Religious dogma's are established opinions.
Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church.
Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

In science there are no dogma's : everything is open to discussion, to check and test, to change and upgrade.
And Objective Supported Evidence is at the basis of that process.

Frequently I see statements here in posts like :
- In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality.
- Ask any scientist... if something better comes along they will abandon their current view in a heartbeat.

Such statements can never be made by persons who have a good idea of the Scientific method. They are completely misrepresenting the reality and the Scientific method, as they suggest that science is unreliable because of that checking, changing, and upgrading.
And always they are made by people who stand behind loads of religious dogma's.
A rather hypocrite position, of course !

Note that in science a Theory is as near as one can go to reality, and unlike what we mean with a theory in normal daily life (which in science carries the name (hypo) thesis : something between a claim and a Theory).

From me you may believe whatever suits you. But why not support your own world view or discuss the positives and negatives of your own views, instead of attacking by misrepresentation any opposing views?

For me religious dogma seems a strong negative, as it stiffles any debate on the real basis of and for belief and religion.
For me the Scientific Method is a great good, as it ensures that the current position in any scientific position is as near as possible to the latest available, checked, and tested information.

So what is better , more reliable, and more honest??

A world view based on beyond-discussion dogmatic claims?
Or
A world view based on one or more scientifically tested and re-checked thesis and Theories?

:rolleyes:

A world based on religious truths, a world based only on man made ideas of science, that has been proven false over and over as new evidence is learned. Or relgous truths that remain true forever.

Chuck : but are "religious truths" not also based only on man made ideas?
All claims of God(s) existence and powers, and all "religious truths" are beyond scrutiny, as they are hiding behind religious dogma, making it a closed - circular - argument of BELIEF only. Unsupported BELIEF without any OSE.

Give me science and the scientific method any time ! At least that is honest and not hypocrite !

:rolleyes:

·

Chuck :
Give me science and the scientific method any time ! At least that is honest and not hypocrite !

:rolleyes:

·

Challenge.. Give me scientic proof of the date of your birth and that it was you born?

Chuck : but are "religious truths" not also based only on man made ideas?
All claims of God(s) existence and powers, and all "religious truths" are beyond scrutiny, as they are hiding behind religious dogma, making it a closed - circular - argument of BELIEF only. Unsupported BELIEF without any OSE.

Give me science and the scientific method any time ! At least that is honest and not hypocrite !

:rolleyes:

·

Of course that is just what you "BELIEVE"

of course that is just what you "BELIEVE"
It is what I logically have to conclude from the total lack of any OSE for religious claims and all circular religious argumentation. You seriously mean to say that "religious truths" and/or all claims of God(s) existence and powers are not beyond scrutiny and hiding behind religious dogma?
Because that - the difference between the approach of science and that of (organized) religion is what this topic is about.

:rolleyes:
·

I logically have to conclude from the total lack of scientfic proof that your own existence is not there. You have proven nothing of it..

Science has proven man exist because it is repeated done through birth in human. But where and how does the individual existence get proven?

I logically have to conclude from the total lack of scientfic proof that your own existence is not there. You have proven nothing of it...
And I logically have to conclude from this response that it lacks any sense of reality, logic, and sincerity. And you are part of that group of people who have as their mission "to spread the word"?? I doubt you will be very successful...

:rolleyes:

·

Credendovidis, That is wrong because with all that you have said, I find the reality, logic, and sincerity to my challenge a definite importance to proving you can not scientificly show the existence of your own beginning. It can only be established by written document, oral communication, and witness. There is nothing scientific about these 3 legel testimonies.

Scientific method is defined as related to measurement of phenomema and experimentation or repeated observation.

So what is better , more reliable, and more honest ???

A world view based on beyond-discussion dogmatic claims?
or
A world view based on one or more scientifically tested and re-checked thesis and Theories?

:rolleyes:

I have no idea why you even want to compare science and religion, it is like comparing apples and oranges...

I rely on both,one for worldly knowledge/awareness,the other for spiritual growth and purpose in life.

