mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
mikkel, ol' buddy! Trust you're well and cheerful?
Thanks
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
mikkel, ol' buddy! Trust you're well and cheerful?
Which is exactly why I used the example of WLC rather than go to the lowest common denominator.
In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
Live with it, if you want to prove things beyond doubt your on a hiding to nothing. Never ceases to amaze me how much people are always after certitudes, maybe that is why they choose religion.
Now go back and provide the quote with the context I have written it in, this is why I doubt your understanding of english.You appointed him to speak on behalf of religious people. Now you say you appointed him because of his intellect; I'll take your word for that, as I have neither heard nor read a word that WCL has written.
I admire Christopher Hitchen's intellect, but I wouldn't put his words in your mouth then ask you to defend them; perhaps, on behalf of atheists everywhere, you would like to defend Hitchen’s position on the Iraq war? No, of course you wouldn’t. Nor would I ask you to.
Do you think that statement implies certitude?
And all you have to do is show me a religion that is not an closed system, because I do not deal in absolutes, there is always room for doubt, and that always means I could be wrong.Well, welcome. You are also a cognitive relativist and accept this in the end:
"...
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
- “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
- “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
- “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
- “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
- “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.) ...
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others. ..."
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
It means that it is not an absolute that the world is natural. Or it is not an absolute that religion is what you claim it is.
Because science is an open system!No, the quote connects science to philosophy. And connects to the limits of epistemology and thus empiricism.
If John Doe believes in a god and you don't, why does what's he believes in matter so much to you?
Evidence for a god can neither show a god does or doesn't exist.
The arguement of both has to come from a belief because neither have supporting evidence(a god can neither be proven or disproven)
So my question is what makes anyone think their belief is stronger than the belief of others?
Now go back and provide the quote with the context I have written it in, this is why I doubt your understanding of english.
And all you have to do is show me a religion that is not an closed system, because I do not deal in absolutes, there is always room for doubt, and that always means I could be wrong.
Because science is an open system!
No you are not, I fail to see how "lets look at the words of WLC" one chosen so as not to be confrontational can be translated into I "have appointed him to speak for all religious people".I understand English well enough to know when I am being gratuitously insulted. Do you think such emotional outbursts help your case?
That there are no moral absolutes.
No you are not, I fail to see how "lets look at the words of WLC" one chosen so as not to be confrontational can be translated into I "have appointed him to speak for all religious people".
Do you think saying this is not the 16th centaury helps your case, especially when we know 16th century barbarities are still being perpetrated by the religious this day.
Not one attempt to actually show how religion is not a closed system just a debate on whose words I chose to give an example of religion being a closed system.
Sufism is restricted to Allah, Quran and Mohammad. It is not free inquiry... but I found the same in sufism, it is an exploration of the self, or ego if you will, to know one self.
And all you have to do is show me a religion that is not an closed system, because I do not deal in absolutes, there is always room for doubt, and that always means I could be wrong.
Sufism is restricted to Allah, Quran and Mohammad. It is not free inquiry.
So can you doubt that religion is a closed system? Or are you certain and it is beyond doubt and an absolute, that religion is a closed system?
Is that an absolute and beyond doubt?