MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Beaker People (Pre-History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's just no clear-cut line between science and religion. There never has been and there isn't one now.

With this I agree. To use the Cartesian, science studies res extensa and religion studies res cogitans, body and soul if you like. There's nothing in the slightest bit strange about this. Atheist fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins mock any scientist holding religious views but the two areas are dealing with different things. Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins's former sparring partner was very clear about this.

A similar question I came across recently is whether a historian can be a Christian (or in this case, a Muslim).

It depends on how literally they take their creation myth. Christianity pretty much hangs on the idea that a historical Jesus was killed and then after three days came back from the dead. Take that away and all you have is Frazer's idea of the sacrificial king found throughout the world.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't know if anyone has yet managed it but it is at least theoretically possible for an objective, Christian historian to conclude that the historical Christ is inconsistent with the available documentary evidence, and to therefore conclude that Occam's Razor supports the argument that the fellow was a fiction. All while he himself nevertheless professes personal faith that Jesus was real and really did preach and teach in Galilee.

Science doesn't ask that we believe a given thesis. That's where so many go wrong. It simply asks us to evaluate each argument on its merits given the available evidence. There's always good reason to expect further evidence to turn up -- so why must one's beliefs always conform precisely to the dictate of present limited knowledge?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's just no clear-cut line between science and religion. There never has been and there isn't one now.

I entirely disagree. I can see no connection between the two. It is true that some religious types (Fundamentalists) try to shuffle in some science and it's also true that some scientists (mainly physicists but some biologists) are fond of making Goddish statements but there's just no overlap nowadays.

And you shouldn't get hung up on founding fathers like Newton and Mendel -- they are of their nature slightly loonie. When we talk about scientists we don't mean them, we mean blokes in white coats doing dreadfully boring jobs measuring things and stuff. It's worth remembering that when romanticising Druids. Not that being a priest is much to write home about either -- mainly comforting old women. Always was, always will be.

But the point about history and religion (not to mention science and religion) is not about who did what when. It is the fact that the Word comes from the Creator of the Universe. And that involves actual angels making yer actual visits. There is just no getting round this.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It depends on how literally they take their creation myth.

This is the bit I find bewildering. To be religious at all you have to be a fundamentalist. Since you are only there because of the Word of God, who the fuck are you to say, "Give over, He didn't mean that literally." I'm sorry but if George Bush is truly a Christian he is honour bound to support a Constitutional amendment making the stoning to death of adulterous women mandatory in all fifty states. Unless he wishes to say, "Give over, He didn't mean that literally."

From an AE perspective, we are interested in this question because it has a bearing on how we conduct our own battles with academic fundamentalists.
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

To be religious at all you have to be a fundamentalist. Since you are only there because of the Word of God, who the fuck are you to say, "Give over, He didn't mean that literally." I'm sorry but if George Bush is truly a Christian he is honour bound to support a Constitutional amendment making the stoning to death of adulterous women mandatory in all fifty states. Unless he wishes to say, "Give over, He didn't mean that literally."

No way Jose. You'll struggle to find any theologian today who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. It is allegorical. Modern, liberal, Christianity has very little to do with the pure mythology of the seven day creation and the mores of a small tribe of Jews in the ancient near east. You'll also find that the vast majority of theologians also accept evolution through natural selection, though in the first instance they would attribute the causal factor to God. You get fundamentalists in every religion but the vast majority of believers show tolerance and respect for the views of others.

But the point about history and religion (not to mention science and religion) is not about who did what when. It is the fact that the Word comes from the Creator of the Universe. And that involves actual angels making yer actual visits. There is just no getting round this.

Yet again you are considering only revealed religion and a particularly Judaeo-Christian brand at that. What about natural religion? Is Native American religion full of The Word, or Taoism? I don't think so.

Let's consider again what this is all about. We are discussing whether the Druids were a religious priesthood or something else entirely. This is what Caesar had to say:

"They are said to get by heart a great number of verses; some continue twenty years in their education; neither is it held lawful to commit these things to writing, though in almost all public transactions and private accounts they use the Greek characters. The immense power of the Druids was the weakness of the Celtic polity. No nation that is ruled by priests drawing their authority from supernatural sanctions is capable of true progress. The Celts fanatic adherence to their religion inevitably helped bring down their empire."