Fr chuck,
Religious dogma or religious truths change frequently. Think of how many religions there are currently and how many there have been. All claim to have the truth. Even your own religion has changed several time since it first began and has had several truths changed. Hence why you probably haven't stoned anyone of late because your religious truths have changed. How do you prove whose truth is the most correct? Through science and evidence.

Michael,
It is true, to discern truth from falsehood we do need to research and understand,but does this mean that we are comparing science and religion and taking the better of the two?

Personally for me sciecne has never actually proven my beliefs wrong,contrary to that my beliefs strengthen each time I learn something new through scientific research.

I have no idea why you even want to compare science and religion, it is like comparing apples and oranges...

I rely on both,one for worldly knowledge/awareness,the other for spiritual growth and purpose in life.

The reason they keep getting compared is because certain groups in the United States are trying to push their religion into science classes around the country. They claim that their religion is a fact and that since it is a fact it should be taught in science class. Since not everyone shares this view there are of course problems.

Credendovidis, That is wrong because with all that you have said, I find the reality, logic, and sincerity to my challenge a definite importance to proving you can not scientificly show the existence of your own beginning. It can only be established by written document, oral communication, and witness. There is nothing scientific about these 3 legel testimonies.

Scientific method is defined as related to measurement of phenomema and experimentation or repeated observation.

Umm really?
How about this for a scientific method of proving an individual exists. You can see them and anyone can repeat that observation that doubts it.

I know the group of flat earthers who think that there is a world wide conspiracy about the world being a globe and that their main hook is that you can't trust knowledge from anyone even yourself because once something is in the past you can't tell the difference between past and dream. It's a pretty stupid world view though if you ask me. I use stupid because I don't know how else to describe it.
theflatearthsociety.org - Index (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php)

I have no idea why you even want to compare science and religion, it is like comparing apples and oranges...

I rely on both,one for worldly knowledge/awareness,the other for spiritual growth and purpose in life.

Because his whole purpose on this forum is to try to insight the people with his nonsense. Use any logical response and he will derail it with some other nonsense and use a typical tactic of circular arguments to try and prove nothing.

Religious dogma's are established opinions.
Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church.
Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

In science there are no dogma's : everything is open to discussion, to check and test, to change and upgrade.
And Objective Supported Evidence is at the basis of that process.
:

Well said Credo.. For this reason macro evolution is Not science. It is a religious movement under the guise of science. ;)

well said Credo.. For this reason macro evolution is Not science. It is a religious movement under the guise of science. ;)

Well that is what you "beleive" I guess

The reason they keep getting compared is because certain groups in the United States are trying to push their religion into science classes around the country. They claim that their religion is a fact and that since it is a fact it should be taught in science class. Since not everyone shares this view there are of course problems.

The real issue is that the Christian wants all possible "beliefs" to be taught, if the public school, using public dollars wishes to teach unproven assumptions of the creation of the earth, other possible teachings should also be available as other possible ways, Or at least a warning that other ideas are taugh. Also those children that are religious should not be counted incorrect when they answer otherwise to questions, or at least be allowed to state in the belief of this text book this is what was taught.

Religious dogma and religious teachings have been "fixed"in time... there is no chance for revision of error. Therefore, religion is inflexible and becomes more and more contrary to reality as time goes on and science validates facts about the physical Universe and the occupants therein.

Religion originally attacked biology, but they were unsuccessful as the workings of living beings were studied and revealed. Then, religion attacked physics/astrology, and they are failing in their attacks. Now, religion is reduced to lying about reality and lying about many other things in order to save face about their religion(Christianity and Islam) having any merit at all other than as a feelgood. Religion is about authoritarian inflexible thinking, about belief and not facts and proof. Religion is in a power struggle with reality and science.

Science is about trial and error and finding the truth about how Creation works... it is fluid and open to discussion, and open to contradiction and more trial and error. :) Science is not fixed and inflexible or authoritarian.

The goal of science is learning HOW CREATION WORKS. :)

Religion is about assuaging the fears of folks.

At this time in the Twenty First Century, science and religion are mutually exclusive. No rational folks go to ancient religious scriptures to LEARN HOW CREATION WORKS. :)

No religion is even more relivant today than it was 2000 years ago, the fact people have become more self determined to reject it, does not make it wrong, But yes since religion is based on absolute truth, it is unchanging and unwilling to accept the wind of opinion of mankind.

