Premier Rock Forum

Cranius wrote:Hey, fuck you, American Baby! You spoilt little shitbag!

scott wrote:

Cranius wrote:

Hey, fuck you, American Baby! You spoilt little shitbag!

BEST... POST... EVER!!!

matthew wrote:

M_a_x wrote:What the heck is SUPERRATIONAL?

That which is above the ability of the human intellect to FULLY understand....

No no no........ God has given us an intellect in order for us to know Him......this is quite obvious. You are creating an imaginary boundary between faith and reason. No such dichotomy exists. How could it? If God is Truth and therefore all that is real and true has its source in Him, then how could matters of faith and matters of reason contradict each other?

You're not reading the gospel with the eyes of faith.

galanter wrote:I see this discussion has gone to some other places, and I'll just watch that happen because I have to get some work done. But I do want to correct various strawmen and attributions that have been pointed my way by posting this summary of what I've been saying.

As a matter of principle science and religion can inform each other, but they cannot provide a definitive critique of each other. Science confines it's inspections to that which is empirically falsifiable, and religion's realm includes things which are not empirically falsifiable. Trying to use science to disprove religion, or using religion to overturn science, will always lead to frustration because there is no universally accepted higher ground from which to judge between the two.

The practical implication of this is that science and religion should be considered closed systems which can be internally consistent and rational, but which are nevertheless bounded by their differing methodologies.

While it's likely true that for many advocates ID is a religiously motivated political movement, the best response is simply to hold ID to scientific rigor. Until ID has made the case scientifically, by asserting falsifiable hypotheses, by conducting experiments or observations that can be independently verified, by having studies published in peer review journals, and so on...ID is not established science and therefore should not be taught in science class.

In terms of social impact I'm taking the position that nothing much will be accomplished by painting one side as being irrational and stupid, and the other as being evil and unenlightened. My feeling is that if people properly understood and *viscerally felt* the way the two domains are disconnected in principle, that might allow for a more constructive and less hostile mutual coexistence.

fantasmatical thorr wrote:I am lousy with technology, if someone can find an example of what I'm on about and post it, I will say a little prayer for you...

fantasmatical thorr wrote:Thanks! Although the George flag is different

...the decision by Republican judge John Jones was a landmark ruling and represents quite a blow to religious conservatives.

In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.

He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.

The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

M_a_x wrote:

No one is painting theism as irrational. It IS irrational, by it's very nature. You can't say "it has it's own rationality" - rationality implies reason, which I've spelled out ad infinitum in regards to how it is used to acquire knowledge. If someone is a theist and believes themselves to have knowledge concerning that which exists outside rational thought, that knowledge has no basis in reality.

To wit: there's no "2 different kinds of toolboxes" in your head to acquire knowledge. There's the toolbox of reason, and when you are acquiring knowledge by faith, you're not whipping out an alternate toolbox. There is no alternate toolbox. You're putting reason away and entering into the sphere of the irrational.