Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  I never bring it up, Cofty does. He thinks throwing out the old "SBF thinks the earth is flat" card is the way to shut me up no matter what the conversation. He thinks it makes me look stupid to people who can't be bothered reading the whole discussion, and he's probably right.

  The description of the earth as approximately spherical makes sense if you are looking at it from space with its entirety in view and with a sense of its lateral dimensions. That's a very particular perspective on the earth, one that only a few have experienced firsthand in fact.

  Plus why should three dimensions be the definitive way of looking at the shape of the earth just because humans find that most useful? If we take other dimensions into consideration then the reality becomes somewhat more complicated than simply an approximate sphere. The earth is in orbit round the sun for example, and the sun around the centre of the galaxy. Should the shape of its orbit be taken into consideration when providing a precise description of its shape? And other dimensions beyond that? Are we still talking about shape and in what sense? Is there more to shape than humans can properly comprehend even?

  What you are doing is isolating one particular way of looking at the earth and claiming that is the definitive way of looking at it to the exclusion of all other possibilities. That is problematic.
• 

  Comatose

  Slim you don't belong to the group of fringe wackos who hold to a flat earth belief, even as seen from space. Flatearthsociety.org. I'm done on this for today. I have to work and play some. But, it's funny that we all who are arguing actually agree over the main points. It's just quibbling over how you describe or say things that is going on.
• 

  bohm

  SBF: I never bring it up, Cofty does. He thinks throwing out the old "SBF thinks the earth is flat" card is the way to shut me up no matter what the conversation.

  Well, you sort of did bring it up this time. you can go back on page one and see for yourself, Cofty made this thread, you bagan waffling.

  That you are more or less stalking cofty to bring up the same stupid point again and again should be obvious by now.

  SBF: The description of the earth as approximately spherical makes sense if you are looking at it from space with its entirety in view and with a sense of its lateral dimensions

  I dont see the point. The earth is approximately spherical no matter who or where you are. if it looks flat form one perspective it is not because it is flat, its because it looks that way.

  SBF: If we take other dimensions into consideration then the reality becomes somewhat more complicated than simply an approximate sphere.

  how so? you are just trying to use some words you think are impressive and hope we will pretend you got any idea what you are talking about. you dont. if you claim there are other dimensions and accordingly the earth is not round, well, you got to explain yourself.

  SBF: What you are doing is isolating one particular way of looking at the earth and claiming that is the definitive way of looking at it to the exclusion of all other possibilities. That is problematic.

  so is the earth flat or not?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Oh Lordy. There are situations where the phrase "the earth is flat" performs a useful task, as I explained above. Do you dispute that? When you claim the earth is a sphere no matter what the perspective you are simply prioritising one perspective above others. You may not be aware but that is what you are doing.

  Cofty brought up "the earth is flat" discussion once again near the bottom of page 2. He is always the one who brings up this point, not me. If Cofty's main point is that science can provide certainty about the world then my main point is that it cannot. Neither you nor he will tell me I have no right to express that view just because you don't like it.
• 

  bohm

  SBF: Oh Lordy. There are situations where the phrase "the earth is flat" performs a useful task, as I explained above.

  But doing a usefull task is different from that thing being true. it might do a usefull task for me to say small men are what causes holes in the teeth to make my kids brush teeth, it does not mean the "small men" theory is true.

  its a very simple point really.

  SBF: When you claim the earth is a sphere no matter what the perspective you are simply prioritising one perspective above others. You may not be aware but that is what you are doing

  There is the perspective called reality...

  SBF: Cofty brought up "the earth is flat" discussion once again near the bottom of page 2. He is always the one who brings up this point, not me.

  Like i said, you began waffling right away on page 1. Dont pretend you dont like to follow cofty and bring up the same tired points again and again.

  SBF: Neither you nor he will tell me I have no right to express that view just because you don't like it.

  Nobody is saying that, again you are putting words into my mouth. the thing is by now you are a broken record and your point is utterly banal.

  BTW., like i said, i agree that on a technical perspective everything is subject to uncertainty. But unlike you i am able to make the simple mental substitution that by "certainty" we mean "for all intents and purposes" without bringing it up like its some brilliant insight everyone need to hear 117 times in a row.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Wow this thread is getting dull
• 

  slimboyfat

  I do not believe that "true" is a helpful term in many situations, it acts largely as a rhetorical device for prioritising one perspective over others and closing down conversations. I prefer to talk about what is helpful and what "works" in given situations. In this I (try to!) follow the thought Richard Rorty and other neo-pragmatists. Have you listened to Rorty's perspective on truth? I have posted this short video a number of times. In my opinion Rorty is the most important thinker America has ever produced. I wonder how well known he is over there.

  http://youtu.be/CzynRPP9XkY
• 

  bohm

  SBF: I do not believe that "true" is a helpful term in many situations, it acts largely as a rhetorical device for prioritising one perspective over other and closing down conversations.

  I'd like my waffles with cream!
• 

  slimboyfat

  I find it interesting in the opening post that Cofty seems to say he has more respect for liberal believers who accept established science and work their faith around that, rather than young earth creationists who will oppose science in favour of their beliefs based on the Bible.

  Theologians like John Shelby Spong have shown the intellectual honesty to embrace the truths that science has discovered and adapted their religious beliefs to take account of reality. Sadly many theists lack the courage to do likewise.

  I find that an interesting perspective because I have heard Richard Dawkins express the opposite view: that he has more respect for fundamentalist believers than liberal believers. He argues that at least fundamentalist believers have the courage of their convictions, and when push comes to shove, and science and the Bible are incompatible, they admit that they will ultimately choose to believe the Bible first. Dawkins says that liberal believers try to fudge the issue by claiming their theism can accomodate scientific facts, and end up being true neither to science nor to their faith.
• 

  slimboyfat

  bohm so you believe in the reality appearance distinction. Good for you. So long as you feel my perspective is so ridiculous it merits no interaction other than ridicule there is little more to be said. Maybe you could find some time to read about pragmatism and its work on reality/appearance, and the problems associated with the traditional notion of truth.