Does your Theology Align with Reality?

by cofty 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  It leaves open possibilities, and alternative perspectives, that's the advantage.

  Plus from certain perspectives the earth simply "is" flat. (Such as in a flat desert, or when talking to an alien from an extremely jagged planet, or whatever situation you can imagine where the phrase "the earth is flat" performs a useful task) Call that a "fact" if you will.

  Any description of the earth will have advantages and disadvantages, "flat" included.

  That's why I ask you and Cofty repeatedly to tell me, since you are positive about what the earth is not, do tell us what the earth really "is". I am curious if you can come up with an equivalent description to "the earth is flat" which is correct in every situation and admits of no qualifications. Of course no such description exists, hence the reluctance to answer a simple question, and the resort to ridicule and abuse instead.
• 

  Comatose

  Slim you know what they mean. You know exactly what they are saying. You would even agree the earth is a globe. And that it is not a flat place you could "sail off the edge of". What is your point?
• 

  jgnat

  I am fond of observable reality.
• 

  jgnat

  Effectively, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. In reality, the earth is rotating.
• 

  adamah

  cognisonance said-

  Think of it this way. Gravity is a scientific fact. Has been that way back in Newton’s day, through Einstein’s, and up to our day. Yet, the specifics about gravity have changed overtime. What people accept as fact in the 1800s has changed. But the underlying fundamentals have not. Common ancestry is just one of those fundamentals. It’s a scientific fact.

  Yup. Of course, the problem is that the layperson's definition of "fact" is different from the philosophical, theological, legal, and scientific definitions. Heck, even courts will have different standards of "guilt", whether it's based on reasonable doubt, the preponderance of the evidence, etc.

  The ambiguity of language and failing to agree on precise meanings BEFORE discussing leads to time wasted on confusion, where people will argue for hours over trivial differences by failing to recognize that they're like the blind men who only are perceiving a different facet of the same "thing", and stubbornly refusing to see what the other KNOWS to be a valid point. If it weren't for such ambiguity, internet forum debates would cease today, and peace and goodwill would break out amongst men!

  UBMFRazzled said-

  Does Science involve faith? Faith in the scientific process, faith in the truth of a particular scientific paradigm until it is overturned by a new scientific paradigm?

  See, that's the thing that's great about science. Faith ISN'T needed.

  If you doubt the theory of gravity, eg, YOU too are free to test the theory yourself, and repeat all the tests that allowed the idea to get promoted from a hypothesis (a proposed mechanism which is only a guess, since it doesn't have evidence behind it) to a theory (a mechanism which explains observations and HAS been verified as being useful, predictive, and verified via multiple tests).

  Now, if someone is not WILLING to go to college to learn the proper laboratory methods that allows them to conduct their OWN valid results via the scientific method, then SURE, they are basically having to rely on FAITH to trust in those scientists who ARE willing to do the hard work.

  However, ANYONE is free to enter the fray of science, and you too are potentially able to disprove evolution and come up with a better method to explain the observation of changes in species over time. If you can connects the dots between God Dun It and observations of life about you using the scientific method, then by all means do so!

  And if faith is not harmful and it promotes well-being, happiness and ethical behaviour - who are we to condemn it?

  Science does not have all the answers because there are limits to the ability of the scientific method to generate absolute truth - what happens after we die in a spiritual sense is one of those.

  Well, you'd need to prove the existence of "absolute truth", since you seem to think it exists. You bear the burden of proof to get me to accept it, since I don't see any reason to believe it exists (and TONS of real-World evidence to demonstrate the relativist's claim).

  While science suggest that the essence of a person ceases to exist when the body ceases to function, can we really be certain of that?

  Science remains agnostic, and has no choice BUT to go with what is observed. Although science needs to remain open to accepting ANY IDEA that is proven to have a valid reason for believing it to be so, it's jumping the gun to start believing in "souls", etc when it's only what we'd LIKE to believe.

  Medical Science has not yet worked out exactly how the brain and body interact - one's mental state and will may be critical to whether someone becomes ill and how quickly they recover - bloody mindedness is correlated to longevity but we don't know exactly why.

  Many people are deathly afraid of dealing with unknowns (whether they're 'known unknowns', or 'unknown unknowns'), and in the absense of information or evidence the brain IS KNOWN to craft delusional fantasies in an attempt to fill in the gaps of knowledge with explanations. THIS tendency is well-known, and heavily-studied, and explains WHY eg mythologies are created: they're attempts to alleviate the discomfort of not knowing why things are happening around us, whether we're talking about death, ghosts, Gods, rainbows, etc.

  But to argue that the absense of an explanation justifies jumping to saying "God Dun It!" IS a fallacy itself, known as "appeal to ignorance" (i.e. "we don't know WHY it happened, but in the absense of any other hypotheses or explanation, let's just assume there IS a God, and He carried out the action!"). It's a well-known trait in man that MUST serve some survival benefit, since it's so persistent and tenacious.

  Adam
• 

  slimboyfat

  The point is that to take one descriptive phrase ("the earth is flat") and call it categorically false, and take another descriptive phrase ("the earth is a globe", you have suggested) and call it categorically true is naive and misleading. There are situations where each phrase performs a useful task, and situations where each fails to do justice to the situation. To insist on a certain linguistic formulation as capturing the absolute and ultimate essence of reality is frankly ridiculous. What is more such an attitude if it prevails can be harmful.
• 

  jgnat

  I can see no harm in observing the local bee and bird population, and making discoveries about that reality.
• 

  cognisonance

  The ambiguity of language and failing to agree on precise meanings BEFORE discussing leads to time wasted on confusion... If it weren't for such ambiguity, internet forum debates would cease today, and peace and goodwill would break out amongst men!

  +1

  The imprecision of language is a big problem. This is why I tried to help clarify what is meant by an "incontrovertible" [scientific] fact. As former JWs I'm sure we all remember how the leadership would say they aren't a cult becuase it doesn't match their definition, etc.
• 

  Comatose

  Right, but since you knew what was meant and intended, it is disingenuous to pick at it. You have a technically true argument, but I know that you realize it was not needed in this case. It just derailed an interesting topic. What topic?

  some folks accept what are considered by most to be scientific facts, and they make their belief in god fit with it. Others ignore those same generally accepted "facts" and say its due to faith.

  what makes the difference? Why do some do this and others not?

  Its an interesting topic, when we are not arguing over words.
• 

  bohm

  SBF: It leaves open possibilities, and alternative perspectives, that's the advantage. ... Any description of the earth will have advantages and disadvantages, "flat" included.

  But i manage plenty well to be open to new perspectives on the shape of the earth without saying i do not know it is not flat. its not. you still havent given any advantages.

  SBF: That's why I ask you and Cofty repeatedly to tell me, since you are positive about what the earth is not, do tell us what the earth really "is".

  it is approximately spherical and not flat. See, you are again waffling around with language to make some points again and again. Language is meant to describe reality, that even very small children can easily grasp the idea the earth is a globe with little explanation should indicate it is not such a hard concept as you try to make it to be.

  And why bring it up every time like you got anything of interest to say? What shape do you think the earth have and how certain are you, exactly, now that you think its doing us a disfavour to simply say we are certain it is not flat?