Reply With Quote
Because it's this or going back to work...
Because it's this or going back to work...
Wait, I think I figured it out. Christianity (meaning those who read the bible), by virtue of its dogma (still don't know what that is) is anti-intellectual because the in the bible couldn't have possibly happened. Is that your argument?
So in a nuts your world (and rational thought) is defined solely by what can be explained naturalistically; or rather that everything can only be defined naturalistically. By proxy, belief in the supernatural makes one irrational.
So be it.
Just know that not everything can be explained naturalistically... When science encroaches on the origins issue for example, it is no longer science, but speculation. That's why I chuckle every time RG brings up his clichéd "GOD-of-the-Gaps fallacy" argument (as if somehow repeating the phrase makes the failed analogy any more valid)...
His atheistic world view (and yours I imagine) are governed by the hope that "Science-will-discover-a-solely-naturalistic-origins-process-to-fill-in-the-Gaps," because as of now, after much search and scientific interference, such a process doesn't exist.
But whatever, you can't define a world view based on what your limited understanding believes is possible...
What is christian dogma is answered with a picture of the Bible and you cannot figure it out? Christian dogma is the bible stupid.
You cannot figure out how a scripture stating that scripture is doctrine inspired by God that means christian dogma requires literal interpretation?
You do not actually want to defend the christian scientists in any way specifically you just make a generalization on my actual arguments. Thomas Aquinas was the subject of the OP. He literally inserted scripture as a requirement of acceptable rational pursuits. You know the whole ing rationalism versus empiricism thing.
You are a lawyer so I know you have had training if not experience in at least how to address arguments. That you respond to my direct responses to your contentions with summations that try to characterize is very telling and very boring. You don't want to concede the argument but you also do not want to really have it.
Fine. If you want to go back to my post and actually talk about your Christian thinkers or whether or not the Bible is a fair definition of 'christian dogma' then fine. If you want to do another 'summation' I will ignore it.
Just because science may not determine an answer, doesn't mean that answer has to be filled in by GAWUHD.
Stop using that fallacy if you don't want to be called out on it.
Dogma is a defined set of beliefs. Not all branches of Christianity follow the same beliefs (e.g., the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church is not the same as Catholic Canon Law). The fact that you can't differentiate one from the other and are intent on posting pics of the bible just confirms your overgeneralization.
I'm not aware of such a requirement. Can you please quote me some text?
Christian scientists (whatever that means) aren't the point. The point was your claim that "christianity tends towards anti-intellectualism." I think Godot will arrive before you clarify what that statement meant.
My being a lawyer has nothing to do with this. I'm more than willing to have an argument with you -- but you have to answer my question first and not go off on tangential rants about irrelevant .
That's not the question. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this:
Is Christianity (according to your definition, "people who read the bible"), by virtue of its dogma (still waiting for that one) anti-intellectual because the in the bible couldn't have possibly happened. Is that your argument?
This really shouldn't have been this difficult. I honestly don't know why you won't answer a simple clarificatory question.
You say that as if people don't have the capacity to help the poor and suffering without instructions to do so.
They do.
I don't need any religious teaching to tell me what is good and decent.
So if it is possible to do good things without being told to do so, then we can safely say that it is impossible to tell what good would have been done in the absence of these teachings.
Implicit in thinking about the good is thinking about the bad. While I can't say that people, in the absence of religion would not kill anyone, I can quite easily say that burning someone at the stake for heresy, or any other of a myriad of things the early church did would have happened.
There is even a case to be made that the shoveling of people into ovens by the millions can be laid at the feet of religious intolerence as well.
Not sure I buy that argument entirely, but the fact that it can be made at least somewhat plausibly is damning enough.
Heh, welcome to the Internet.
You keep whining about me bringing it up, but then turn around and bring it up again.
Your obvious implication:
"Because science has not explained abiogenesis perfectly, it must be wrong.
If science is wrong, then the Bible must be right."
Yes or no, is that what you are implying??
If not, then clarify.
What is the written commonality between them? The Divine Liturgy and Catholic Canon are not fairly described as 'christian dogma.' You actually going to acknowledge that the Bible is being discussed?
2nd Timothy Chapter 3 verse 16. I already quoted it.I'm not aware of such a requirement. Can you please quote me some text?
