romansh

Purpose?

82 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Admins can do what they wish. I put my thread OUT of the PC area deliberately.

 

Traditionally, the PC area has been the exact opposite of a safe zone. In my experience, it has only misused as a "gotcha" to bully Christians who are not liberal enough and heretically cross the 8 points of PC dogma.

 

Typically that has not really been a bad thing, but it would be nice to see the board grow instead of chasing off all the new members.

 

Well, try it again and make the request that it stay in the safe zone. Hopefully after this discussion, future threads will not be moved from a safe zone if that is where a Member places it.

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do you cast your pearls Burl (Burl's Pearls)?

I have had many productive conversations and discussions here, but when people become argumentative or ask trolling questions then I generally disengage and ignore them.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a revolution about reality and we need a revolution about Christianity or it will never change and we will not be able to purchase the latest computer. The common villain seems to be science, which I think is a savior for Christianity because it gives a clear view of reality at least on the physical and Quantum levels. Science and Christianity are both trying to describe our source or the beginning of reality and we Christians should not look at it or the hard questions as adversarial or try to make scientists kneel down and kiss the ring or word Christian, Jesus never said he was Christian. Science is helping us Christians clean up our act by challenging the misinformation and deception our leaders have given us out of innocent ignorance or to sell the Christian label. I find science can ask and help clear up the concepts our intellect has so we can move on to virtue, service and devotion beyond the mind without being misled by people who don’t understand science, the questions or the concepts. The people on this thread who don’t identify with Christianity have asked, challenged and help be expand in a balance, informed manner. I am not a number person so don’t look to popularity as a standard for this sight and think the conversations from many dimensions help us all go deeper and that is why we stick around. People come, go, return for the same reason growth into the self because this sight asks and responds to the hard questions. I hope people don’t hold back and fire away because I love the abstract and to space out, but I have to pacify my intellect and its questions to go beyond the mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soma, the revolution has been going on in many Christian circles for decades ( I was first introduced to in in the early 70s) and many Christians, accepting the findings of science, don't expect it to "kiss the ring." Many also understand the limitations of science and that faith plays a role it can't fill.

 

And, of course, Jesus never said he was a Christian. The faith in a Messiah/Christ who had actually arrived (at least according to the faith of this Jewish sect) did not yet exist. This Jewish sect (Christians), in seeking to understand their 'resurrection experience' began to preach the messenger: Jesus.

 

I am glad you acknowledged that some of what we got from our leaders was "out of innocent ignorance."

 

I, for one, don't ask anyone to "hold back" and believe that both some who identify and others who don't identify with Christianity have both challenged and helped and, at times, since we are all human, have not done this.

 

I too find science can help but recognize there is also an intellectual element of Christianity (philosophy or theology) that discusses the 'things of that faith' and has enabled many to better understand the faith given to them as children.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a hard balance to strike at tcpc and it always has been. You're either too Christian, too un-christian, too trollish, too superstitious, too atheist, too crazy, not intellectual enough, not educated enough, too spiritual. And we tend to let a small handful of participants set the agenda. That's just who we are and have always been. But this place has always been there for me when I needed to work stuff out and romansh has long been a part of that experience here. To be honest, I wish it were a little more friendly to theism, but I have no lack of support elsewhere for that.

 

I don't know what spurred this thread, but I will offer up two thoughts: this place is precious to a handful of us square pegs. Our ideas are often rejected elsewhere. Let's be kind to each other and respect each others' differing paths. And every Christian should have a pain-in-the@ss atheist friend to keep them honest. Romansh is pretty good at that.

Edited by fatherman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked what fatherman had to say about this. Every now and then it’s probably good to blow out the carburetor (assuming anyone remembers what that is!) and continue the journey.

We all want to have things the way we want to have them, and the forum is no different. It’s too much of this and not enough of that, that person is arrogant, annoying, preachy, snarky or whatever.

 

It is a smallish, slightly odd group of fat frogs on this lily pad for sure! But, you kind of have to love them anyway!

