You don't think evolution or medicine are evidence based and correlate to the real world? Are you a Trump voter? — Pro Hominem
No. It is specifically correlated to the "real" (observable) world. Mathematics is internally consistent in a way that transcends language. There have been efforts to rest language on the solid foundation of mathematics (Russell for example) but I have never heard of someone trying to rest the reliability of math on the "consistency" of language. Language is not consistent. It is largely correlative, but it is agreement reality and fluid. God doesn't have nearly the evidence to support his existence as mathematics does, or even the less secure language. — Pro Hominem
God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power in the hands of a few elites so they could maintain control of their tribes in the face of growing population numbers. Religion had a function historically, and allowed societies to increase their net security and stability to the point that the next step in human evolution, reason, could be developed. In the presence of reason, religion is not necessary and not even desirable. — Pro Hominem
Maybe "God" will turn you into a real boy. — Pro Hominem
Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin: — 3017amen
My statement: 'the facts considered in these fields are considered to be true' was put there to say we do not need a consistent formal language to describe things that we describe to be true. — TrespassingAcademia
You are correct, there is a long history of mathematicians trying to make general language consistent. And this is somewhat analogous to what I proposed. I propose a formal language to describe theological theory in a consistent way, thus granting it the same level of 'reality' as mathematical objects like groups/rings/topological spaces or the real numbers. — TrespassingAcademia
Love is an abstract concept. Like numbers was an abstract concept 1000 years ago. We saw a bunch of examples of each, enough for us to talk relatively unambiguously about both and thus we started calling it 'real'. Other examples of abstract concepts are money, economy, countries, etc. which all of us come to call real. If someone were to develop a specialized language, as was done for mathematics, to pin down our abstract concept of God, then God would share the same amount of reality as all of the abstract concepts I mentioned. However note that I believe religions commonly attribute a stronger type of reality than mere an abstract human thought. — TrespassingAcademia
You might believe that God was created by the 'elite' as a ploy to power, but I doubt this is the case. — TrespassingAcademia
Do you believe superheroes were created by the American shadow government to control your minds and influence the opinions of the masses? Because this is the same type of argument you are making. — TrespassingAcademia
At the very least one needs to treat religion as an abstract concept developed to try pin down some observations on what actions make life better and what actions make life worse. — TrespassingAcademia
The abolishment of slavery was done on Christian arguments. Equal rights is one of the core ideas in Christianity. Western society today is still very much a Christian one, in the sense that we subscribe to Christian morality. So I reiterate, at the very least one needs to treat religion as 'real' in the abstract way. — TrespassingAcademia
God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. — Pro Hominem
Couldn't be further from the truth. In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence. — 3017amen
Just an observation, you seem to be conflating politics with something... ? — 3017amen
we were assuming that there was a particular person who could be loosely given the title of Jesus then it would follow that we'd assume he was "conscious". — substantivalism
It's no coincidence of our language/social life or of his perspective that we as a society make metaphors/stories that chastise us for acting as if we are our own gods. — substantivalism
In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence. — 3017amen
That sounds like a psychological pathology that needs resolved. — 3017amen
I think it developed that way because the elites realized that order was better than chaos - for them. But in terms of actually reaching useful conclusions on what makes life better for all mankind, religion has and continues to fall short. — Pro Hominem
So if you're aware that efforts have already been made to do this, do you also know that they are all failures? Language is more complex than that. It is specifically flexible in a way that mathematics isn't. They do different things and trying to reconcile them is a fruitless waste of time. But I'm sure your smarter than all the people who have tried it before, so no worries. :roll:
The best part is that efforts to simply create ANY language with the consistency of mathematics have failed in the past, but you want to create one specifically to talk about THEOLOGY?!?!? Sure. — Pro Hominem
Well ironically enough, in Christianity, Jesus was once a boy. :chin:
— 3017amen
In Christianity... What was he in Australian Aboriginal culture then? Mesoamerican religion? Inuit faith? :chin: — jorndoe
So let's address this first. You must remember that science was first studied on religious motivations. — TrespassingAcademia
Furthermore, the development of the modern scientific method by Descartes was claimed to be 'inspired by the divine'. — TrespassingAcademia
The reasons for pursuing science remains based on a dogmatic argument even today. One does not do science for any utilitarian/economic purpose, but instead for the pursuit and understanding of reality. Most of our scientific facts do not have any application beyond satisfying the curiosity and developing the understanding of those who study it. The idea that this is a valid way for humans to spend their time has no argument beyond 'the pursuit of truth' which is an argument deeply rooted in religion. — TrespassingAcademia
Now beyond science, would you say the conclusion that slavery is bad is a shortcoming? Would you say that assumptions like 'murder is bad' and 'don't sleep with your neighbor's wife' do not make life better for mankind? Would you say the ideas of charity and peace do not make life better for humankind? All of these core assumptions, so fundamental to how our society functions today that we forgot we assumed them in the first place, are derived mostly from religion. Even much of our big laws today is derived verbatim from the Jewish laws of 4000 years ago — TrespassingAcademia
Small point: almost everyone but the Romans? And preceding the Romans by in some cases thousands of years.the Egyptians and the Romans,...were,... engaged in observational science. — Pro Hominem
religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid. — Pro Hominem
religion is part of history and science is part of history, they must be connected to one another. That is not logically valid.
