You are so coherent in name calling, ad hominem attacks. Have a nice day.johnross47: I remain agnostic about what I don't know about god. I know nothing but remain open to someone demonstrating that there is something to know.
Good, you gave your testimony of what you have your faith in. How about everything not just God. You don’t know a lot about everything. Look at yourself in the mirror, do I have to demonstrate there is something yet to know? You operate by faith that your little evolved brain can comprehend everything or you won’t believe anything.. OK, that is faith.
Are you dislexic? Should we be making allowances for the disordered posts? I'm quite experienced in reading work by a dislexic, and editing it into coherence.
That apart this is just more worthless abuse.
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???
#571
Posted 21 February 2014 - 07:33 PM
#572
Posted 21 February 2014 - 08:12 PM
You are so coherent in name calling, ad hominem attacks. Have a nice day.johnross47: I remain agnostic about what I don't know about god. I know nothing but remain open to someone demonstrating that there is something to know.
Good, you gave your testimony of what you have your faith in. How about everything not just God. You don’t know a lot about everything. Look at yourself in the mirror, do I have to demonstrate there is something yet to know? You operate by faith that your little evolved brain can comprehend everything or you won’t believe anything.. OK, that is faith.
Are you dislexic? Should we be making allowances for the disordered posts? I'm quite experienced in reading work by a dislexic, and editing it into coherence.
That apart this is just more worthless abuse.
Curious and rather sad that you think dislexia is an insult rather than an unfortunate problem. Not long ago I did some editing work on a dislexic's phd. (And before you say something silly, it passed without corrections being required.)
#573
Posted 21 February 2014 - 09:53 PM
Good for you.You are so coherent in name calling, ad hominem attacks. Have a nice day.johnross47: I remain agnostic about what I don't know about god. I know nothing but remain open to someone demonstrating that there is something to know.
Good, you gave your testimony of what you have your faith in. How about everything not just God. You don’t know a lot about everything. Look at yourself in the mirror, do I have to demonstrate there is something yet to know? You operate by faith that your little evolved brain can comprehend everything or you won’t believe anything.. OK, that is faith.
Are you dislexic? Should we be making allowances for the disordered posts? I'm quite experienced in reading work by a dislexic, and editing it into coherence.
That apart this is just more worthless abuse.
Curious and rather sad that you think dislexia is an insult rather than an unfortunate problem. Not long ago I did some editing work on a dislexic's phd. (And before you say something silly, it passed without corrections being required.)
#574
Posted 21 February 2014 - 10:19 PM
We have discussed the vanishing point where our sight runs out but reality goes on, unseen. I gave you a glimpse into my favorite spot in the world where you can see where the ocean meets the sky and get an image of this. http://www.contemplation.com/
In Christianity this difference has been given names. Apophatic or negative http://orthodoxwiki....atic_theology http://en.wiktionary.../wiki/apophatic and Kataphatic or positive. http://orthodoxwiki....ogy Kataphatic, what you can see and Apophatic, what you cant see. The crack in the cosmos. Christians say both are real.
Atheists are definitely stuck on the kataphatic side of things believing the only rational reality is the physical or what has been called the natural world. The Theist however believes reality is much greater than just that, and that the greatest part of reality lies also in what we can’t see.
Where is the proof the Atheist cries. If only they had the capacity to comprehend it. We all live by faith. But we have science and only believe what can be proved. Prove science. There is no proof, only probability. Evidence for God is both negative and positive..
God is not limited to what we say He is. We can only describe Him in terms of what we can see. (Kataphatic) but the wholeness of God is beyond this. How do we know? The vanishing point teaches us there is a greater reality beyond, the greatest part of what we can see. There is a vanishing point in the cosmos, beyond what we can draw a circle around. Our capacity is incomplete to the task. There is a quantum vanishing point and we can only see so small.
But it is not just Atheism or God of the gaps, there is an irreducible complexity iv things we do see that show us evidence something else is needed to explain reality as we see it. I have been called a lot of names for pointing some of them out, http://www.longecity...510#entry642862 .
However they are all just evidence from the Kataphatic side, some more powerful than others. If God does not show himself, we may believe these evidences show something but what? I believe we have given evidence of a being such as we call God. But, there are many clams that compete with each other, this is the true God. Which God?
Edited by shadowhawk, 21 February 2014 - 10:30 PM.
#575
Posted 22 February 2014 - 02:18 PM
#576
Posted 22 February 2014 - 06:43 PM
We have discussed the vanishing point where our sight runs out but reality goes on, unseen. I gave you a glimpse into my favorite spot in the world where you can see where the ocean meets the sky and get an image of this. http://www.contemplation.com/
I'm not sure I understand why the vanishing point isn't just a limitation on our tools? For example, create stronger glass to see farther into the distance, and what happens to the vanishing point? We would eventually see the big bang constantly happening -- one bright light expanding?
Atheists are definitely stuck on the kataphatic side of things believing the only rational reality is the physical or what has been called the natural world. The Theist however believes reality is much greater than just that, and that the greatest part of reality lies also in what we can’t see.
Where is the proof the Atheist cries. If only they had the capacity to comprehend it. We all live by faith. But we have science and only believe what can be proved. Prove science. There is no proof, only probability. Evidence for God is both negative and positive..
I think many understand that the scientific method rests upon some basic presuppositions. Call that faith if you will, but it's sorta faith-plus. Or a faith that spawns utilitarianism: we create real-world outcomes based upon science. As you say, knowledge rests upon faith -- few disagree -- but these faiths are on a spectrum. That is, the faiths of religion and science are have different values. We're able to create based upon the "faith" we have in science's presuppositions. Religious faith doesn't seem to offer the same practical and theoretical benefits. So when you write: "Prove science": isn't the proof of "science" inherent in your everday life? For example, science based upon higher values of faith gave you the computer you're now using to read these words and respond. Are we able to employ religion to create or understand new information? What am I not understanding here?
#577
Posted 22 February 2014 - 11:49 PM
You think evidence and your ability to comprehend it is all there is? Does your reality have any mystery in it? Do you think you don't operate by faith.None of this is evidence; it is just special pleading for unsupported faith.
#578
Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:31 AM
The vanishing point is about limitations not only on our tools but on us. Reality is made up of both the positive and negative. We can’t see the Big Bang, it is lost in history. But we do have the Kalam and its supporting evidence.We have discussed the vanishing point where our sight runs out but reality goes on, unseen. I gave you a glimpse into my favorite spot in the world where you can see where the ocean meets the sky and get an image of this. http://www.contemplation.com/
I'm not sure I understand why the vanishing point isn't just a limitation on our tools? For example, create stronger glass to see farther into the distance, and what happens to the vanishing point? We would eventually see the big bang constantly happening -- one bright light expanding?Atheists are definitely stuck on the kataphatic side of things believing the only rational reality is the physical or what has been called the natural world. The Theist however believes reality is much greater than just that, and that the greatest part of reality lies also in what we can't see.
Where is the proof the Atheist cries. If only they had the capacity to comprehend it. We all live by faith. But we have science and only believe what can be proved. Prove science. There is no proof, only probability. Evidence for God is both negative and positive..
I think many understand that the scientific method rests upon some basic presuppositions. Call that faith if you will, but it's sorta faith-plus. Or a faith that spawns utilitarianism: we create real-world outcomes based upon science. As you say, knowledge rests upon faith -- few disagree -- but these faiths are on a spectrum. That is, the faiths of religion and science are have different values. We're able to create based upon the "faith" we have in science's presuppositions. Religious faith doesn't seem to offer the same practical and theoretical benefits. So when you write: "Prove science": isn't the proof of "science" inherent in your everday life? For example, science based upon higher values of faith gave you the computer you're now using to read these words and respond. Are we able to employ religion to create or understand new information? What am I not understanding here?
Let me again post MIT Scientist and Professor Cullen Buie on faith as used in the scientific method. It is worth listening to. The real world is both the positive, what we can see and the negative, what we can’t see and we have evidence for both. There is a vanishing point with reality on the other side. Both need a lot of explaining and they overlap. In my next post, let me address religion, science and faith. Actually, you can’t prove science and even it is accepted by faith. I mi-spoke.
I am not talking about a God of the gaps. Everything, both positive and negative, can’t explain itself. We all start with faith.
#579
Posted 23 February 2014 - 02:12 AM
However, reason can also mean, “Let the universe tell us what is right.” The universe might teach us that mystery or unknowing is a basic part of reality and we have to live by faith. Those who claim they are rational but don’t rely on faith are just majoring in meaningless assertion.
A scientific theory is a way of seeing what we do not yet see. It is an educated hunch. What do we see? It is Faith based on our best evidence. We haven’t seen it yet or we wouldn’t be searching for it. It is a search for the best explanation, that makes sense of what we see around us. There is more to Christianity than just making sense of things, and hence Christianity both sees and experiences the hidden mysteries of existence. It answers and touches on questions science does not hope to answer. There is more to Christianity than just making sense of things.
Religion is not a batched attempt to explain everything using a method which can’t explain itself. The power of a lightbulb is not in the bulb but in what it lights up. The light lets us see what we could not see. Christianity lets us see into the darkness and gives it meaning. The phenomena does not prove religion but religion illumines or explains the phenomena.
For example, suppose someone decided to place a pot of tea on a stove. Science can explain some things about the tea. Water, the pot, the stove, even the temperature it takes to boil the water are all physical and can be partially explained. What it doesn’t explain is desire for tea and the conscious mental process of the mind behind the tea. The process is guided by Intelligence. What you can see and what you can’t see are in fact friends not foes. Science tells us why the tea boils and religion tells us the meaning behind it. Science and religion are in fact integrated.
Math is another example. We have discussed it before.
MATH AS FINE TUNING EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
http://www.longecity...240#entry632454
Math is used to explain everything but no one knows why it and its logic is so foundational to everything. Why is it reasonable for math’s effectiveness? Is it intelligence? Let those who reject the Apophatic explain it. http://www.longecity...570#entry645162
Can faith be proved? No. Neither can science. Science sometimes raises questions which it is not equipped t answer. It has a hard time with Apophatic reality.
Yet Christianity is not about rational alone. Let the universe tell us what is right and faith what it means. We have yet to determine which faith.
#580
Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:58 PM
You think evidence and your ability to comprehend it is all there is? Does your reality have any mystery in it? Do you think you don't operate by faith.None of this is evidence; it is just special pleading for unsupported faith.
Why do religious people think they have a monopoly on wonder and mystery? Everybody takes some things on trust, but there are, in my opinion, limits to how far that should go. I work on the assumption that apparent reality is real, and reject the solipsistic view, but at a different level of information, I don't settle for the idea that the trees move because a spirit sways them or blows them; like most modern people I go with the science that explains wind. As for what I don't know, I can wait for science to come up with something backed by evidence. (That is not a claim to know everything currently possible to know.) I am aware of many mysteries but I don't fall back on putting some supernatural being in place of an explanation. My first degree was in Art; my world is full of wonder.
#581
Posted 23 February 2014 - 09:21 PM
Reason often means we tell the universe what it ought to be like. There is no god for example.
However, reason can also mean, “Let the universe tell us what is right.” The universe might teach us that mystery or unknowing is a basic part of reality and we have to live by faith. Those who claim they are rational but don’t rely on faith are just majoring in meaningless assertion.
Since we're not the center of the universe -- we're one mammal living amongst other mammals -- "the universe" may or may not "be telling us" anything. We engage in research and attempt to gather and interpret data in order to answer specific questions. Conclusions with 100% accuracy (or 100% "faith" to use your term) are not the objectives of most research in science. "Science" gives humanity a more accurate understanding of "the universe" than the faith of religion. That's why we use science. That's why we do not use the faith of religion to "understand the universe.". One method (science) is "better" than the other non-method (religion).
A scientific theory is a way of seeing what we do not yet see. It is an educated hunch.
A scientific theory explains scientific observations. Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
What do we see? It is Faith based on our best evidence. We haven’t seen it yet or we wouldn’t be searching for it. It is a search for the best explanation, that makes sense of what we see around us.
The rules are much tighter than this. We gather specific data under documented conditions then attempt to accurately decipher that data through formulaic steps (ie, agreed upon basic methods).
There is more to Christianity than just making sense of things, and hence Christianity both sees and experiences the hidden mysteries of existence. It answers and touches on questions science does not hope to answer. There is more to Christianity than just making sense of things.
Religion at its best may offer emotional support and community-building to some of its adherents. That's terrific. But religion offers us nothing novel in our attempts to understand "the universe." You assert that (religion) "answers and touches on questions science does not hope to answer".
I ask: like what?
Religion is not a batched attempt to explain everything using a method which can’t explain itself. The power of a lightbulb is not in the bulb but in what it lights up. The light lets us see what we could not see. Christianity lets us see into the darkness and gives it meaning. The phenomena does not prove religion but religion illumines or explains the phenomena.
Please understand that "science" invented the lightbulb and further enhanced the lightbulb as a tool for humanity. No science, no lightbulb. I'm unclear what you mean by: "Christianity lets us see into the darkness and gives it meaning.". Please explain? Light allows us see into darkness. Any meaning we gather from light and dark are electrochemical changes that occur within the brain and are increasingly understood by neuroscientists conducting research.
What does religion illuminate? What "phenomena" does religion "explain"?
For example, suppose someone decided to place a pot of tea on a stove. Science can explain some things about the tea. Water, the pot, the stove, even the temperature it takes to boil the water are all physical and can be partially explained. What it doesn’t explain is desire for tea and the conscious mental process of the mind behind the tea. The process is guided by Intelligence. What you can see and what you can’t see are in fact friends not foes. Science tells us why the tea boils and religion tells us the meaning behind it. Science and religion are in fact integrated.
Neuroscientists are continually making new discoveries and beginning to understand more about the human brain. Science is dynamic. "Desire", like all mental processes, is biology. Your desire for tea may be mapped and understood as a complicated interactions that are slowly becoming more understood. Doubt that? Then search "brain desire" and learn new stuff about that complicated mass sitting atop your shoulders.
Religion offers no help in understanding "desire" or any other mental state. These are within the realms of neuroscientific inquiry, and they'll remain scientific questions for scientists to slowly unravel.
Can faith be proved? No. Neither can science. Science sometimes raises questions which it is not equipped t answer. It has a hard time with Apophatic reality.
Yet Christianity is not about rational alone. Let the universe tell us what is right and faith what it means. We have yet to determine which faith.
I think many understand that the scientific method rests upon some basic presuppositions. Call that faith if you will, but it's sorta faith-plus. Or a faith that spawns utilitarianism: we create real-world outcomes based upon science. As you say, knowledge rests upon faith -- few disagree -- but these faiths are on a spectrum. That is, the faiths of religion and science have different values. We're able to create based upon the "faith" we have in science's presuppositions. Religious faith doesn't seem to offer the same practical and theoretical benefits. So when you write: "Prove science": isn't the proof of "science" inherent in your everday life? For example, science based upon higher values of faith gave you the computer you're now using to read these words and respond. Are we able to employ religion to create or understand new information?
What am I not understanding here?
#582
Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:20 AM
In the Evolution vs Creationism debate
Darwin explained a good theory on animal adaptation but is there any actual evidence on one species turning into another species?.
If we are talking about real evidence, Man evolving from the Apes is also a leap of faith because as of yet, there is no real solid evidence to back it up. There is no evidence anywhere where one species has turned into another species. Only theories. Evidence is only on adaptation of a single species. Therefore, both sides require some degree of faith.
If I am wrong and have just missed it anyone can point me to the right place.
I personally love science, have no problem with religion and think there is room for both. Afterall, God may well be a scientist!
Edited by shifter, 24 February 2014 - 01:21 AM.
#583
Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:25 AM
A lot of talk about evidence here and how it's needed. I am curious on one thing however.
In the Evolution vs Creationism debate
Darwin explained a good theory on animal adaptation but is there any actual evidence on one species turning into another species?.
If we are talking about real evidence, Man evolving from the Apes is also a leap of faith because as of yet, there is no real solid evidence to back it up. There is no evidence anywhere where one species has turned into another species. Only theories. Evidence is only on adaptation of a single species. Therefore, both sides require some degree of faith.
If I am wrong and have just missed it anyone can point me to the right place.
I personally love science, have no problem with religion and think there is room for both. Afterall, God may well be a scientist!
Examples of species developing can be found in botany, such as the separation of Geranium macrorrhizum and G. dalmaticum. There are still many intermediate forms but at the extremes of their range the two are distinct species and geographic isolation will eventually reinforce this.
#584
Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:44 PM
A lot of talk about evidence here and how it's needed. I am curious on one thing however.
In the Evolution vs Creationism debate
Darwin explained a good theory on animal adaptation but is there any actual evidence on one species turning into another species?.
If we are talking about real evidence, Man evolving from the Apes is also a leap of faith because as of yet, there is no real solid evidence to back it up. There is no evidence anywhere where one species has turned into another species. Only theories. Evidence is only on adaptation of a single species. Therefore, both sides require some degree of faith.
If I am wrong and have just missed it anyone can point me to the right place.
I personally love science, have no problem with religion and think there is room for both. Afterall, God may well be a scientist!
The evolution creation debate is indeed interesting. We have discussed a number of aspects of evolution related to evidence for God which I will list below. Strictly speaking this topic is about evidence for Christianity and that is another subject. Much of your question has been discussed in the topic, “Intelligent Design and Science – In or Out?” I would point you to the web sight Evolution News and Views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/ Right now we are discussing Mystery, that part of reality which is beyond our ability to know. Even science is not capable of dealing with the Apophatic. It is a Kataphotic tool which itself runs out of capacity to explain.
Here is where we discussed Evolution as it related to evidence for Christianity.
5. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evdience for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255
3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built
2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language
3) All language comes from a mind
4) Therefore all things containing the logic of language are designed
4. HILBERTS HOTEL http://www.longecity..._90#entry622260
5. MY BOOKCASE AND THE MOVING BALL. http://www.longecity..._90#entry622414
#585
Posted 24 February 2014 - 11:08 PM
Straw man. Religious people do not believe they alone experience wonder. Good for you, you have an art degree and experience wonder. The religious don’t know trees move because of the wind? What a bigoted joke.You think evidence and your ability to comprehend it is all there is? Does your reality have any mystery in it? Do you think you don't operate by faith.None of this is evidence; it is just special pleading for unsupported faith.
Why do religious people think they have a monopoly on wonder and mystery? Everybody takes some things on trust, but there are, in my opinion, limits to how far that should go. I work on the assumption that apparent reality is real, and reject the solipsistic view, but at a different level of information, I don't settle for the idea that the trees move because a spirit sways them or blows them; like most modern people I go with the science that explains wind. As for what I don't know, I can wait for science to come up with something backed by evidence. (That is not a claim to know everything currently possible to know.) I am aware of many mysteries but I don't fall back on putting some supernatural being in place of an explanation. My first degree was in Art; my world is full of wonder.
We wonder that there are things such as trees an wind. Tell me, where are the limits of reality. How do you see in the darkness and convince yourself there is nothing there? The Apophatic is right there in front of you. http://www.contemplation.com/
#586
Posted 25 February 2014 - 12:39 AM
sthira: Since we're not the center of the universe -- we're one mammal living amongst other mammals -- "the universe" may or may not "be telling us" anything. We engage in research and attempt to gather and interpret data in order to answer specific questions. Conclusions with 100% accuracy (or 100% "faith" to use your term) are not the objectives of most research in science. "Science" gives humanity a more accurate understanding of "the universe" than the faith of religion. That's why we use science. That's why we do not use the faith of religion to "understand the universe.". One method (science) is "better" than the other non-method (religion).
This massive is almost to much to answer. So I will keep it short and sweet.
1. My point was that we do not make up the universe but take our information and questions from and of it. There is no such thing as 100% accuracy and we wouldn’t know it if we saw it.
2. Science asks nuts and bolts questions about the kataphatic reality but it does not do well with the apophatic, It has to see, measure and test the physical. It cannot answer the immaterial and what is beyond measurement. It cannot tell us what abstract objects are which are the basis of science,
3. Science can’t even exclaim itself, much less the reasons of the cosmos. It is limited.
A scientific theory explains scientific observations. Scientific theories must be falsifiable.
1. And how do you falsify the Scientific method? Viable Theories are yet proven or falsified.
The rules are much tighter than this. We gather specific data under documented conditions then attempt to accurately decipher that data through formulaic steps (ie, agreed upon basic methods).
1. Anyone who has studied the Philosophy of Science knows there are no accepted rules. It is a battle ground of differing opinions. This is a myth. Also different fields have different methods.
Religion at its best may offer emotional support and community-building to some of its adherents. That's terrific. But religion offers us nothing novel in our attempts to understand "the universe." You assert that (religion) "answers and touches on questions science does not hope to answer".
I ask: like what?
Religion offers answers to completely different questions than Science such as wh y there is something rather than nothing and what exists tells us what? The universe is full of wonder and science did not cause it to be that way. In fact Science causes nothing. What it has discovered, is already there.
Please understand that "science" invented the lightbulb and further enhanced the lightbulb as a tool for humanity. No science, no lightbulb. I'm unclear what you mean by: "Christianity lets us see into the darkness and gives it meaning.". Please explain? Light allows us see into darkness. Any meaning we gather from light and dark are electrochemical changes that occur within the brain and are increasingly understood by neuroscientists conducting research.
What does religion illuminate? What "phenomena" does religion "explain"?
Science didn’t invent, Intelligence, light or the lightbulb. No science but all elements were already there. Science did not cause anything. If you are amazed, be amazed that these things exist at all.
Neuroscientists are continually making new discoveries and beginning to understand more about the human brain. Science is dynamic. "Desire", like all mental processes, is biology. Your desire for tea may be mapped and understood as a complicated interactions that are slowly becoming more understood. Doubt that? Then search "brain desire" and learn new stuff about that complicated mass sitting atop your shoulders.
Religion offers no help in understanding "desire" or any other mental state. These are within the realms of neuroscientific inquiry, and they'll remain scientific questions for scientists to slowly unravel.
I don’t want here to follow a rabbit trail into the immaterial aspects of desire and consciousness. Science is not causing this.
I think many understand that the scientific method rests upon some basic presuppositions. Call that faith if you will, but it's sorta faith-plus. Or a faith that spawns utilitarianism: we create real-world outcomes based upon science. As you say, knowledge rests upon faith -- few disagree -- but these faiths are on a spectrum. That is, the faiths of religion and science have different values. We're able to create based upon the "faith" we have in science's presuppositions. Religious faith doesn't seem to offer the same practical and theoretical benefits. So when you write: "Prove science": isn't the proof of "science" inherent in your everday life? For example, science based upon higher values of faith gave you the computer you're now using to read these words and respond. Are we able to employ religion to create or understand new information?
What am I not understanding here?
Plus what? Yes, that science is even possible is amazing. Its power is mind and the non material organization of rules and laws. It finds itself squarely in mystery. That Science is even possible, is in the non physical world. What we see is controlled by what we don’t see. Kataphatic and Apophatic. http://www.longecity...570#entry645162
#587
Posted 25 February 2014 - 02:09 PM
1. My point was that we do not make up the universe but take our information and questions from and of it. There is no such thing as 100% accuracy and we wouldn’t know it if we saw it.
I agree that we take our info and questions from and of [the universe]. Where else would we? We have no objectively verifiable access to a non-universe.
As to your assertion there is "no such thing as 100% accuracy and we wouldn't know it if we saw it," here's one: take a tangerine in one hand, place it one meter above your second hand, drop the tangerine from your first hand and into your second hand. With 100% accurately may we say the tangerine will land.
2. Science asks nuts and bolts questions about the kataphatic reality but it does not do well with the apophatic, It has to see, measure and test the physical. It cannot answer the immaterial and what is beyond measurement. It cannot tell us what abstract objects are which are the basis of science,
Yes, but what we may call "immaterial" on one day, we may discover as "material" the next. That's our learning curve. Some objects may be too large or too small or too complex for our current tools to immediately measure in the most obvious and satisfying ways. As to "abstract objects" these may sometimes refer to sets of complicated material interactions. Often we use abstract terms as shorthand for complicated, material messes.
3. Science can’t even exclaim itself, much less the reasons of the cosmos. It is limited.
Do you mean science can't explain itself? Assuming your typo, the jobs of science aren't to explain themselves. We stand upon the shoulders of our ancestors, and move upward. Science progresses regardless if we understand all presuppositions. As you've repeatedly noted, and I've repeatedly attempted to answer: science rests upon presuppositions (which you call "faith"). Some of these presuppositions will be solved in time with more powerful tools. Other presuppositions may not be immediately solved, but for now they're "close enough" to allow inquiry to proceed.
I think most people agree that science is limited (if that's what you meant). We push limits; religion remains stagnant.
Religion offers answers to completely different questions than Science such as wh y there is something rather than nothing and what exists tells us what? The universe is full of wonder and science did not cause it to be that way. In fact Science causes nothing. What it has discovered, is already there.
When you say science (scientists) cause(s) "nothing", you're not suggesting the computer you're using was already there in nature for us to discover, are you? You may say "Science causes nothing" but scientists employing the methods of science certainly caused something, right?
Science didn’t invent, Intelligence, light or the lightbulb. No science but all elements were already there. Science did not cause anything. If you are amazed, be amazed that these things exist at all.
Scientists invented and refined the lightbulb. The intelligence required for this invention (and all human inventions) was (and still is) a result of the ongoing, dynamic evolution of the human brain. Scientists did not invent "light"; scientists may help explain the nature and behavior of light.
I don’t want here to follow a rabbit trail into the immaterial aspects of desire and consciousness. Science is not causing this.
Again, in neuroscience as in other sciences what today we do not understand and may call "immaterial" tomorrow may be completely obviously "material". Science is process. We learn from experimentation. Science may or may not be "causing" "desire" depending upon circumstance. But just as science may explain the properties of water, air, earth, fire -- scientists will continue to unravel the mysteries of "desire" in the human brain.
#588
Posted 25 February 2014 - 02:53 PM
Straw man. Religious people do not believe they alone experience wonder. Good for you, you have an art degree and experience wonder. The religious don’t know trees move because of the wind? What a bigoted joke.You think evidence and your ability to comprehend it is all there is? Does your reality have any mystery in it? Do you think you don't operate by faith.None of this is evidence; it is just special pleading for unsupported faith.
