Post Reply
Page 7 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Analytic thinking threatens beliefs
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 10:39AM #61
SeraphimR
Posts: 8,267

May 2, 2012 -- 7:23AM, newsjunkie wrote:


The miracle of birth, that's one thing. The miracle of a virgin conceiving and giving birth is one of an entirely different order. Sure I believe in the "miracle" of birth and of human achievement, and other "miracles" of nature as well. It's a miracle we're here at all! The sense of wonder and awe I feel when experiencing nature or the fine arts is profound and very important.



Sure, the virgin birth violates everything you know about science.  Science must needs reject anything that is not reproducible and so is limited in what it can know about the world.


When you feel that wonder and awe, don't you feel that there is something more going on?  Something that cannot be analyzed?  Something that cannot be subject to scientific investigation?



But that doesn't mean that every claim is real and that I should believe it. That's where the analytical thinking comes in.



But analytical thinking is liable to reject real claims.



Your last paragraph is important. Humans certainly have limitations in what they can detect with their senses and conjure up in their minds (through intuition or analysis). Science seeks explanations, not merely adequate ones, but its methods are applied to find the best explanation from what may be many competing adequate explanations. If new information comes along that shows a long-held scientific theory is incorrect and there is a better one, science has to abandon the old theory and accept the new one.



But what does science do when new information comes along which shows the current theory incorrect and there isn't a better one to replace it.  From what I see, it staunchly defends the old theory and ignores the new information.



But relgions, at least the dogmatic ones, claim they have the Absolute Truth. Religious people may admit they don't know everything about God and the various claims of their religion, but they also are reluctant to say that if new information comes to light they will change their beliefs accordingly. I think it's better to change in light of new evidence.




That is a matter of taste.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 11:27AM #62
Buggsy
Posts: 4,629

May 2, 2012 -- 9:54AM, TemplarS wrote:


God created the laws that underpin the universe; is it necessary that he violate those laws to make his point?  Who is to say he does not work his"miracles" through and not contrary to natural law. 




The simple fact is that the so-called 'laws of nature' or 'natural law' are not prescriptive.  They  are descriptive.  The universe doesn't behave in accordance with laws that somehow exist outside the regular behaviour of objects but they describe the regular behaviour of objects as they are.  Science has left the perceived orderliness of nature as an unexplained brute fact. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 11:38AM #63
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Analytical thing is the enemy of dogmatic teachings - that's a truism if I ever heard one.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 11:54AM #64
Buggsy
Posts: 4,629

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 12:10PM #65
SeraphimR
Posts: 8,267

May 2, 2012 -- 7:53AM, newsjunkie wrote:


Quick question: 


What is the difference between intuitive thinking and magical thinking?





Intuitive thinking is see the truth of something without analysis.  Magical thinking is a pejorative term for analytical thinking that you don't believe.


So an alchemist mixing quicksilver and sulfer and heating it in a crucible who thinks he can produce gold you warrant as magical thinking.


A chemist who mixes saltpeter, sulfer and charcol and heating it in a crucible who thinks he can produce an explosion you call an analytical thinker.  And an cautious one, too, if you ask me.





The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 12:14PM #66
SeraphimR
Posts: 8,267

May 2, 2012 -- 9:54AM, TemplarS wrote:



But maybe it makes little difference; maybe the miracle is all in the context- that child, in that time and place.  God created the laws that underpin the universe; is it necessary that he violate those laws to make his point?  Who is to say he does not work his"miracles" through and not contrary to natural law. 




It might be that His point is to teach people that there is more in heaven and earth than natural law.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:56PM #67
Buggsy
Posts: 4,629

May 2, 2012 -- 12:14PM, SeraphimR wrote:


It might be that His point is to teach people that there is more in heaven and earth than natural law.



What would be the point of that? Beyond the workings of the universe (which is difficult to understand anyway) what use would that have for anyone? At the very least what would it mean? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 2:18PM #68
SeraphimR
Posts: 8,267

May 2, 2012 -- 1:56PM, Buggsy wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 12:14PM, SeraphimR wrote:


It might be that His point is to teach people that there is more in heaven and earth than natural law.



What would be the point of that? Beyond the workings of the universe (which is difficult to understand anyway) what use would that have for anyone? At the very least what would it mean? 




Comfort and consolation.  That our life is not meaningless.  That we are not ineluctably caught in the jaws of a machine of blind pitiless indifference.

The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 3:04PM #69
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741

May 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, SeraphimR wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 1:56PM, Buggsy wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 12:14PM, SeraphimR wrote:


It might be that His point is to teach people that there is more in heaven and earth than natural law.



What would be the point of that? Beyond the workings of the universe (which is difficult to understand anyway) what use would that have for anyone? At the very least what would it mean? 




Comfort and consolation.  That our life is not meaningless.  That we are not ineluctably caught in the jaws of a machine of blind pitiless indifference.




uless it turns out that God is blind, pitiless and indifferent

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 3:07PM #70
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741

May 2, 2012 -- 1:56PM, Buggsy wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 12:14PM, SeraphimR wrote:


It might be that His point is to teach people that there is more in heaven and earth than natural law.



What would be the point of that? Beyond the workings of the universe (which is difficult to understand anyway) what use would that have for anyone? At the very least what would it mean? 




That's kind of the way I see it too. If there's something beyond the natural world, we can have no way of understanding it (our understanding of the natural world is incomplete, but at least there is a way to know about it), much less of having any influence on it. It could have control over us, but not the other way around.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook