spendius wrote:paradose-
You really should know that your welter of over-simplifications is standard fare.But I will essay answers if I can think of brief ways of doing so.
We can only approach reality through symbols.Each one of us can approach reality through sensation but the communication of it to others needs must use symbols.And symbols are not reality.
The world awakens to human consciousness as a mystery:a secret.Hence religious thought begins and proceeds to here to the point of minds making contact,rather than senses, through the written word which the spoken comes to mimic except under conditions of ecstasy or agony.You will hear real communication on big dippers or in torture chambers such as gymnasia or in love making.
Systems of absolute truth are for the intellect and not for the reality of history.No words can be found to grasp the feeling of a Roman farmer.To think so is a delusion.By farming similar fields in similar ways one might get nearer but never there.
As Spengler puts it,and I wouldn't try to improve it-
"However completely the inner eye may triumph over the outer in the domain of thought,in the realm of facts the belief in eternal truths is a petty and absurd stage-play that exists only in the heads of individuals.A true system of thoughts emphatically cannot exist,for no sign can replace actuality."
The concepts of science are instruments and not aims.
We communicate through symbols, yes. But it requires an agreement of what those symbols stand for. If I think a "dog" is a certain animal in order for us to communicate in any meaningful fashion you must also use the symbol "dog" for the same animal. Without that there is no communication.
Quote:What a long standing,organised religion actually is is a long standing organised system of refined thought used as an instrument and with the ability to use it responsibly which,of course,it may not do.A hammer doesn't cease to be a hammer if it is used to hold a book open.And within such a system schism,and I recognise its validity,remains inside and is examined by theologians with reference to all other parts of the refined thought.The same will apply to large bureaucracies or to giant enterprises.
religion is a form of communication and like language religion changes to meet the time. Just as language creates new words to describe new items that had no word prior, religion changes to meet changes in the environment it is in. It must adapt or die. Languages die, religions die.
Quote:Troublemakers are welcome within such structures but when they shoot off on their own with new-fangled belief systems only confusion results.Many Church of England ministers have sought solace in Rome with the advent of women priests.The old jokes about the C of E being the Conservative Party at prayer or of it being a property company make sense.
When I mentioned chastity I was referring to the theologians and there is also the difficulty of you and I not having the same meaning for the word.
We were bound to question the secrets of nature once we developed the ability to do so.It was inevitable.The human race got nowhere near science until a settled,established religion took charge of Europe.One might almost say that The Church invented science by attracting the best brains and requiring them to forgo distracting material,animal,benefits.(I know,I know.)
I had a great laugh at this one. The science done in Rome and Greece, let alone Sumaria and other ancient cultures were a result of The Church? ( You do mean the one true catholic and apostolic church with the use of capitals I assume.)
Quote:Such a religion does welcome questions but is also aware that the ordinary people may not be able to cope with the answers and so allow them to gradually appear having had the way prepared for them.
The SDers on here seem incapable of accepting their status as ordinary people and are thus naturally impatient for those new ways which they believe are to their advantage.But a smoking ruin is not to their advantage as the the Romans found and they had a vast range of cults which were tailor made to suit various classes and types just as the modern cults are.And have you not noticed the intolerance of SDers which,if bolstered by power,is a frightening prospect and a doomed one.
Take my word for it parados,there are aspects to knowledge which large numbers of people are not comfortable at all with and it is a disadvantage to my side of the argument that a public forum is not the place to expose them because the discomfort may be acute.
The old, I can't tell you or else I will have to kill you argument? Didn't that one go out with the Mayans as a religious argument? Frankly Spendius, this is an admission that you don't have an argument. I can't tell you or you would be uncomfortable is not an argument in any sense of the word. It is a weasel.
Quote:Most people of the times thought Faraday and Copernicus quite mad.We have our equivalents today in the bio-physics field as the extract from Mr Bush's speech on stem-cell research hints at.But there is $250 million to make a start with at one presumes what he thinks is an orderly pace i.e.a pace the people can take.
Yes, science has often faced skepticism which leads right back to my point of it must be testable and verifiable by even the skeptics. It also comes down to balancing the morality with the science. Science can't be allowed to study anything it wants without some restrictions. It never has been. There has always been moral restrictions on it. We were appalled at the Nazi human experiments. It doesn't make science any less valid because we don't do certain experiments. No more than it makes religion less valid because it doesn't burn witches.
Quote:As I pointed out earlier it is about care for the future.Can we afford to eschew religion and can we afford kaleidescopes.If not,as I think,what is left.If yes,as SDers think,although I have doubts about that,they have a responsibility to describe and plan that future.Many writers have done and they have described something alien to human nature.Even Mr Bush mentioned Huxley's attempt and that is one of the mildest.
I have not suggested that we eschew religion. I have said it has its place in philosophy. But that philosophy must fit into the observed reality. Morality is required of humans. Religion has been a major driver of morality for good and bad.
My God Spendius, your flowery metaphors (or perhaps they are malaprops) with the lack of proper puncutation makes your writing impossible to read sometimes. I used to write if off as my failing in understanding the British mindset as you express it but I think it isn't me. What you mean by this I may never figure out.
Quote:Can we afford to eschew religion and can we afford kaleidescopes.
I was able to figure out the question mark for the puncuation. A kaleidescope is not an instrument of science. It is usually a child's toy. Did you mean telescopes or microscopes?
Are you asking if we can have science AND religion? I think we can but they have to live in harmony. Science won't adjust to religion because it is based on observations and testing. Religion must adjust to science to survive.