You brought them up. I didn't. They were horrible examples as I outlined how their approaches and rigor to doctrine impeded free thought. Thats how "Christianity tends to anti-intellectalism.' Thomas Aquinas was church policy up to and for a time after the reformation. How do you think Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe or Kepler were impacted by such policy?Christian scientists (whatever that means) aren't the point. The point was your claim that "christianity tends towards anti-intellectualism." I think Godot will arrive before you clarify what that statement meant.
You bring up CS Lewis and my response is a tangent? Whatevs. You go ahead and be coy. You actually directly responding to things is all i give a about.My being a lawyer has nothing to do with this. I'm more than willing to have an argument with you -- but you have to answer my question first and not go off on tangential rants about irrelevant .
Simple? Its three parts and you've been making it up as you go along. the people and the ins utions that use the at least the four gospels amongst their canon would be a fair definition.That's not the question. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this:
Is Christianity (according to your definition, "people who read the bible"), by virtue of its dogma (still waiting for that one) anti-intellectual because the in the bible couldn't have possibly happened. Is that your argument?
This really shouldn't have been this difficult. I honestly don't know why you won't answer a simple clarificatory question.
My argument is the same as empiricism versus rationalism that is presented in the OP. When you try to force dogma to fit, its anti-intellectual because the bible is unreliable as source material.
The people and ins utions that use at least the four gospels amongst their canon have a long history of doing this. Examples include but are not limited to the Cyril of Alexandria, Spanish Inquisition, the epistemology of Kierkegaard and Aquinas as Rationalism, and the Texas Board of Education in 2010.
That's a glib and ridiculously superficial response. As far as I'm aware, Methodist Dogma does not adhere to the principle of transubstantiation. But for your purposes, It is no different than Russian Orthodoxy because they both follow the bible.
And this is besides the point - which was how can you overgeneralize all Christian dogma? Your answer really is trite to the point of ridiculousness.
Don't see it. Explain yourself.
Actually, you used the term "Christian Scientist" without, once again, defining it. I brought up a number of thinkers whose philosophies were inspired by Christianity to, you know, show how the claim Christianity is anti-intellectual is horse .
It was your claim - not mine - so don't complain that you have a lot of explaining to do.
Can you explain something without using jargon that can mean any number of different things to different people? In your view, what does empiricism and rationalism mean? What do you mean "force dogma to fit," i.e., what is it trying to fit?
To me, your argument basically is: Christianity is anti-intellectual because everything that doesn't fit the Christian world-view is discounted. The only problem with that claim is that it doesn't describe how a lot of Christians think. And it ignores the long history of thinkers who have been inspired by Christianity to produce intellectual works - like Kant, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, etc...
And ironically, you're just as guilty of doing what you lambast "Christianity" for doing: you think your "rational/logical" world view is the only correct (read, intellectual) one and refuse to accept any other way of viewing the world as acceptable, much less tolerable. There's no room for pluralism in either world-view.
This makes absolutely no sense. You're now talking about Christian Ins utions and not Christian Dogma. Are the two the same? And if so, why? Why would the Cyril of Alexandria (whose relevance here is a mystery) and the Spanish Inquisition exemplify Christianity to the point of us being able to say all Christianity stifles intellectual thought? Or Kierkegaard, or Aquinas, or the (lol) Texas Board of Education?
Or is your claim that Christianity requires an absolutist world-view that allowed ins utions to do bad (like the inquisition) and stifle thought? If so, why isn't that true of any ins ution?
And last I checked, Texas Board of Education wasn't representative of Christianity seeing as how its a state ins ution.
I never said anything about equivalence. I put them in the same set. Its like saying that you and your brother are of the same family. That does not mean equivalence.
I completely understand that the various sects choose different snippets and try and give them preeminence or any manner of degree. I am just going to what makes Christians, Christians. If you don't have the gospels in your canon then you are not Christian.
Quite frankly, I would expand that to include all exclusionary religions and islam and judaism are of the same vein but you wanted a definition and so i gave you one.
If you want to agree that the Bible is ty source material then we are not arguing about anything.
scripture is given by god. scripture is profitable for doctrine. I cannot dumb it down better than that.Don't see it. Explain yourself.