— Pro Hominem
Maybe not valid, but a fact. But only in this sense, and expressed here briefly, because expressed elsewhere multiple times. To do science requires consistency. If it falls down here, it's a problem if it falls up there. At a time when god(s) were understood to have arbitrary control over the world, that consistency could be guaranteed only by having one God in authority, and that one a mainly beneficial - and consistent - God. Otherwise there could only be provisional and contingent "house" sciences that could neither communicate with nor cooperate with each other. Most scientists, then, are essentially monotheistic, though the object of their respective beliefs vary from a God, to logos, to law. — tim wood
the Egyptians and the Romans,...were,... engaged in observational science.
— Pro Hominem
Small point: almost everyone but the Romans? And preceding the Romans by in some cases thousands of years — tim wood
"Is" seems correct, But "was" also seems correct. Whether per se another question, though the history gives it to Christianity.Suffice to say that "science" is not dependent on Christianity per se. — Pro Hominem
In so far as "god" is a/the "mystery" ("of all mysteries" or some such), as an "answer" it's an appeal to ignorance - otherwise, merely begs the question. Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake). Science seeks the most generalizable, fundamental HOW 'this universe came-to-be ...', that is, an explanation (Deutsch et al) and not an intention or telos (pace Aristotle, Aquinas, et al).For so long as people ask an unanswerable why,godis as good an answer as any. — tim wood
I don't think so. Natural science is monist contra "monotheism" which presupposes dualism of "spirit & matter" (à la Descartes' "res cogitans" et "res extensa"), "sacred & profane", "supernatural & natural", "one & many", etc ... regardless of all (ad hoc) attempts to reduce the latter "substance" to the former.Most scientists, then, are essentially monotheistic ... — tim wood
But now we have to define "god." — tim wood
Science is about the how, not the why. For so long as people ask an unanswerable why, god is as good an answer as any. — tim wood
If you have created a God, perhaps in your own image, that you can object to, then that's your own straw man and your own problem. — tim wood
You first, then 180.Even if I could take credit for the creation of God, I would not - I wouldn't like to admit to such a crime. I agree that he is a straw man, though. Here again, you use the Christian God as a shield from whatever your own conception is. When one gets into conversations of this sort, yahweh/Jesus is the most common adversary to reason. If you have a straw man of your own design to substitute in his place, go ahead. All the same criticisms will hold true unless your deform your use of the word god to the point that you really just mean something else. — Pro Hominem
As good as any, which is not to say good. While some may not like the sound of that answer, that's in part because they don't understand the acoustics and the echo. The answer has an historical basis.god is as good an answer as any. — tim wood
No. I'm not "opposed" to them because they are not even answers. Avowals, at most, not propositions.↪180 Proof The essence of the disagreement I think we'll find here is that you're opposed to answers the grounds or operations of which are inaccessible - or nonexistent — tim wood
So does astrology.The answerhas an historical basis.
(1) The only answer to the fundamental / ultimate Why that doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitate an infinite regress) is There is no fundamental / ultimate Why.As to there ain't no why, why ain't there no why?
In other words, it's a pseudo-question - just Bronze Age woo-woo nonsense which philosophy perennially attempts to exorcize.Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake). — 180 Proof
You overlook my reference to history. Christianity gave a leg up to science. In no sense am I giving over to anything supernatural; it's just the historical fact. It needn't have been Christianity - but it was. The only salient point here is the utility of the idea of one god over many, as the author of one set of rules instead of many sets of inconsistent rules. This evolution starts - well, maybe not starts - has a significant waypoint in Greek Paganism and the Greek view of nature as imperfect. Which already had the tectonic tensions of Pythagorean number, Aristotelian description, and Plato's ideal (Platonic?) models. But this didn't really resolve until Galileo, and still has not completely resolved. Psychology is barely a science, and mainly descriptive; biology, mainly descriptive. — tim wood
But what made science a science was the essentially Christian idea, as opposed to the Greek, that God made nature, thus it could not be imperfect, thus it was something definite and a proper subject for science, the task of the scientist to find out not what imperfect nature is approximately, but what perfect nature is in fact and actually. No voodoo/woowoo here, just history. — tim wood
Most scientists - those worth the name who think about the underpinnings of their subjects at all - believe just this: that if it falls down today, it won't fall sideways tomorrow, unless there's a good reason. Logos, law, god - what's the difference when they're all impenetrable beliefs? — tim wood
↪180 Proof The essence of the disagreement I think we'll find here is that you're opposed to answers the grounds or operations of which are inaccessible - or nonexistent
— tim wood
No. I'm not "opposed" to them because they are not even answers. Avowals, at most, not propositions.
The answer has an historical basis.
So does astrology.
As to there ain't no why, why ain't there no why?
(1) The only answer to the fundamental / ultimate Why that doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitate an infinite regress) is There is no fundamental / ultimate Why.
(2) And as I wrote
Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake).
— 180 Proof
In other words, it's a pseudo-question - just Bronze Age woo-woo nonsense which philosophy perennially attempts to exorcize — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.