Science proves apophatic theology

Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 08:20 am
Doorsopen wrote:
I throughly disagree with such British disagreeableness!

Would French disagreeableness be an improvement?

The delopment and correct use of language is not a panacea for appeasing the masses.

No, but the development and incorrect use of language is, as Orwell pointed out.
Were this the case we would all still be living in mud huts and drinking fermented barley much like the English themselves.

How so?
I also disagree with the analogy that language is an attempt to progress the vague thoughts of mind to some form of precise expression. The mind may conceive of all manner of abstractions in terms other than oral or written language, that these are abstractions does not mean that such ideas are not completely formed. The struggle to present new ideas within a lingustic framework is not a fault of the mind, nor a poverty of language; it is the means by which language develops.

I think you are failing to recognise the symbiotic relationship between thought and language. Some philophers argue that our consciousness originates in language and depends on it. I don't agree, but it suggests that the issues are not as clear cut as you suggest.

As for the theme of this thread it strikes me as an appropriate starting point for a scientific understanding of theology in that it seeks to cast out preconceived convictions on the subject of theology.

I'd say that rational theology begins with the casting out of preconceived convictions on the subject of both theology and science, which is an improvement on the usual scientific starting point.

Scientific procedure would require constant evaluation of its findings until a new paradigm is conceived and defined.

So would theological procedure. This thread asks the question of whether such a procedure would lead us to conclude that this new paradigm must be apophatic in respect of the Absolute. I think it would, for much the same reasons that Kant, Bradley and Lao-tsu thought so.

If that's being disagreeable then so be it.

Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 09:43 am
Whoever, I may have given the impression that prediction lacks understanding, not at all, I think prediction is a good tool to expand understanding but there are precautionary adages about the use of tools and I think you may be inferring that one of them is applicable to the LHCs.

Doorsopen, I can find nothing in biology, religion or even politics to suggest that an individual can have a mind, it seems to be just too much responsibility, but you seem to have been so blessed - you may be the first - congratulations.
Now where did I leave that straw and those darn pesky crows are back again and get off my 'B' leg Toto.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:13 pm
@Peter phil,
Ditto Peter;) I am going to have to go with peter here...

Peter wrote:
Thanks for the comment, NeitherExtreme. I don't think I can go along with it. I said that the methods of science are unquestionably superior for the purpose of building up knowledge of the world which is revealed to us by the senses and in which we live. You could believe in a transcendant God while accepting that investigation of the physical world is best done using the methods of science.

0 Replies
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:14 pm
Absolute' ly

Khethil wrote:
Yea, I wouldn't disagree with almost anything you've said; only what seemed to be a very generalized, broadly-painted inference that since something "can", it always "does".

And, actually, all this was articulated in my original response.

I find it ironic that as we speak about the various levels of truth (or falseness) that can be expressed via language, that we are here falling into the same trap. It's almost as if we don't much work very hard to clearly state - to carefully qualify - our statements right as we talk about how language can falsify. Haha...

In any case, thanks again for the interchange. It's always nice.
0 Replies
Agent Smith
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2022 11:05 am
Nicely put!
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/27/2022 at 06:16:43