 

Steve

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a revolution about reality and we need a revolution about Christianity or it will never change and we will not be able to purchase the latest computer. The common villain seems to be science, which I think is a savior for Christianity because it gives a clear view of reality at least on the physical and Quantum levels. Science and Christianity are both trying to describe our source or the beginning of reality and we Christians should not look at it or the hard questions as adversarial or try to make scientists kneel down and kiss the ring or word Christian, Jesus never said he was Christian. Science is helping us Christians clean up our act by challenging the misinformation and deception our leaders have given us out of innocent ignorance or to sell the Christian label. I find science can ask and help clear up the concepts our intellect has so we can move on to virtue, service and devotion beyond the mind without being misled by people who don’t understand science, the questions or the concepts. The people on this thread who don’t identify with Christianity have asked, challenged and help be expand in a balance, informed manner. I am not a number person so don’t look to popularity as a standard for this sight and think the conversations from many dimensions help us all go deeper and that is why we stick around. People come, go, return for the same reason growth into the self because this sight asks and responds to the hard questions. I hope people don’t hold back and fire away because I love the abstract and to space out, but I have to pacify my intellect and its questions to go beyond the mind.

True enough in theory but not in practice.

 

Science is an ongoing search to find the least false answer to a limited set of questions. Not truth, but that which is least false. Scientific 'facts' in every field have changed drastically in just the past 50 years.

 

Science is never finished. It can never be a fixed conclusion. It is always a moving target.

 

Science thought dinosaurs were reptiles until it thought maybe they were birds. Newtonian physics was intellectually unassailable until Einstein. Statin drugs prescribed to prevent atherosclerosis have been shown to cause it. Is Pluto a planet this year or not?

 

That is theory. Practice is to first incorrectly take science as a fixed truth. Then use non-scientific means such as generalization, correlation and extrapolation to extend science into the unknown. This results at best in a pragmatic truth but never a veridical truth.

 

Science is best tool we have for a limited set of questions, but it has definite limitations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is best tool we have for a limited set of questions, but it has definite limitations.

 

There is much I agreed with your post Burl ... science does remove falsehoods or at least at tries to have ever more accurate descriptions for whatever passes as reality. Newtonian physics is still a pretty good description for the meso world we inhabit. Quantum mechanics and relativity are even more accurate descriptions for their application but they too will be improved.

 

But I disagree with this statement:

 

Science is best tool we have for a limited set of questions, but it has definite limitations.

If we include scientific method in science ... then it is simply our imagination and capabilities that limit us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And every Christian should have a pain-in-the@ss atheist friend to keep them honest. Romansh is pretty good at that.

 

:)

Thank you fatherman

:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like also like what Burl wrote.

 

But science does have its limits beyond our imagination and capabilities.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is much I agreed with your post Burl ... science does remove falsehoods or at least at tries to have ever more accurate descriptions for whatever passes as reality. Newtonian physics is still a pretty good description for the meso world we inhabit. Quantum mechanics and relativity are even more accurate descriptions for their application but they too will be improved.

 

But I disagree with this statement:

 

 

Science is best tool we have for a limited set of questions, but it has definite limitations.

If we include scientific method in science ... then it is simply our imagination and capabilities that limit us.
Science is only applicable to physical noumenon which are 1) measurable, 2) repeatable and 3) observable from an independent frame of reference.

 

Those are definite limitations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our development and belief system is just like science as it gets more complicated or simpler, but what makes it more complicated and narrower is the hypothesis that what we believe is the absolute truth. We are relative and our truth is relative to think otherwise is intellectual irresponsibility. We are responsible when we don’t regard science as absolute truth. Everyone has their own relative truth in their own relative mind and body, go beyond those limits, you have an experience, but expressing it is relative so on this plane there is no absolute truth, but I feel those that are close to truth are compassionate to others.

Not everyone that thinks they know the absolute truth is good. Hitler, “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is only applicable to physical noumenon which are 1) measurable, 2) repeatable and 3) observable from an independent frame of reference.

 

Those are definite limitations.

 

Science is applicable to noumena ... full stop.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is applicable to noumena ... full stop.

All three requirements must be met or it is either pseudoscience or semiscience.

 

Who taught your philosophy of science course? This is usually covered in the first lecture.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is only applicable to physical noumenon which are 1) measurable, 2) repeatable and 3) observable from an independent frame of reference.

Those are definite limitations.

