On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion > overarches and encompasses everything, including science. > Which religion? How do you know? You still don't address the problem "why this book over all others?" You perhaps confuse again advertising personal faith with respectful exchange concerning theology. If a theologian is honest with assumptions, shows how she/he reaches which conclusion, so that others can (perhaps internally) verify them and derive them on their own, and these conclusions are of real value to others to continue the search, then this basic scientific attitude dissolves the border between good science and theology. And that's a problem for too many religious text: they make so many assumptions, that it creates contradictions like: "Be kind and merciful"; but we live in a world of violence, so we are forced to deal with the contradiction between reality and the sacred book. If the practitioner doesn't wrestle with these problems and just points towards faith, they imply a lazy god who doesn't want his creation to learn to think, and to stay stupid slaves of his will, finally. That is why I bring up the example: Faust goes directly against the holy scripture and its strict literal rules and meaning. Nonetheless the eternal feminine principle embraces him because he chose to seek truth beyond the rules and literal meaning of scripture. So Faust answers, in his fictional universe, the problem of people abusing a sacred text, by insisting it is true for all, beyond the personal level, at all cost, at all time; our problem of blasphemy, in a way that the quoted scripture in this thread fails to answer. The eternal feminine principle in Faust's universe admits that the scripture could never be as pure as the heart of the open, honest seeker, even if he might do wrong in his search. God admits here that the scripture about her could be wrong! And this is, if you allow the universe of Faust to just exist poetically, a theological result echoed by mystics, platonist, Text of Tao etc; a step forward perhaps from the texts with the strict rules that imply a tyrannical god that wants subjects to pray and repeat things without question like: "I believe in unchangeable G, so if x happens I do y, in any case because this is god's true rule, even if I have to hurt, make violence, preach, and kill, I believe in the holy Patati and I believe in the holy Patata etc." In Faust example therefore, the blasphemy problem is partially solved though doubting the god's scripture and rules in search. This implies a god so cool and loving, she doesn't have to play commander, enforcer of violent and/or simplistic rules. It doesn't mean that it is true; but within Göthe poetic universe, this is "fact and true". And on this level, with this kind of distance, theological/scientific exchange is possible if we can be nice and non-patronizing. > >> Inviting me to parse some ancient text for meaning is not equivalent to >> providing me with experimental evidence for this hypothesis of this alleged >> monotheist deity you are proposing exists. >> >> Can you provide such experimental evidence? >> > > No, nor do I attempt to. I believe the monotheistic deity I worship > exists, but I do not expect others to embrace my faith. I am guessing that > since I suggested that the Quranic statements are scientifically correct, > and hence should be considered, the members on this list assume that I'm > preaching Islam? > Yes, because you aim at scientifically correct "fact" of Quran statements, but have not demonstrated in the quoted passages what the standards for "facts" are that you work with. Because you do not demonstrate this in a way that is shareable, that everybody, no matter culture or beliefs can verify with their inner self, all that a reader can do is: a) believe you repeating "I believe patati-patata! Patati-Patata! Because book says Patati-Patata, and because Patati is obviously true, patata must be true". The Quran is factually accurate! b) not believe you. You then even asked "what is fact?"; which is a humbling, deep question that should warn all of us about doing things like a), because it is convincing only to people that think their faith is perfect/saves them/gives them privilege in the eyes of god/creation/truth. It's a theological trap because it results in suffering and separation of peoples. > Is that why you ask for experimental evidence? > > >> >> >> >> >> I posted a selection of verses which contained info verifiable by today's >> science, PGC doesn't agree to their being as proofs of 'factual accuracy'. >> >> >> >> You presented some interesting perhaps, but inconsequential little >> tidbits that have nothing to do with the central hypothesis you are >> defending. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that you are >> proposing your brand of monotheism as being scientific and on equal >> footing. If this is indeed what you are attempting to state then I am going >> to respectfully disagree and challenge you to provide something more >> relevant to the core hypothesis, i.e. the existence of this particular >> monotheist deity. >> > > If a book contains no mistakes in the verifiable part, > I pointed to you many contradictions, most notably we spoke about blasphemy, but it is your choice not to see it, as you don't reply beyond citing scripture that does not address the problems in the many ways they can be addressed. Faust is just one example for approaching the blasphemy thing. > what chances are there of it being correct o the non-verifiable part? > Very few to none that you can use in this exchange without invoking your belief strongly in authoritative manner. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
