" Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” - chris
I would suggest that that is why we have science and we have religion. After all, where do you go if you are looking for completion ? We have religion, so that we can go to it if we are looking for to complete ourself ! If Chris means to reveal his own value system, by saying that he sees science as being everything and religion as being nothing, or that science is superior to religion ... I see no reason for quibble. I could hold differently in this regard and I am sure he would the first to permit me the freedom to have and hold " my " own value system ! On Jan 30, 12:59 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists > (by default) changes to the ideology.” – chris > > “I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no > one claims to know what god actually is.” – orn > > “Christianity Judaism Islam Hindu Shinto Say again?” – chris > > OK, since you are not making a claim with the above question, I’ll > assume that you meant to imply that those religions “claim > completeness, and resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” If > you didn’t mean to imply this, then one can ignore the rest of my post > and you can clarify what, if anything, you were saying. > > To save time, I’ll go into the topic in detail so that most of my > assumptions will not have to be ferreted out. > I’ll also repost a little more of your original post for the context: > “A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought > is that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; > it is ever evolving and growing as the volume of total observations > grows. Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and > resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” - chris > > As I’ve pointed out numerous times over the years, there is no > religion (in the context of our current discussion) that is separate > from the notions and thoughts of people. The same is true for science. > You even used the terms ‘scientific thought’ and ‘religious thought’ > above. So, with that as a given, we can continue. > > As a quick aside, I find it strange to take the role of an apologist > for religion(s)…not adhering to a specific theology nor embracing > faith nor revelation as stated earlier…and clearly not even being near > the ‘creationist’ that you so rudely attempted to impose upon me. > Continuing… > > As far as I know, there is no monolithic point of view of any of the > theologies you listed Chris. I’m sure you have some thoughts about > each as do I. Also, millions of other people have their own subjective > views of each ‘religion’ (or, more accurately, ‘religious thought’) > too…each having their own spin. Yes, I know that there are specific > tenets involved. Some would embrace the ten commandments. Others would > embrace sheria law. The list could continue for a long time, no? And, > in almost every if not actually every case, there would be those who > disagree with the tenets listed. This is what I mean by no monolithic > view or thought about any religion. Yes, we do each have some vague > set of beliefs about what these religions consist of…yet when > examined, there is no full agreement at all about any of them. > > Your original claim had to do with a comparison between scientific > thought and religious thought… making the proposition that they > differed in that the former makes no claims as to being complete while > the latter does. > > It is true that many scientists will change their beliefs if and when > other scientists present a better model and/or experiment methodology > showing a preferable reality. So, in this way scientific thought can > change over time. There may be examples to the contrary, but that > would be for a different topic. > > It is also true that some religious thinkers are rigid when it comes > to some of their beliefs about reality. > > Now we come to your specific claim about ‘completeness’…a notion that > is not clearly defined. So, I hope you will excuse me if my guess as > to your meaning does not quite fit, OK? When you changed your terms > from ‘religious thought’ to ‘religion’, a subtle difference was > possibly introduced. By using ‘religion’, it may appear to be easier > to imply and/or impose a monolithic point of view upon some nebulous > ‘thing’ rather than individual thinkers. So, this is my first point… > there is no pure religious thought just as there is no pure ideology > when it comes to practice let alone human expression of their thinking > thereof. I can list examples even though I’m in no way an expert on > religion and I’m sure you could to. I have Muslim friends who > completely disagree with the views and actions of the more radical > ‘terrorist’ types…and I would hazard a guess that the reverse is true > too. And here, I’m not even addressing other Muslim sects such as > Sufis…who’s views are rejected by many too. The obvious examples in > Christianity are legion. Every way of thinking exists…from Catholic > views to Protestant, from Baptist to Charismatic, from Universalists > to KKK members…all claiming to be ‘Christians’ when it comes to their > belief systems. Jewish thinking can be found to be Orthodox or > Reformed along with countless other verities of viewpoints too. I’m > not