As Rom has already implied, the idea of "physical noumenon" (physical only) seems antiquated. This partly because science has found that there are limits to our ability to measure ( remember the Terry Pratchett guy who either knew where he was or where he was going, but never both at the same time? ), some things seem pretty unrepeatable, and, science is telling us, there is definitely no independent frame of reference. Its easy to get stuck in a Newtonian cosmos, but science has moved on if we wish to know Reality in its fullness and depth. Alas, we love certainties, and as T S Eliot has said, we just can't stand too much reality.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, it seems to me it is much about seeking to impose definitive demarcation lines. Imposed by a "self" that seeks to plot its own course and determine its very own "salvation". Virtually the polar opposite of grace.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Rom has already implied, the idea of "physical noumenon" (physical only) seems antiquated. This partly because science has found that there are limits to our ability to measure ( remember the Terry Pratchett guy who either knew where he was or where he was going, but never both at the same time? ), some things seem pretty unrepeatable, and, science is telling us, there is definitely no independent frame of reference. Its easy to get stuck in a Newtonian cosmos, but science has moved on if we wish to know Reality in its fullness and depth. Alas, we love certainties, and as T S Eliot has said, we just can't stand too much reality.

I hear you, but allow me to advance the model.

 

Only a subset of reality can be examined scientifically. If you have spent any time in real science, you know that scientists usually examine only very minute aspects of reality. They are sharpening knowledge to a wire edge, not casting fishing nets into the unknown.

 

There is another subset which can never be examined scientifically. This includes the origin of the universe, the nature of life, are we "all one", do we have free will, the nature of consciousness, what is good and evil &c. Very important questions, but excluded from scientific investigation.

 

Between these two subsets of questions we can 'know' and questions we can 'think' is a huge number of things we can 'think that we know'. Science can only point to them by adding non-scientific methods such as extrapolation, generalization, correlation, semantic inference, induction &c.

 

This non-scientific extension of science into non-science is useful. It allows us to posit practical guesses at truth which can be highly beneficial, but they are still only informed guesses. This is the semi-science which is often accepted as fact but later demonstrated to have been incorrect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Our development and belief system is just like science as it gets more complicated or simpler, but what makes it more complicated and narrower is the hypothesis that what we believe is the absolute truth. We are relative and our truth is relative to think otherwise is intellectual irresponsibility. We are responsible when we don’t regard science as absolute truth. Everyone has their own relative truth in their own relative mind and body, go beyond those limits, you have an experience, but expressing it is relative so on this plane there is no absolute truth, but I feel those that are close to truth are compassionate to others.

Not everyone that thinks they know the absolute truth is good. Hitler, “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”  

 

Perhaps I am misreading but what does this mean: "We are responsible when we don’t regard science as absolute truth."

 

I don't know many (any) people who believe they have the absolute truth (okay there are some religious leaders and factions but I don't know them only of them). Certainly on this site, there are many times when people state that something is their opinion/belief but one simply can't "Know."

 

Be that as it may you approach an interesting point when you stated that "those that are close to truth are compassionate to others."

This seemingly asserts that there is 'truth' and it can be known in some way since being aligned with truth leads to compassion.

 

The other point I wonder about and sometimes question is our relativity. I agree, on one hand, that we 'see' from our perspective which takes place in a particular time in history within a particular worldview (and then there are the circumstances of where one lives, upbringing, education and on and on). However, on the other hand, if we not only participate in but are being, I have always allowed that we can say something, in our particularity, about Being or Reality that is 'truth.' All here (or almost here) seem to accept that there is something more or a Reality of which we are a part. If this Reality is (in some way) what we are, I suspect we can know or be "...close to truth....(which) leads to compassion."

 

Of course, this is still 'belief' because we can't get behind or on top of Reality (so to speak), but can it be known by doing even within the relative?

 

This is meant merely as an early morning musing.

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, it seems to me it is much about seeking to impose definitive demarcation lines. Imposed by a "self" that seeks to plot its own course and determine its very own "salvation". Virtually the polar opposite of grace.

I would agree.

Being subjective (sentient) creatures it would certainly in my mind seem natural to operate with labels that are merely demarcation lines based on a myriad of personal factors. Perhaps knowing this helps us to see the lines for what they are so that we can approach grace as a way of life. Though i don't personally see polar opposites , as to me, even grace is on a continuum with unmerited favor being on one end and merited favor on the other with each putting ones own demarcation line somewhere on that line and calling it grace.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Once again, it seems to me it is much about seeking to impose definitive demarcation lines. Imposed by a "self" that seeks to plot its own course and determine its very own "salvation". Virtually the polar opposite of grace.

 

tariki,

 

what is the 'it' to which you refer? And lines around what?

 

And what is your understanding of grace, where does it come from and how is it presented or given to us?

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

tariki,

 

what is the 'it' to which you refer? And lines around what?

 

And what is your understanding of grace, where does it come from and how is it presented or given to us?

 

Hi Thormas, not seeking to palm you off with second hand posts, but here is a link to a second hand thread ( :) ) that I opened some time ago. (all part of "living in the moment".... :D )

 

Just to say that the important word in definitive demarcation lines ​is the word "definitive", not "lines". Hopefully that makes it more clear.

 

As far as "it", long ago I asked on Buddhist Forums, in respect of the oft quoted "Buddha's only point the way, each has to walk the path themselves", in the light of "not-self" (anatta), just WHO is asked to "walk the path". I think if anyone is serious about all this then the answer can only be found by "walking on".

 

 

Here is the link....

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3184-the-preeminence-of-grace/

 

(Just to say, we have had the grandchildren here for a couple of days, and time has been rather limited)

Edited by tariki
Link did not work
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So I can assume, Tariki, your Buddhism is not derived from the scientific method?

 

Just as pure science can point towards sub-scientific but still valuable observations, grace points from God through mankind in sub-divine but still valuable observations. Revelation, inspiration, imagnation, philosophy, art, religion &c.

 

Depending on the question, Buddhism may be a better means of understanding than science.

 

Dreams are a particularly interesting limnal area. Crick's conception of the double helix structure of DNA, the songs "Yesterday" and "Satisfaction", the sewing machine, the ring structure of benzine and even Descartes discovery of the scientific method itself came from dreams.

 

One can analyze these from both a scientific and a gracious perspective, but a gracious perspective is more useful in trying to increase the number of these breakthrough revelations. The scientific method can be accessed, but ends in non-productive and dismissive scepticism. Buddhism will get us closer to the truth than science.

Edited by Burl
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I can assume, Tariki, your Buddhism is not derived from the scientific method?

 

Thinking back my current understanding has not been the product of any "method" at all. Or, to put it another way, no ONE method.

 

I really have just stumbled along - and still do.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion and science if we do not regard them as absolute truth is responsible, I fee. Science as a word has evolved over time, in the early stages it meant knowledge in any field of discovery, now as Burl has done we have designed a box for it, but boundaries are always blurry. Different disciplines use different methods to uncover the relative truth that we can grasp. A scientist studies things and hypothesis and adapt their methods to the nature of the question or hypothesis asked; therefore people debate whether Psychology is science or not. The question should not be is Psychology science, but how true the discipline is, does it fit in with the accepted facts related to the thought experiment and if it is unsatisfactory it is either modified or discarded. The scientific method allows for creative problem solving while minimizing effects of falsification to support findings or subjective bias. Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He wrote that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth," but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."

 

Einstein said, “If there is any religion that could respond to the needs of modern science, it would be Buddhism.”

The Dalai Lama statement corresponds, “If science proves an aspect of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will change.”

There are many teachings or disciplines in Buddhism and a variety of methods, but they are geared to solving life problems temporarily and permanently because they deal with the mind and go beyond its relative thinking patterns. Many Christians have become Christian Buddhist and better Christians because of these practices and many Buddhist have become Buddhist Christians.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”

In Christianity we have misguided men because of the manipulation of the teaching where people read the Bible and think they have found absolute truth reading it without critical thinking. Then they scroll to the bottom and click on the small square box that says I am a Christian and they never try to rewire their brain that is causing the problems. To maintain the absolute truth they think they have found, Christian dogma goes to war with science when science can help and support Christianity. We observe Christians killing for faith, but we point out Muslims and deny observation to preserve our faith, science adjusts the theory, views and facts on what is observed. Christianity has changed, Jesus started the revolution, but it has slowed down to evolution, which is slow and sometimes backward. I feel the first step is awareness of our self, the Bible and the teachings of Jesus along with the teaching of the other Holy and respected scriptures of other religions to make sure we are going in the right direction.

Francis Bacon said, “If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.”

 

The Pew Research Center posted a poll where they found that only 27 percent of white evangelical Protestants understand that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” As Christian we need to work on this............................

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who taught your philosophy of science course? This is usually covered in the first lecture.

 

Funnily enough it was the tone (I read into) Jen's posts to Paul that inspired this thread. I see it lives elsewhere also.

 

I never took philosophy Burl. Did you question the professor in your first lecture?

Having said that I have been in science in some shape or form the last 46 years, so I am qualified to question your philosophy of science first lecture ... don't you think?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now