Reason vs. Religion

The Stranger [Seattle] ^ | 10/24/02 | Sean Nelson

[beckett]

Schlick? What about Comte?

[beckett]

Thank you phaedrus. Rare form? Well I don't know. It looked kind of paltry to me on re-reading. But we trudge along and think our thoughts anew another day.

[general_re]

I think you have to differentiate between the positivism of Comte and the logical positivism of Schlick, Carnap, and a whole gang of others. Comte's positivism was certainly empirical, but logical positivism is a much more rigorous and formal system of logic and language than Comte's (and Ernst Mach's) positivism. It's probably fair to think of logical positivism as an offshoot of Comte, but it also relies heavily on the development of formal logic in the late 19'th and early 20'th centuries, particularly the work of Frege, Russell, Peano, and Wittgenstein - which, of course, Comte wasn't around to see ;)

[beckett]

You mean the Vienna Circle --- ok. Yeah I guess they changed the name from positivism to logical positivism, as I recall.

[general_re]

Exactly so - Schlick and Carnap in Vienna, and Hans Reichenbach and Kurt Grelling in Berlin (and many others, of course). Schlick sort of started it, and Carnap did a great deal of work towards rigorously and formally explicating and deriving the whole thing - not surprising, since Carnap studied under Gottlob Frege, who is, in many ways, the founder of modern formal logic.

It also ended up having a great deal of influence here in the US, also - a great many of the positivists fled the Nazis in the 30's and set up shop over here, particularly Herbert Feigl and whatshisname, something Frank. Philip Frank?

Something like that ;)

[A.J.Armitage]

They were doing exactly what any of us might be doing on any night of the week: exercising a liberty so deeply offensive to religious believers as to constitute blasphemy. And the punishment for blasphemy is death.

Religious believers, eh? Not certain radical Muslims, but religious believers.

Now, as it happens, I am a religious believer. In fact, you could call me a fundamentalist. Not only do I not regard partying as blasphemous, I do it myself; the above, therefore, is delusional BS at best, and deliberate, slanderous hate propaganda at worst. Considering the number of those killed, it's a near-certainty that there were religious believers among them. Disrespect for the dead, anyone?

But suppose he were right. Suppose I and every other religious believer were intent on killing everyone who drank, danced, or associated with unveiled women. What would you do with us? If anyone thinks he's right, answer the question: what do you want to do about me?

[Junior]

To be honest though, it wasn't atheism which drove them to do what they did; rather it was politics. It is religion which drives the Moslems to slaughter innocents or Christians to blow up abortion clinics.

[Moonman62]

I think of numbers as nothing but abstractions.

The person you are replying to qualifies their statement by saying that in mathematics numbers exist independently of any physical existence. Mathematics is a human contrivance, so the statement is correct in that framework. The ultimate question is philosophical -- do abstractions exist independent of physical existence? Or to phrase it another way -- is there really a distinction between the physical and non-physical?

[AppyPappy]

But believing an event occured, no matter how ardently, isn't the same as proving it.

Except that you have to prove it to yourself. Otherwise, you could just chalk it up to tequila.

[PatrickHenry]

The person you are replying to qualifies their statement by saying that in mathematics numbers exist independently of any physical existence.

I can go with that. If it's understood to mean that 1+1=2, regardless of context.

The ultimate question is philosophical -- do abstractions exist independent of physical existence? Or to phrase it another way -- is there really a distinction between the physical and non-physical?

I think you mean "a distinction between the physical real and non-physical non-real?" The answer is self-evident. Unless one is a deranged subjectivist who feels that his private imaginings are no different than objective reality.

[betty boop]

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. [John 17]

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible....

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made...." [Nicene Creed]

"Who lives in love lives in God and God in him." [St. Augustine]

Alamo-Girl, you wrote: "I'll never forget the first time I spiritually read and therefore understood a phrase out of Hebrews where Christ is described as the express image of His [the Father's] person."

John, too, refers to Christ as the pleroma, as revealing in His person the very fullness of God the Father....

IMHO, to read the scriptures spiritually is to not read them literally. Francis Schaeffer had the most marvelous saying, that, in the Holy Scriptures, God speaks to us truly, but not exhaustively. There is always more there than meets the eye which, by the grace of the Holy Spirit that "proceeds from the Father and the Son," unfolds to our understanding by means of spiritual vision.

Also IMHO, people who don't read the Bible don't know what they're missing. Which is God revealing to us a true (but not exhaustive) account of Himself -- and also a true (but not exhaustive) account of man, society, and nature.

In short, IMHO the Holy Scriptures are all about the community of being in this world and the next, which has Christ as its head for the purpose of reconciling us to, and leading us to, the Father. The great subject of the Bible is Divine Love.

Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for your beautiful reply.

[stanz]

Then why haven't they built a hospital?

I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

[AppyPappy]

Because they can't talk.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much, betty boop! Your replies are brimming with wisdom - informative and uplifting!

I agree fully that God speaks through His Word, truly but not exhaustively. Like a parable, the Word cannot be mentally understood - that's why I coin the phrase hidden in plain view to describe it.

Certainly, Divine Love is the great subject of the Bible. I think of the Word as the method God choose to reveal Himself to His own - and Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:14)

[stanz]

Archaeologists tell us that things get invented or discovered when there is a need for it.Primitive tribes whose ecosystems remained the same for hundred of years had no selective pressures on them and so, they had no need of making changes. Their tribal customs, no need for written language and other cultural practices remained exactly as they were for ages.
It is the same for animals. Chimps in the wild do not need hospitals. Humans need them.

[stanz]

I will respond later tonight if my daughter relinquishes the computer. I am in a busy law office right now and cannot get back to you today.

[betty boop]

stanz, no hurry! I look forward to hearing from you when you have an opportunity to write again.

[betty boop]

Like a parable, the Word cannot be mentally understood - that's why I coin the phrase hidden in plain view to describe it.

If has often seemed to me that the hardest things to see are the most obvious ones! Thus the best way to "hide" something it to put it right out there in plain view.... We'll see it when the Spirit moves us to see it.

I think it helps to pray for grace and light when we "commune" with the Bible. :^)

Thank you, A-G!

[Alamo-Girl]

I think it helps to pray for grace and light when we "commune" with the Bible.

Amen to that!

Thank you so much for your reply!

[AppyPappy]

Chimps in the wild do not need hospitals.

So chimps don't get sick? OK.