Fine the term christian scientist sucks. I won't use it again. Your christian 'thinkers' specifically Aquinas and Kierkegaard were antintellectual for the same reasons that you still do not even acknowledge.Actually, you used the term "Christian Scientist" without, once again, defining it. I brought up a number of thinkers whose philosophies were inspired by Christianity to, you know, show how the claim Christianity is anti-intellectual is horse .
You didn't take issue with it so whats to explain?It was your claim - not mine - so don't complain that you have a lot of explaining to do.
empiricism is the idea that all knowledge is from sensory perception and the interrelationship of such impressions. it excludes or at best is skeptical of the notion of a priori. Think Hume and his treatise on understandingCan you explain something without using jargon that can mean any number of different things to different people? In your view, what does empiricism and rationalism mean? What do you mean "force dogma to fit," i.e., what is it trying to fit?
rationalism is the notion that there is a priori knowledge. Kant for example spoke of a guiding force that drove us to make the 'interrelationship of such impressions' in his critique of pure reason. Aquinas, Kierkegaard and that ilk inserted doctrine as a priori. Thus the statement of them as rationalism
And to me your argument is basically to ignore my arguments about those guys, discount them as tangents and then try and pass them off later anyway.To me, your argument basically is: Christianity is anti-intellectual because everything that doesn't fit the Christian world-view is discounted. The only problem with that claim is that it doesn't describe how a lot of Christians think. And it ignores the long history of thinkers who have been inspired by Christianity to produce intellectual works - like Kant, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, etc...
Some christians do not but some do and many of the ins utions do and in a pluralist society its bad. There is a long history of it.
[quote]And ironically, you're just as guilty of doing what you lambast "Christianity" for doing: you think your "rational/logical" world view is the only correct (read, intellectual) one and refuse to accept any other way of viewing the world as acceptable, much less tolerable. There's no room for pluralism in either world-view.[quote]
What is my world view? i have made no claims of such. I personally a skeptic when it comes to rational frameworks but i have made no assertions on it.
Its not a universal claim on all individuals. a set is not necessarily genous. fact is that when christians try to force their dogma bad things happen. they have a long history of doing just that up to including modern times.This makes absolutely no sense. You're now talking about Christian Ins utions and not Christian Dogma. Are the two the same? And if so, why? Why would the Cyril of Alexandria (whose relevance here is a mystery) and the Spanish Inquisition exemplify Christianity to the point of us being able to say all Christianity stifles intellectual thought? Or Kierkegaard, or Aquinas, or the (lol) Texas Board of Education?
Or is your claim that Christianity requires an absolutist world-view that allowed ins utions to do bad (like the inquisition) and stifle thought? If so, why isn't that true of any ins ution?
And last I checked, Texas Board of Education wasn't representative of Christianity seeing as how its a state ins ution.
It really is pretty simple to me. The Bible is a religious book- it is inspired by God for spiritual teaching and truths; for instruction in righteousness. It is not a science book.
Fundamentalism is an American-born movement of the late 19th-early 20th century. The majority of Christians in the world are not Fundamentalists.
Why is science separate from the spiritual? That is exactly what I am talking about when I say that Christianity limits freedom of thought. It does not want to be scrutinized for obvious reasons.
That type of rationale is precisely what I am talking about in regards to Kierkegaard. God as the Wizard of Oz.
If you embrace either party or their candidates you are a simpleton. Both parties consist of a bunch of power and money hungry s who would say or do anything for your support as long as they could explain any criticism away.
It apparently took a few hundred years for people to start realizing that the Bible had some freaky stuff in it that made no sense, which in turn led to them questioning Christianity.
No real surprise at the rise of fundamental movements and revivals during that time frame.
I thought of this thread's le when I saw this campaign spot from Rick Perry. It doesn't get much more simpleton than this.
I don't normally get upset about campaign ads because, let's face it, they are generally more idiotic than offensive. This one, I admit, is offensive.
What a ing idiot Perry is. him.
Does that actually get ing play in Texas?!
Oh my God!
Wow. I double-dog dare someone in a podunk state like Michigan to try that and actually believe they might win an election...any election.
It's another world out there... smh
Its leading up to the Iowa and NH caucus/primary whatever the the particular state calls them. Thats where they would be aired.
It won GW an election. People are stupid. Lets treat people like because of Pauls letter to Tim and the doctrine of a 3000 year old priest class.
I've never seen it on TV.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions