Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Because you categorically separate them does not mean they are factually "separate" in Reality, let alone mutually opposed.
The scienific method is based on perception. But human reasoning is based on apperception; that is, movements of the mind that are not subject to direct perception. As an entity, the mind itself is not capable of being "perceived" as is the case with an object of sense perception. But we accept that the mind must exist because we "see" what it does.... All thinking takes place in this entity, which is perfectly undetectable by sense perception.
The "thinking" is not the "knowlege". One is process, the other is result. The result is what has been categorized, not the process. You may use whatever process you wish. Which realm the result falls into will depend on how it is expressed and communicated. For it to fall into the realm of scientific knowlege, it should be expressed and communicated empirically.
All thinking takes place in this entity, which is perfectly undetectable by sense perception.
So true... a tree is there in the forest whether we are there to see and perceive it or not.. and if it falls the sound is made whether we are there to hear it or not..
What is... “IS”..... and what ain’t........ “AIN’T”...
Thanks for the explanation, dear tacticalogic!
So unless the words were addressed to me by a brother or sister in Christ, they would be empty. And if a brother or sister in Christ used such words towards me they would no doubt discover there is more poison in the handle than in the point.
I so agree! God is "there" whether we recognize Him or not.
Thank you so very much for the beautiful essay/post, dear marron!
“One of the things that make the arguments about evolution so bitter, I think, is that both sides of the debate seem to think the existence and godship of the Creator God is in play. It isn’t”
Spirited: Richard Weaver called his book, “Ideas have Consequences” because he understood that ideas, being of the unseen dimension, are not equal, some are good and some are like seeds that when taken into a mind eventually produce bad fruit. Even evil fruit.
I am of like mind with Weaver. Thus to me the real danger resides in the unseen realm of ideas, conceptions, presuppositions, etc. Though entirely unseen, ideas like evolution are like slippery slopes that can cause one to unwittingly fall away from God rather than find Him. Ideas do indeed have consequences.
It is amazing to me how difficult this point is for some people to grasp.
We do not stand on some Archimedean point "outside" the universe so as to be able to view it all at once in its spatiotemporal entirety. We are parts of what we observe, as well as participants in what we observe.
Given this limit, in no way can man be the measure of God — for he is not even the "measure" of the Universe.
JMHO FWIW
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your most illuminating essay/post!
To me the real danger lies in the notion that you can save people by controlling the ideas they're allowed to have. The means to accomplishe that will be more horrific than whatever the consequences of the ideas might have been.
Great catch, dearest sister in Christ! I wonder why that is.
To me the real danger lies in the notion that you can save people by controlling the ideas they’re allowed to have. The means to accomplishe that will be more horrific than whatever the consequences of the ideas might have been.
Spirited: Nowhere did the notion of mind-control appear but in your mind. Paranoia is a frightful condition. Please do not transfer it onto others.
I didn't say anything about "mind control". Who came up with that idea?
Do not play games. You did indeed mean mind-control when you said, “ by controlling the ideas they’re allowed to have. The means to accomplishe that will be more horrific than whatever the consequences...”
Controlling ideas = mind-control.
Not necessarily. There’s always the “convert or die” option.
What do you mean by the word "empirically?"
Just askin'.
Consistently observable, either directly or indirectly by repeatable experimentation and instrumentation.
All physical science needs a metaphysics into which its findings are fit. In some metaphysical models its use is limited. E.g. radical YEC theories which posit such a global geological upset that little would be left to reliably tell of its detail. Other models make room for more observations, such as OEC. The money verse of the bible isn’t in Genesis at all, but John 3:16. So much energy often seems to be spent in speculating how man got INTO trouble that it is a distraction from homing in on how man gets OUT of trouble.
Who gets to choose the metaphysics?
We can, but we should not then complain about the consequences if they are not good. This choice can be seen as a larger experimental process that embraces both supernatural and natural.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.