A Book?

[fr0d0]

Ooer!

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol, yes; lmao.

EvF

[Tiberius]

I don't entertain such an idea.

Yes you do. You can go through the Bible claiming "this is clearly an allegory" and "this is clearly the truth". However what you think of as allegories were once thought of as truth, and as time goes on what you think of as "truth" will be cast aside as an allegory by future generations. That is God of the gaps at work. As long as God isn't disproved, everything that is claimed of him can simply be tossed aside to the allegory pile.

Let me work that out as well...

People, A, observed X
Science, B, claimed Y
Some people, C, lost their way and thought X = Y
People still observed X, and also observed Y
Group C fought over X = Y
Groups A & B lived in peace observing X & Y

You Adrian, along with Creationist nut jobs, are in group C. How does that make you feel?

Hang on, you just said that group C was the place where people thought the observations matched the scientific explanation (X = Y), and you lump creationists in that group? Tell me, exactly what scientific explanation backs up creationism?

Or have you got this entire thing backwards. Perhaps we should give examples and not use logic notation anymore

[Edwardo Piet]

I think he's suggesting that it's because creationists and scientists while OPPOSITES so are very DIFFERENT - are similar in the sense they are both opposite ENDS....since what he believes is more moderate and 'has the best of both worlds' so is closed to the truth or something like that. What he believes is difference because it's more balanced, unlike the other two (science and creationism) which while COMPLETELY different are similar in the sense that HE believes they are both unbalanced and to the extreme....

And by science I think he doesn't mean science in general, but science that is against/thinks it disproves what he believes or something like that...

I think? (IF ONLY to check that I understand correctly I'm answering myself).

EvF

[fr0d0]

I don't entertain such an idea.

Yes you do. You can go through the Bible claiming "this is clearly an allegory" and "this is clearly the truth". However what you think of as allegories were once thought of as truth, and as time goes on what you think of as "truth" will be cast aside as an allegory by future generations. That is God of the gaps at work. As long as God isn't disproved, everything that is claimed of him can simply be tossed aside to the allegory pile.

What I can say for my 'group' is that some things are accepted as up for question. It just happens to be true that I could be me and hold beliefs that don't step on science's toes at all. (And I know that 'me' includes thousands of Christians (and that's just those in the UK I'm aware of their stance roughly). If there ever was reason to consider those allegorical parts as scientific then I'd need to change my view. As that follows, I think, I'd probably be able to also prove God at that point... this being the point where humans achieve god like attributes

Let me work that out as well...

People, A, observed X
Science, B, claimed Y
Some people, C, lost their way and thought X = Y
People still observed X, and also observed Y
Group C fought over X = Y
Groups A & B lived in peace observing X & Y

You Adrian, along with Creationist nut jobs, are in group C. How does that make you feel?

Hang on, you just said that group C was the place where people thought the observations matched the scientific explanation (X = Y), and you lump creationists in that group? Tell me, exactly what scientific explanation backs up creationism?

Or have you got this entire thing backwards. Perhaps we should give examples and not use logic notation anymore

I'm glad you found this again, I thought it was fun! Yeah you're probably right.. lets get practical

- philosophers observed the spiritual
- scientists observed fact

- Some people in both camps thought their observations crossed and fought over them
- others remained in their separate camps, admiring the other camps observations, wondering with bemusement at the squabbles in no mans land.

- No mans land is inhabited by atheists and creationists. Both are confused and think that scientific fact and spirituality are one subject.

Howzat?

[Giff]

I'm glad you found this again, I thought it was fun! Yeah you're probably right.. lets get practical

- philosophers observed the spiritual
- scientists observed fact

- Some people in both camps thought their observations crossed and fought over them
- others remained in their separate camps, admiring the other camps observations, wondering with bemusement at the squabbles in no mans land.

- No mans land is inhabited by atheists and creationists. Both are confused and think that scientific fact and spirituality are one subject.

Howzat?

Spirutal is what? Observing things and coming with "answers" that's not really answers and no evidence. Becuase evidence isn't suppose to be needed since you just can say that there is some other truths then scientific truth to be accepted because it's spiritual.

Then Wagga Wagga could easily be another truth.

Science have evidence of the answers that they prestent. Religious people don't have any, not any kind at all. But just saying that there is a god or some bigger meaning or high power seems to be enough.

[Tiberius]

- philosophers observed the spiritual

Philosopher - a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.

- scientists observed fact

Scientist - person who uses the scientific method to explain the natural world.

A philosopher isn't a spiritual man by definition, although some philosophers study metaphysics and religion. However a lot of philosophers just do ethics or logic.

Some people in both camps thought their observations crossed and fought over them

There are no "observations" in the philosophy camp though. Philosophy is pretty much the study of thinking; i doesn't rely on fact, it relies on reasoning. Philosophy doesn't stray into the land of science, and science doesn't stray into the land of philosophy!

others remained in their separate camps, admiring the other camps observations, wondering with bemusement at the squabbles in no mans land.

I've just shown that there are no squabbles. There cannot possibly be; philosophy and science cover completely different things. As Daniel Dennett quoted: "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered."

No mans land is inhabited by atheists and creationists. Both are confused and think that scientific fact and spirituality are one subject.

Well I have to completely disagree here. Even if this group did exist (which I think I've just shown is impossible), I'm an atheist and I don't think scientific fact and spirituality are one subject. I don't think spirituality is a subject at all!

HOWZAT?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm with you there Adrian!! I agree, spirituality is a non-subject. Unless it's the subject of studying how to convince yourself and others that it IS a subject lol.

And I agree with Dawkins that theology isn't either. How the fuck are they supposed to study THAT? There's no evidence! They just make it up as if it had any more meaning than mere musings! Same with spirituality I think...

What about the differences between spirituality and theology? Isn't it pretty much the same thing it's just "Spiritual" is more vague of a word? It's still just musing over shit you don't understand but you believe you do/are pretending you do I think (or something to that effect if not that precisely ).

EvF

[lilphil1989]

Yeah, I'd say spirituality covers a whole range of claims for which there is no evidence, whereas theology is a bit more specific and concentrates on a god or set of gods.

I'd agree with Adrian though and say they're both non-subjects.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yup. And I agree with you - spirituality is just more vague and theology is more specific to Gods although it's still entirely vague in the methods it DOESN'T HAVE to use! Lol.

EvF