Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Comatose

  Slim we get it! It's just a meaningless point! Crikey.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Which one?

  I am making two points. One is that we can never be certain we perceive reality as it really is. The second is that even if we could see reality as it really is then language is not equipped to transmit any stable conception of that reality.

  These realisations are not merely about playing games with language (although why not that too?). It is important that realist or positivist conceptions of knowledge and language are opposed because they lead to tyranny in extremis and foreclose possible useful alternative conceptions of the world in the everyday.
• 

  Seraphim23

  Comatose, an interesting question about my English! Where are you from if I may ask?
• 

  cofty

  Facts = tyranny in extremis!

  SBF follows me around the forum spouting this bullshit.
• 

  Seraphim23

  If he does, then he is not the only one.
• 

  slimboyfat

  You are misquoting me.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  and foreclose possible useful alternative conceptions of the world in the everyday.

  There's the key, Slimboy. I would argue fundamentalism isn't a 'useful alternative conception of the world', which includes belief in a 6000 year old humanity.

  It is important that realist or positivist conceptions of knowledge and language are opposed because they lead to tyranny in extremis

  I would say your style of relativism also leads to tyranny in extremis, as nothing is allowed to be established and built upon. Can we take a sort of middle ground here? Can we agree that while language is poor, it is useful, and that while reality is currently ungraspable in its totality, that we can make some useful assumptions about it?
• 

  slimboyfat

  There's the key, Slimboy. I would argue fundamentalism isn't a 'useful alternative conception of the world', which includes belief in a 6000 year old humanity.

  I would agree but the problem with the view that reality can be stated 100% accurately is that is excludes possible useful alternative conceptions of reality as well as the useless ones. Plus we never know what contexts may arise in the future to render hitherto useless or even counterproductive conceptions unexpectedly productive.

  I would say your style of relativism also leads to tyranny in extremis, as nothing is allowed to be established and built upon. Can we take a sort of middle ground here? Can we agree that while language is poor, it is useful, and that while reality is currently ungraspable in its totality, that we can make some useful assumptions about it?

  That is exactly what I am saying, in contrast with the view that the reality of any situation can be determined 100%. The key word here is "useful" and the key absence is "truth".
• 

  adamah

  Cofty said-

  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. We often witness people of faith on this forum who think it is a virtue to hold on to beliefs that science has exposed as impossible.

  • The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
  • Homo sapiens evolved form non-human ancestors over million of years.
  • There was no Adam & Eve, no state of perfection and no fall.
  • All living things evolved from a common ancestor.
  • There is no stage of the process of evolution, no example of complexity, that requires an intelligent maker.
  • There was no global flood.

  These are not opinions of equal validity as religious beliefs, these are incontrovertible facts that will still be true in a thousand years. If everybody on earth forgot everything they knew and the process of human lerning had to start again from zero we would eventually arrive at these same facts. They are objetively true and they must trump religious dogma if theists wish to be taken seriously.

  Reality is far more exciting, fascinating and satisfying than any supernatural story. It is not necessary to reject the supernatural in order to accommodate reality but it is necessary to allow reality to set the boundaries of your beliefs.

  While I agree with your conclusion (reality is far more exciting, romantic, etc, etc), you seem to think science has "incontrovertible facts", which is vastly overstating the reality of how science operates; worse, it misses the point of what actually makes science SUPERIOR to theology.

  In science, NO idea are above challenge, NO 'sacred cows'.

  If someone produces sufficient evidence tomorrow to show that evolution is completely WRONG by producing a better model of reality that fits the observations, then out Darwin goes on his keester (not that it's going to happen: Darwin's theory been challenged, modified, verified, rinse/repeat, etc and withstood challenge for 150 yrs, where his explanation serves as the unifying theory of biology, even as physicists still seek a unifying theory in their discipline).

  IF someone found Adam and Eve's bones tomorrow (say, their graves were found, buried under the petrified Tree of Knowledge) and it was conclusively verified by scientiific testing, etc, it would PROVE their existence (and note that it's still a long way from proving the Biblical account, much less God's existence, etc). In fact, it would be just as irrational NOT to believe in Adam and Eve at that point than it is for religious types to deny that there's OVERWHELMING evidence that points to the impossibility of a global flood. In fact, there's a non-zero probability of that actually happening, but it's so insignificantly small as to approach zero.

  In fact, ALL scientific theories MUST be 'falsifiable', where the hypothesis/theory MUST be testable and and able to be challenged in order for it to constitute a valid scientific theory, in the first place.

  What science ISN'T is a system that relies on dogma, telling people what they MUST believe by resorting to appeals to authority, etc. Dogmatic beliefs generally aren't rational, and if you think they ARE, then you're simply offering a different flavor of what the JWs, buddakudrhists (sp?), etc offer, except co-opting the name "science" to create a belief system (and the Scientologists are one step ahead in that area, blending pseudo-science with religion).

  Adam
• 

  Seraphim23

  Well said and written Adam.