Seems like he agrees with you, Mick. Religion is the root of all evil.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
When we talk about scientists we don't mean them, we mean blokes in white coats doing dreadfully boring jobs measuring things and stuff.

Oh. You mean clerks.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I'm sorry but if George Bush is truly a Christian he is honour bound to support a Constitutional amendment making the stoning to death of adulterous women mandatory in all fifty states.

Heard of the New Testament, Mick?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Duncan wrote:
Yet again you are considering only revealed religion and a particularly Judaeo-Christian brand at that.


Right you are Duncan. I completely agree. Mick's up on his hobby-horse again.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Caesar wrote:
No nation that is ruled by priests drawing their authority from supernatural sanctions is capable of true progress.

He's right of course. Were the Druids scholars rather than priests, 20 years' training seems unduly long? Scholarliness and status aren't necessarily quite so interchangeable in today's rather anti-intellectual climate.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Where does it say in the New Testament "Even though the Creator of the Universe wrote Leviticus you don't need to take any notice of it if you don't want to."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't understand this hobby horse jibe. As I understand it the ONLY point to religion is that it is the Word of God and therefore you'd better bleedin' well obey it. Surely you're not suggesting that George Bush and Tony Blair and the Pope are just people who believe, you know, killing people and coveting their neighbours' asses and stuff is not conducive to civil society. That would make me a Christian, wouldn't it? After all, I overwhelmingly agree with George Bush, Tony Blair and the Pope about how to operate civil society.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Where does it say in the New Testament "Even though the Creator of the Universe wrote Leviticus you don't need to take any notice of it if you don't want to."

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Kinda puts a cramp in Judaic Law Enforcement.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not with you, ol' boy. I can see it might make stoning a little difficult but if it is to be taken literally, and obviously God's word is to be taken literally (unless it sayeth somewhere "Don't worry, kiddiewinks, everything I say should be taken with a pinch of salt") then the text means that no punishments of any kind may be carried out by human beings. Kinda puts a cramp in Law Enforcement period.

However I am interested in the New Testament. I understand (dimly) that St Paul said we didn't have to have the ends of our penises chopped off (unless you were American apparently) but did he go on to say that Leviticus no longer applied? What exactly does apply? The Ten Commandments are Old Testament, aren't they?. I am thoroughly confused. At my age I'm pretty well committed to committing adultery in a technical sort of way.
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The founders of Christianity, whether they be a historical Jesus, Paul of Tarsus or others in the underground made it clear that the New Testament was the new law, hence 'New' Testament. Not being a Christian I can hardly give you the detail. That's going to involve picking up a Bible but the idea is very much about a God of 'love' rather than the Old Testament God of 'justice'. Christians tell me that the Old book is to be interpreted in the light of the New one.

A basic rule of thumb would therefore be, if there's a conflict between moral directives default to the 'New' if you're a Christian, the 'Old' if you're a Jew and neither if you think for yourself. Then again, I don't think the state of Israel uses 'stoning' as a punishment any more and all their dentists seem to have a full set of teeth, so I suspect that they view their holy book as allegorical too.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On a technical point, I think the State of Israel is officially secular and hence is not permitted to use any part of the Bible, literally or allegorically, for legal purposes. [Foreign policy is a different matter since anywhere mentioned in the Old Testament can be squeezed into Heretz Israel.] But I am still baffled. Is the official position then that God believed that A, B, C and D should the the Axiomatic Law of the Universe up until c 50 AD when E, F, G and H should be the Axiomatic Law of the Universe? If a God of Love has replaced the God of Justice does this mean the Ten Commandments do or do not apply?

I ask not for myself, you understand, but on behalf of this women I've just met who is a Catholic and is wondering whether a night with me is worth an eternity of torment in the Pit. I've told her it's too close to call so a second opinion would be most welcome.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 22, 23, 24  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 24

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group