Why do religious people think they have a monopoly on wonder and mystery? Everybody takes some things on trust, but there are, in my opinion, limits to how far that should go. I work on the assumption that apparent reality is real, and reject the solipsistic view, but at a different level of information, I don't settle for the idea that the trees move because a spirit sways them or blows them; like most modern people I go with the science that explains wind. As for what I don't know, I can wait for science to come up with something backed by evidence. (That is not a claim to know everything currently possible to know.) I am aware of many mysteries but I don't fall back on putting some supernatural being in place of an explanation. My first degree was in Art; my world is full of wonder.
We wonder that there are things such as trees an wind. Tell me, where are the limits of reality. How do you see in the darkness and convince yourself there is nothing there? The Apophatic is right there in front of you. http://www.contemplation.com/
If you could learn not to misrepresent what other people say, and start avoiding using a sneer whenever possible, it would be better for everyone.
"The religious don’t know trees move because of the wind? What a bigoted joke." This is clearly not a bigoted joke, but a comparison of early man's type of thinking with modern scientific thinking. You see bigotry everywhere. That is your problem not mine. As for denying a monopoly on wonder; perhaps you should reread some of your own posts.
#589
Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:09 AM
Straw man. Religious people do not believe they alone experience wonder. Good for you, you have an art degree and experience wonder. The religious don’t know trees move because of the wind? What a bigoted joke.You think evidence and your ability to comprehend it is all there is? Does your reality have any mystery in it? Do you think you don't operate by faith.None of this is evidence; it is just special pleading for unsupported faith.
Why do religious people think they have a monopoly on wonder and mystery? Everybody takes some things on trust, but there are, in my opinion, limits to how far that should go. I work on the assumption that apparent reality is real, and reject the solipsistic view, but at a different level of information, I don't settle for the idea that the trees move because a spirit sways them or blows them; like most modern people I go with the science that explains wind. As for what I don't know, I can wait for science to come up with something backed by evidence. (That is not a claim to know everything currently possible to know.) I am aware of many mysteries but I don't fall back on putting some supernatural being in place of an explanation. My first degree was in Art; my world is full of wonder.
We wonder that there are things such as trees an wind. Tell me, where are the limits of reality. How do you see in the darkness and convince yourself there is nothing there? The Apophatic is right there in front of you. http://www.contemplation.com/
If you could learn not to misrepresent what other people say, and start avoiding using a sneer whenever possible, it would be better for everyone.
"The religious don’t know trees move because of the wind? What a bigoted joke." This is clearly not a bigoted joke, but a comparison of early man's type of thinking with modern scientific thinking. You see bigotry everywhere. That is your problem not mine. As for denying a monopoly on wonder; perhaps you should reread some of your own posts.
Good, you now clam you were only talking about early man and not his religion or lack of it. In fact the religious know as well as you do that wind moves the trees. In fact, the religious scientists may have been the first to realize this. Both believer and non believer know how the wind works. Science may or may not be responsible for that. What a wonder that trees and wind exist. We may not know more than the ancients, as to why they exist. The sneer is in your imagination alone.
#590
Posted 26 February 2014 - 02:12 AM
No multi verse, but even this universe has a vanishing point everywhere.sthira: I agree that we take our info and questions from and of [the universe]. Where else would we? We have no objectively verifiable access to a non-universe.
As to your assertion there is "no such thing as 100% accuracy and we wouldn't know it if we saw it," here's one: take a tangerine in one hand, place it one meter above your second hand, drop the tangerine from your first hand and into your second hand. With 100% accurately may we say the tangerine will land.
GODELS INCOMPLETENESS
http://www.longecity...480#entry641947
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
http://www.longecity...480#entry642183
You are not saying the tangerine is 100% accurate are you? Only in your imagination.
And maybe we will discover it is all just mind and will. Maybe we have the wrong tools. On a Quantum level some things can’t be measured and they are basic..Yes, but what we may call "immaterial" on one day, we may discover as "material" the next. That's our learning curve. Some objects may be too large or too small or too complex for our current tools to immediately measure in the most obvious and satisfying ways. As to "abstract objects" these may sometimes refer to sets of complicated material interactions. Often we use abstract terms as shorthand for complicated, material messes.
Do you mean science can't explain itself? Assuming your typo, the jobs of science aren't to explain themselves. We stand upon the shoulders of our ancestors, and move upward. Science progresses regardless if we understand all presuppositions. As you've repeatedly noted, and I've repeatedly attempted to answer: science rests upon presuppositions (which you call "faith"). Some of these presuppositions will be solved in time with more powerful tools. Other presuppositions may not be immediately solved, but for now they're "close enough" to allow inquiry to proceed.
I think most people agree that science is limited (if that's what you meant). We push limits; religion remains stagnant.
Science has its limitations. It can’t verify itself and is limited. Science has no casual power, it describes what is already there and how it works. Mind, or intelligence, tales this information and combines it in such a way that it gives us different effects. We accept science by faith.
Intelligent design caused the computer to exist. The non-material acting upon the material.When you say science (scientists) cause(s) "nothing", you're not suggesting the computer you're using was already there in nature for us to discover, are you? You may say "Science causes nothing" but scientists employing the methods of science certainly caused something, right?
Mind, consciousness, intelligence invented the lightbulb, not science which is a tool, a process, not a thing.Scientists invented and refined the lightbulb. The intelligence required for this invention (and all human inventions) was (and still is) a result of the ongoing, dynamic evolution of the human brain. Scientists did not invent "light"; scientists may help explain the nature and behavior of light.
Maybe, maybe it will be just the opposite.Again, in neuroscience as in other sciences what today we do not understand and may call "immaterial" tomorrow may be completely obviously "material". Science is process. We learn from experimentation. Science may or may not be "causing" "desire" depending upon circumstance. But just as science may explain the properties of water, air, earth, fire -- scientists will continue to unravel the mysteries of "desire" in the human brain.
The discussion is not about Science as if it is opposed to religion. It isn’t. What this is about is apophatic , negation or mystery and kataphatic or positive knowing. We know both exist as part of reality and you can’t separate them.
#591
Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:26 AM
This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty
Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. Science is not against God.
I want to make it clear that I’m not anti-science, if such a mind set even exists. Science has contributed magnificently to modern society, to all of the technology we enjoy on a daily basis. My point is, just because something has not been, or cannot be scientifically proven, does not mean it doesn’t exist or is not “real”.
Not only that, but just because science has proven something does not mean the discussion is over. Science has been wrong before. In fact to its credit Science is almost always wrong. Science is limited in what it can provide evidence for.
#592
Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:25 AM
Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.
This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty
Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. Science is not against God.
Not only that, but just because science has proven something does not mean the discussion is over. Science has been wrong before. In fact to its credit Science is almost always wrong. Science is limited in what it can provide evidence for.
[
Science is not so much wrong, as only temporarily approximately right. It makes constant updates and improvements, but in general its predictions and approximations generate useful ideas and things that work. The fact that early scientists were religious is not the same thing as religion inventing things. It wasn't christianity or islam that made early astronomical observations, but early christian scientists, despite their beliefs. Science is on a different level of reality from religion which is simply beyond proof and sometimes even disproof. Religion is no more able to provide proof for things than science. Unsupported assertions won't do.
#593
Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:31 PM
Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.
This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty
Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. Science is not against God.
Not only that, but just because science has proven something does not mean the discussion is over. Science has been wrong before. In fact to its credit Science is almost always wrong. Science is limited in what it can provide evidence for.
[
Science is not so much wrong, as only temporarily approximately right. It makes constant updates and improvements, but in general its predictions and approximations generate useful ideas and things that work. The fact that early scientists were religious is not the same thing as religion inventing things. It wasn't christianity or islam that made early astronomical observations, but early christian scientists, despite their beliefs. Science is on a different level of reality from religion which is simply beyond proof and sometimes even disproof. Religion is no more able to provide proof for things than science. Unsupported assertions won't do.
Science is a process not a conclusion and thus it may be limited in what it can study but the conclusions can be wrong. History is full of the dead bones of false conclusions. As I said, that is to its credit. Science doesn’t invent things, intelligence does. Just as a computer does not write a book. It is a tool under the control of immaterial intelligence. Science says nothing, scientists do. http://www.longecity...570#entry646291
I know you don’t listen to videos but these are only a minute long and spell it out. I am afraid Christians made astronomical observations, not science. Science never looked at one star. Science is a helpful method or tool of logic, much as math which does not cause anything either. Science is not a realm of reality at all. It doesn’t make reality. It’s the same cosmos and world we live in that the cave man lived in. Science itself is beyond proof.
Atheism and scientism are fond of trying to create a conflict between science and religion where non exists. Scientism which your above comments are an example of, is a philosophy. It is not science.
To our subject of discussion. Science is a method capable if dealing with some aspects of the kataphotic reality which is physical but it is incapable of dealing with much that is beyond our capacities to perceive. It is the spiritual aspects of us that experience the spiritual. Apophatic.
This is NOT against science which is a method of logical inquirer limited to physical things.
#594
Posted 28 February 2014 - 01:43 PM
Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.
This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty
Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything. Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. Science is not against God.
Not only that, but just because science has proven something does not mean the discussion is over. Science has been wrong before. In fact to its credit Science is almost always wrong. Science is limited in what it can provide evidence for.
[
Science is not so much wrong, as only temporarily approximately right. It makes constant updates and improvements, but in general its predictions and approximations generate useful ideas and things that work. The fact that early scientists were religious is not the same thing as religion inventing things. It wasn't christianity or islam that made early astronomical observations, but early christian scientists, despite their beliefs. Science is on a different level of reality from religion which is simply beyond proof and sometimes even disproof. Religion is no more able to provide proof for things than science. Unsupported assertions won't do.
Science is a process not a conclusion and thus it may be limited in what it can study but the conclusions can be wrong. History is full of the dead bones of false conclusions. As I said, that is to its credit. Science doesn’t invent things, intelligence does. Just as a computer does not write a book. It is a tool under the control of immaterial intelligence. Science says nothing, scientists do. http://www.longecity...570#entry646291
That would appear to be pretty much what I said.
I know you don’t listen to videos but these are only a minute long and spell it out. I am afraid Christians made astronomical observations, not science. Science never looked at one star. Science is a helpful method or tool of logic, much as math which does not cause anything either. Science is not a realm of reality at all. It doesn’t make reality. It’s the same cosmos and world we live in that the cave man lived in. Science itself is beyond proof.
Again, that is pretty much what I said.I said early christian scientists made observations. I don't watch most of your videos because too many of the ones I did watch are beyond stupid, and often quite hard to stay with because of the surprisingly frequent problem of being spoken by someone who's voice and manner are aesthetically challenging.
Atheism and scientism are fond of trying to create a conflict between science and religion where non exists. Scientism which your above comments are an example of, is a philosophy. It is not science.
You do love your insulting categories, don't you? There is clearly a conflict between many religions/religious people and much of science.
To our subject of discussion. Science is a method capable if dealing with some aspects of the kataphotic reality which is physical but it is incapable of dealing with much that is beyond our capacities to perceive. It is the spiritual aspects of us that experience the spiritual. Apophatic.
There is no spiritual aspect. Spirits don't exist.
This is NOT against science which is a method of logical inquirer limited to physical things.
There's nothing else to inquire into.
#595
Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:47 PM
This is getting close to off topic but I have said Science is kataphatic and explores some questions about the physical world. The apophatic is about reality beyond the physical. Christians are not strangers to science and the two are not opposed. Here are some sources to enrich your study.
http://www.amazon.co.../dp/1596981555/
http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....suit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia....ligion_scholars
#596
Posted 02 March 2014 - 11:05 PM
To hard to follow the format of johnrosses above post.
This is getting close to off topic but I have said Science is kataphatic and explores some questions about the physical world. The apophatic is about reality beyond the physical. Christians are not strangers to science and the two are not opposed. Here are some sources to enrich your study.
http://www.amazon.co.../dp/1596981555/
http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....suit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia....ligion_scholars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P99GLIibhbg&feature=em-uploademail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YDuKlEYmx8&feature=em-uploademail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlMK9Ejhb0&feature=related
the fact that theists have devised greekish terms to divide their fantasies into different categories does not mean the categories have any real content. There is no reality beyond the physical. It is all made up. There are no ghosts/spirits/souls etc.
#597
Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:22 AM
johnross: the fact that theists have devised greekish terms to divide their fantasies into different categories does not mean the categories have any real content. There is no reality beyond the physical. It is all made up. There are no ghosts/spirits/souls etc.
At least we are presenting evidence while you have given nothing. OK, lets go on.
#598
Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:38 AM
https://docs.google....OUW_Pw-w0E/edit
http://castroller.co...signThe/3961703
#599
Posted 04 March 2014 - 03:19 AM
THE TAO, c.s. lewis, The Abolition of Man
I. The Law of General Beneficence
II. The Law of Special Beneficence
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity
V. The Law of Justine
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity
VII. The Law of Mercy
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity
-------------------------------------------------------------
I. The Law of General Beneficence
(a) NEGATIVE
'I have not slain men.' (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the
Righteous Soul, 'Book of the Dead', v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics f=
ERE], vol. V, p. 478)
'Do not murder.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13)
'Terrify not men or God will terrify thee.' (Ancient Egyptian. Precepts of
Ptahhetep. H. R. Yi2i\\, Ancient History of the Near East, p. i3}n)
'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw... murderers.' (Old Norse. Volospd 38, 39)
'I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning
of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for me.' (Ancient
Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)
'I have not been grasping.' (Ancient Egyptian. Ibid.) 'Who meditates
oppression, his dwelling is overturned.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE
V. 445)
'He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat.' (Hindu. Laws
of Manu. Janet, Histoire de la Science Politique, vol. i, p. 6)
'Slander not.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)
'Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' (Ancient Jewish.
Exodus 20:16)
'Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.' (Hindu. Janet, p. 7)
'Has he ... driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well
cemented clan?' (Babylonian. List of Sins from incantation tablets. ERE v.
446)
'I have not caused hunger. I have not caused weeping.' (Ancient Egyptian.
EREy. 478)
'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' (Ancient
Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23j cf. xii. 2)
'Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus
19:17)
'He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no
one.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4)
(b) POSITIVE
'Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should
wish to enter it.' (Roman. Cicero, De Ojficiis, i. iv)
'By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as
possible.' (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii. 3)
'When the people have multiphed, what next should be done for them? The
Master said. Enrich them. Jan Ch'iu said. When one has enriched them,
what next should be done for them? The Master said. Instruct them.'
(Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii. 9)
'Speak kindness ... show good will.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v.
445)
'Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do
one another good.' (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. vii)
'Man is man's delight.' (Old Norse. Hdvamdl 47)
'He who is asked for alms should always give.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 7)
'What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?' (Roman.
Juvenal xv. 140)
'I am a man: nothing human is alien to me.' (Roman. Terence, Heaut. Tim.)
'Love thy neighbour as thyself (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:18)
'Love the stranger as thyself (Ancient Jewish. Ibid. 33, 34)
'Do to men what you wish men to do to you.' (Christian. Matthew 7: 12)
2. The Law of Special Beneficence
'It is upon the trunk that a gentleman works. When that is firmly set up, the
Way grows. And surely proper behaviour to parents and elder brothers is the
trunk of goodness.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 2)
'Brothers shall fight and be each others' bane.' (Old Norse. Account of the Evil
Age before the World's end, Volospd 45)
'Has he insulted his elder sister?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)
'You will see them take care of their kindred [and] the children of their friends
... never reproaching them in the least.' (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v.
437)
'Love thy wife studiously. Gladden her heart all thy Ufe long.' (Ancient
Egyptian. £i^£v. 481)
'Nothing can ever change the claims of kinship for a right thinking man.'
(Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2600)
'Did not Socrates love his own children, though he did so as a free man and as
one not forgetting that the gods have the first claim on our friendship?' (Greek,
Epictetus, iii. 24)
'Natural affection is a thing right and according to Nature.' (Greek. Ibid. i. xi)
'I ought not to be unfeeling like a statue but should fulfil both my natural and
artificial relations, as a worshipper, a son, a brother, a father, and a citizen.'
(Greek. Ibid, lll.ii)
'This first I rede thee: be blameless to thy kindred. Take no vengeance even
though they do thee wrong.' (Old Norse. Sigdrifumdl, 22)
'Is it only the sons of Atreus who love their wives? For every good man, who is
right-minded, loves and cherishes his own.' (Greek. Homer, Iliad, ix. 340)
'The union and fellowship of men will be best preserved if each receives from
us the more kindness in proportion as he is more closely connected with us.'
(Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xvi)
'Part of us is claimed by our country, part by our parents, part by our friends.'
(Roman. Ibid. i. vii)
'If a ruler ... compassed the salvation of the whole state, surely you would call
him Good? The Master said. It would no longer be a matter of "Good". He
would without doubt be a Divine Sage.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, vi. 28)
'Has it escaped you that, in the eyes of gods and good men, your native land
deserves from you more honour, worship, and reverence than your mother and
father and all your ancestors? That you should give a softer answer to its anger
than to a father's anger? That if you cannot persuade it to alter its mind you
must obey it in all quietness, whether it binds you or beats you or sends you to
a war where you may get wounds or death?' (Greek. Plato, Crito, 51, a, b)
'If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he
hath denied the faith.' (Christian. I Timothy 5:8)
'Put them in mind to obey magistrates.'... 'I exhort that prayers be made for
kings and all that are in authority.' (Christian. Titus 3:1 and I Timothy 2:1, 2)
3. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors
'Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, your mother an image of the
Earth. For him who fails to honour them, every work of piety is in vain. This is
the first duty.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 9)
'Has he despised Father and Mother?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)
'I was a staff by my Father's side ... I went in and out at his command.'
(Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 481)
'Honour thy Father and thy Mother.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:12)
'To care for parents.' (Greek. List of duties in Epictetus, in. vii)
'Children, old men, the poor, and the sick, should be considered as the lords of
the atmosphere.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8)
'Rise up before the hoary head and honour the old man.' (Ancient Jewish.
Leviticus 19:32)
'I tended the old man, I gave him my staff.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481)
'You will see them take care ... of old men.' (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v.
437)
'I have not taken away the oblations of the blessed dead.' (Ancient Egyptian.
Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)
'When proper respect towards the dead is shown at the end and continued after
they are far away, the moral force (te) of a people has reached its highest point.'
(Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 9)
4. Duties to Children and Posterity
'Children, the old, the poor, etc. should be considered as lords of the
atmosphere.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8)
'To marry and to beget children.' (Greek. List of duties. Epictetus, in. vii)
'Can you conceive an Epicurean commonwealth? . . . What will happen?
Whence is the population to be kept up? Who will educate them? Who will be
Director of Adolescents? Who will be Director of Physical Training? What will
be taught?' (Greek. Ibid.)
'Nature produces a special love of offspring' and 'To live according to Nature is
the supreme good.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv, and De Legibus, i. xxi)
'The second of these achievements is no less glorious than the first; for while
the first did good on one occasion, the second will continue to benefit the state
for ever.' (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xxii)
'Great reverence is owed to a child.' (Roman. Juvenal, xiv. 47)
'The Master said. Respect the young.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, ix. 22)
'The killing of the women and more especially of the young boys and girls who
are to go to make up the future strength of the people, is the saddest part... and
we feel it very sorely.' (Redskin. Account of the Battle of Wounded Knee. ERE
V. 432)
5. The Law of Justice
(a) SEXUAL JUSTICE
'Has he approached his neighbour's wife?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v.
446)
'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:14)
'I saw in Nastrond (= Hell)... beguilers of others' wives.' (Old Norse.
Volospd 38, 39)
(b) HONESTY
'Has he drawn false boundaries?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)
'To wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed.' (Babylonian. Ibid.)
