we really know how the Hebrews viewed their world, or are you really upon the Middle Ages outlook on Hebraicism? The Hellenization of Hebrews also imposes another layer of complexity. None of us moderners would fare well in the ancient world, we're much too undiplomatic and outspoken. That's why westerners often fail to understand the nuances of Middle Eastern cultures and societies. Empirical models of faith have been extant for a long time. Perhaps you could be more specific as to your meaning.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
02-15-2006, 09:56 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
02-15-2006, 10:33 PM | #17 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
So are you simply distinguishing between empiricism and non-empiricism?
Are we engaging in the apriori and aposteriori debate? If so, I reject Cartesian metaphysics, and believe all matter has substance, and that the source of all knowledge is empirical, if viewed in an eternal sense. Sometimes apriori knowledge appears to come out of the blue, hence amazing revelations like the Benzene ring, but in actuality, it's just our soul perceiving through the veil to remember things we already learned empirically in the pre-existence. Not to a pure earth empiricist, this is distasteful, because in our short lives here, we can't replicate this event, but still, it makes sense to me and explains otherwise inexplicable events. I found a brief statement which reminds me what I learned or thought I learned long ago. http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cf.../book_id/1519/
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
02-15-2006, 10:55 PM | #18 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
By rejection of Cartesian metaphysics, I of course refer to his dualistic approach to matter and spirit.
Here's an interesting summary of a work on Descartes. http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/facul.../c.p.zijlstra/
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
Bookmarks |
|
|