an expert on Hindus but would hazard a guess that the same is true > there as with Shinto thought too. > > So, since there is and *always* has been divergent thinking when it > comes to theological ideology, clearly there can be no valid claim > when it comes to any sort of ‘completeness’…that is as long as one > doesn’t include the ‘completeness’ of human thinkers being different > and always changing. > > Now perhaps you meant some sort of ‘official’ view of what any given > religious thinking *should be*. This of course is a different issue. > And, one could take the Catholic church and it’s pope as an example > and point out many of the numerous changes in their tenets that have > been promulgated over even the last few decades. Different Muslim > Imams are known to do the same as are Jewish rabbis. Again, since my > knowledge about religions in general is slim, I will only hazard a > guess that the last two are similar. > > So, one can only conclude that in reality, ‘religions’ do not make the > claims as to being ‘complete’ as you say they do Chris. Now I do > understand that it is a common atheistic tactic to impose authority > and thinking upon ‘religious thinkers’, but it just doesn’t match > reality. > > Now you may have noticed that I originally said that I knew of > ‘precious few religions that make such a claim’. And that the > qualifier of ‘few’ was used because, in fact, I know of none but do > not presume to know about all religions and their members and their > religious thinking. So, there in fact may be some. I just don’t know > of any. > > I followed this up with something I’m not sure has been addressed or > not. And that was that “Almost no one claims to know what god actually > is.” Perhaps Pat is one exception. Perhaps there is the religious > thinker her and there who hold tight to some sort of belief as to the > exact nature of the divine, but again, even the most central point of > theologies includes an area always ripe for discussion and examination > for those so interested. In fact, I do find such ‘changes’ in thinking > over the ages to be quite similar to how scientific thinking evolves. > One merely finds a preferable model to impose upon what is perceived > to be real. > > I hope that you don’t decide to just attack my last paragraph instead > of the rest of this post. I know this last isn’t fully thought out yet… > but did want to address all of my original post. > > On Jan 29, 10:36 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Christianity > > Judaism > > Islam > > Hindu > > Shinto > > > Say again? > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > “…Religion, on > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > > > changes to > > > the ideology.” – chris > > > > I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no one > > > claims to know what god actually is. > > > > On Jan 29, 6:38 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Is this correct Chris? There is no faith required in an emprical > > > > > stance? > > > > > > I don't think it is you know. We all belive that the Earth revolves > > > > > around the sun despite not having personaly conducted any experiments > > > > > ourselves. We belive instead the data from those who have perfomed > > > > > such experiments. > > > > > > So then I personly have no experiance of the above yet it is > > > > > certianly what I belive to be true. I must belive it because I trust > > > > > the works of others, there is a little faith in that surley? > > > > > Aha!, he says...I've got him! But not so much, my friend. This is the > > > same > > > > argument that's been bandied about forever; I'm surprised you don't have > > > my > > > > response memorized. In scientific axioms, we do accept that the data > > > > provided by someone else is accurate. We have the option, however, to > > > > approach that experiment for ourselves, and measure and test those > > > > axioms > > > > using the scientific process. The hallmark of empirical observation is > > > > reproducibility, and we know that a billion times out of a billion, > > > dropping > > > > this rock in my controlled laboratory will result in it landing on the > > > > floor. Ah, but wait! Isn't it possible that on the billion and first > > > > try, > > > it > > > > might float? We have a certain surety in our empirical processes due to > > > the > > > > reproduction factor, but since we accept that our knowledge is not > > > absolute, > > > > we (or our proxies) continue to study and test the data, perform more > > > > complex observation, and keep a healthy sense of skepticism with regards > > > to > > > > ALL of our learned scientific knowledge. > > > > > A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought is > > > > that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; it is > > > ever > > > > evolving and growing as the volume of total observations grows. > > > > Religion, > > > on > > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > > > > changes > > > to > > > > the ideology. > > > > > > To love also, yes we can see and test emotions, but as every teenager > > > > > will know some times when a person say 'I love you' they may not be > > > > > telling the truth. I am loved, my wife oves me, of this I > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