'I have not stolen.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul.
EREy. 478)
'Thou shalt not steal.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:15)
'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Greek. Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
'Justice is the settled and permanent intention of rendering to each man his
rights.' (Roman. Justinian, Institutions., I. i)
'If the native made a "find" of any kind (e.g., a honey tree) and marked it, it
was thereafter safe for him, as far as his own tribesmen were concerned, no
matter how long he left it.' (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 441)
'The first point of justice is that none should do any mischief to another
unless he has first been attacked by the other's wrongdoing. The second is
that a man should treat common property as common property, and private
property as his own. There is no such thing as private property by nature,
but things have become private either through prior occupation (as when
men of old came into empty territory) or by conquest, or law, or agreement,
or stipulation, or casting lots.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)
© JUSTICE IN COURT, &C.
'Whoso takes no bribe ... well pleasing is this to Samas.' (Babylonian. ERE
V. 445)
'I have not traduced the slave to him who is set over him.' (Ancient
Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)
'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' (Ancient Jewish.
Exodus 20:16)
'Regard him whom thou knowest like him whom thou knowest not.'
(Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 482)
'Do no unrighteousness in judgement. You must not consider the fact that
one party is poor nor the fact that the other is a great man.' (Ancient Jewish.
Leviticus 19:15)
6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity
'A sacrifice is obliterated by a lie and the merit of alms by an act of fraud.'
(Hindu. Janet, i. 6)
'Whose mouth, full of lying, avails not before thee: thou burnest their
utterance.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)
'With his mouth was he full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay? (Babylonian. ERE
V. 446)
'I have not spoken falsehood.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous
Soul ERE v. 478)
'I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths.' (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2738)
'The Master said. Be of unwavering good faith.' (Ancient
Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)
'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw the perjurers.' (Old Norse. Volospd 39)
'Hateful to me as are the gates of Hades is that man who says one thing, and
hides another in his heart.' (Greek. Homer. Iliad, ix. 312)
'The foundation of justice is good faith.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i.vii)
'[The gentleman] must learn to be faithful to his superiors and to keep
promises.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 8)
'Anything is better than treachery.' (Old Norse. Hdvamdl 124)
7. The Law of Mercy
'The poor and the sick should be regarded as lords of the atmosphere.' (Hindu.
Janet, i. 8)
'Whoso makes intercession for the weak, well pleasing is this to Samas.'
(Babylonian. ERE v. 445)
'Has he failed to set a prisoner free?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)
'I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a
ferry boat to the boatless.'
(Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 446)
'One should never strike a woman; not even with a flower.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8)
'There, Thor, you got disgrace, when you beat women.' (Old Norse.
Hdrbarthsljoth 38)
'In the Dalebura tribe a woman, a cripple from birth, was carried about by the
tribes-people in turn until her death at the age of sixty-six.'... 'They never
desert the sick.' (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 443)
'You will see them take care of., widows, orphans, and old men, never
reproaching them.' (Redskin. ERE v. 439)
'Nature confesses that she has given to the human race the tenderest hearts, by
giving us the power to weep. This is the best part of us.' (Roman. Juvenal, xv.
131)
'They said that he had been the mildest and gentlest of the kings of the world.'
(Anglo-Saxon. Praise of the hero in Beowulf, 3180)
'When thou cuttest down thine harvest... and hast forgot a sheaf., thou shalt
not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for
the widow.' (Ancient Jewish. Deuteronomy 24:19)
8. The Law of Magnanimity
(a)
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an
injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when
they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)
'Men always knew that when force and injury was offered they might be
defenders of themselves; they knew that howsoever men may seek their own
commodity, yet if this were done with injury unto others it was not to be
suffered, but by all men and by all good means to be withstood.' (English.
Hooker, Laws ofEccl. Polity, I. ix. 4)
'To take no notice of a violent attack is to strengthen the heart of the
enemy. Vigour is valiant, but cowardice is vile.' (Ancient Egyptian. The
Pharaoh Senusert III, cit. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p.
161)
'They came to the fields of joy, the fresh turf of the Fortunate Woods and
the dweUings of the Blessed . . . here was the company of those who had
suffered wounds fighting for their fatherland.' (Roman. Virgil, Aeneid, vi.
638-9, 660)
'Courage has got to be harder, heart the stouter, spirit the sterner, as our
strength weakens. Here lies our lord, cut to pieces, out best man in the
dust. If anyone thinks of leaving this battle, he can howl forever.' (Anglo-
Saxon. Maldon, 312)
'Praise and imitate that man to whom, while life is pleasing, death is not
grievous.' (Stoic. Seneca, Ep. liv)
'The Master said. Love learning and if attacked be ready to die for the
Good Way.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)
(b)
'Death is to be chosen before slavery and base deeds.' (Roman. Cicero, De
Off. i, xxiii)
'Death is better for every man than life with shame.' (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf,
2890)
'Nature and Reason command that nothing uncomely, nothing effeminate,
nothing lascivious be done or thought.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv)
'We must not listen to those who advise us "being men to think human
thoughts, and being mortal to think mortal thoughts," but must put on
immortality as much as is possible and strain every nerve to live according
to that best part of us, which, being small in bulk, yet much more in its
power and honour surpasses all else.' (Ancient Greek. Aristotle, Eth. Nic.
1177B)
'The soul then ought to conduct the body, and the spirit of our minds the
soul. This is therefore the first Law, whereby the highest power of the mind
requireth obedience at the hands of all the rest.' (Hooker, op. cit. i. viii. 6)
'Let him not desire to die, let him not desire to live, let him wait for his time
... let him patiently bear hard words, entirely abstaining from bodily
pleasures.' (Ancient Indian. Laws of Manu. ERE ii. 98)
'He who is unmoved, who has restrained his senses ... is said to be devoted.
As a flame in a windless place that flickers not, so is the devoted.' (Ancient
Indian. Bhagavad gita. ERE ii 90)
©
'Is not the love of Wisdom a practice of death?' (Ancient Greek. Plato,
Phadeo, 81 A)
'I know that I hung on the gallows for nine nights, wounded with the spear
as a sacrifice to Odin, myself offered to Myself.' (Old Norse. Hdvamdl, I. 10
in Corpus Poeticum Boreale; stanza 139 in Hildebrand's Lieder der Alteren
Edda. 1922)
'Verily, verily I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and
dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit. He who loves his Ufe
loses it.' (Christian. John 12:24,25)
Posted by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, March 2002, because the
book is only in print sporadically
7immK Columbia. ediA/aA/augustine/
au gustine(a),columbia. edu
#600
Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:00 PM
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: christianity, religion, spirituality
16 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 16 guests, 0 anonymous users