But yes since religion is based on absolute truth.....
You apparently mean with that "absolute truth" just that what you BELIEVE to be reality, but are unable to prove objectively to be reality...

:rolleyes:

·

umm really?
How about this for a scientific method of proving an individual exists. You can see them and anyone can repeat that observation that doubts it.

I know the group of flat earthers who think that there is a world wide conspiracy about the world being a globe and that their main hook is that you can't trust knowledge from anyone even yourself because once something is in the past you can't tell the difference between past and dream. It's a pretty stupid world view though if you ask me. I use stupid because I don't know how else to describe it.
theflatearthsociety.org - Index (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php)

Communication done by witness is what you are talking about. It is not scientific in any sense of the word. How do we know George Washington was president? Is there some scientific test to confirm that? History is only confirmed by witness, oral communication, and document written. Do we have manuscripts that document Papyri 130 A.D. Beatly 155 A.D. Bodmer 200 A.D. How about Caesar? Herodotus, Thucydides.. These documents confirm aspects of the bible as well. Should it be known as History? Yes

Credendovidis it is just to bad that we didn't have DNA when Jesus walked the earth. But I still believe God has the better plan in allowing people to decide their own fate...

it is just to bad that we didn't have DNA when Jesus walked the earth.
Incorrect : we had already around 3.500.000.000 years DNA when Jesus walked the earth...
What is neither sure is IF Jesus walked the earth...


But I still believe God has the better plan in allowing people to decide their own fate...
From me you may believe whatever you prefer. But if that is correct depends on OSE supporting such claims. So far I have not seen that.

:rolleyes:

·

Religious dogma's are established opinions.
Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church.
Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.




Or they can form new denominations ;)

Contrary to what you believe, God gave us free will and intelligence so we have choice and reason. :)

Contrary to what you believe, God gave us free will and intelligence so we have choice and reason.
That God gave "us" that free will (?) and intelligence seems more to be what YOU BELIEVE!!

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

Exactly, what I believe.

What anyone can believe.


Your OP


Religious dogma's are established opinions.
Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church.
Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

A believer can believe contrary to dogma :

For example RCs can choose not to believe only on the rhythm method or abstinence as a form of birth control.

Martin Luther chose a different tact than RC

Most Christians hold different belief's than those held by Westboro Baptists.

Christians are not robots blindly believing something without asking questions. That is my point. :p

A believer can believe contrary to dogma
Yes they can. But with the Christian intolerant approach he/she has to start a new church direction, as all other believers get together and throw him/her out of their congegration as he/she is tested positive for plague or ebola.


Martin Luther chose a different tact than RC
Martin Luther and tact?? TACT ???


Most Christians hold different belief's than those held by Westboro Baptists.
There are more than 2.500 different Christian directions : the ONLY thing they all agree upon is that all others "see" it wrong...

:>)

.

But that is just it - dogma.

Read the Gospels, Jesus was about relationship, your relationship with God.

Jesus broke traditional "dogmas," He was involved with non-Jews, sinners, adulterers, tax collectors, the poor, the sick, the lepers, ordinary fishermen, someone who would deny Him, someone who would betray Him, widows.

In Luke, He forgives and grants salvation to one thief on a cross!! He forgives the ignorance of those who crucified Him!! :eek:

This tells me, that I don't have to be perfect according to man's rules. This tells me that God came for the imperfect, the sinners, the poor in spirit.

Man, I don't need any church or denomination that does not preach about God's righteousnes, His mercy , His love! :D

But that is just it - dogma. Read the Gospels, Jesus was about relationship, your relationship with God.
You mean that unproved-to-exist entity that is claimed to be a creating supra-natural, omniscient, and all-powerful deity that shows great interest in my personal ideas and sex life??


Jesus broke traditional "dogmas"
But he replaced that with a new set of dogmas again ! Out of the frying pan into the fire !


He was involved with non-Jews, sinners, adulterers, tax collectors, the poor, the sick, the lepers, ordinary fishermen, someone who would deny Him, someone who would betray Him, widows.
Makes him a lot better and more honest person than all these religious fundamentalists !


This tells me, that I don't have to be perfect according to man's rules.
I can guarantee you that you are not perfect. Far from that...


Man, I don't need any church or denomination that does not preach about God's righteousnes, His mercy , His love!
And I don't need any church or denomination ! Period !

:>)

.

Religious dogma's are established opinions.
Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church.
Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

In science there are no dogma's : everything is open to discussion, to check and test, to change and upgrade.

Yes, there are.

1. Everything must be logical.
Conclusions which are not logical are discarded.

Or is it open to discussion? Are you saying that we may discuss whether to accept illogical evidence and draw illogical conclusions?

2. Mathematics. The conclusions must fit accepted mathematical formulas. If they can't be explained mathematically, they are considered invalid.

Or is it open to discussion. Are you saying that scientific conclusions may contradict all mathematical models?

I believe those are dogmas. Without those dogmas, how could we find truth in science?


And Objective Supported Evidence is at the basis of that process.

Frequently I see statements here in posts like :
- In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality.
- Ask any scientist... if something better comes along they will abandon their current view in a heartbeat.

Such statements can never be made by persons who have a good idea of the Scientific method. They are completely misrepresenting the reality and the Scientific method, as they suggest that science is unreliable because of that checking, changing, and upgrading.
And always they are made by people who stand behind loads of religious dogma's.
A rather hypocrite position, of course !

Logic tells us that truth is absolute. Therefore, if a scientific theory is not proven true, it is not absolute and it will be displaced. Simple as that.


Note that in science a Theory is as near as one can go to reality, and unlike what we mean with a theory in normal daily life (which in science carries the name (hypo) thesis : something between a claim and a Theory).

That is a misunderstanding of Theory. Theory is not as near as one can go to reality. Reality is reality and we live in it. Theory is an attempt to explain reality. It is an attempt to explain what we see. And if the theory is proven false, within a certain tolerance. It is is not proven false within a certain tolerance, it is maintained.


From me you may believe whatever suits you. But why not support your own world view or discuss the positives and negatives of your own views, instead of attacking by misrepresentation any opposing views?

I take what is good and sound and reasonable and I keep it. Whatever is false, I discard it.


For me religious dogma seems a strong negative, as it stiffles any debate on the real basis of and for belief and religion.

Some truths are not debatable. They will remain true whether you believe them or not.


For me the Scientific Method is a great good, as it ensures that the current position in any scientific position is as near as possible to the latest available, checked, and tested information.

I agree. The scientific method is a great good.


So what is better , more reliable, and more honest??

A world view based on beyond-discussion dogmatic claims?
Or
A world view based on one or more scientifically tested and re-checked thesis and Theories?

I believe Catholic dogma is absolute truth. Therefore it is superior to any other world view.

But scientific inquiry is useful.

Sincerely,

De Maria[/QUOTE]

I had a factual reason to report you for rude commenting and threatening.
All you have is innuendo.

:rolleyes:

You should know me better than that. I went back to the offending posts and pointed out the your offensive comments.

You should know me better than that. I went back to the offending posts and pointed out the your offensive comments.
So IF I made offensive comments in the past - for which IF that really happened I apologize - than that is a reason for you to make offensive comments now?

So this has nothing to do with your frustration to get all your arguments turned down for what they are : empty religious words loaded in extremely long replies to hide their emptiness ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Credendovidis:

To be “scientific” or to approach a field of study “scientifically” has an indistinct meaning. However, today we to assign an explicit meaning few can define; the tenets of which are arguable. The word science has Latin roots with the simple meaning of “methodical”. Today we assign the meaning of “scientific” to orderly, regular, systematic process to obtain knowledge of intuitively empirical phenomenon, on which a hypothesis can be formed, an aphoristic postulate can made with derived perditions that receive objective rigor in systematically testing, and finally objectively analyzed for axiomatic attestation. The hypothesis is said to be proven only when an objective truth can be known and experimental results constantly and repeatedly match the predictions.

In the formulation of the meaning of “scientific,” the word “objective”, in a very general sense, is understood to mean a tangible knowledge. More specifically, when used in the definition of “science” or “scientific”, the meaning of “objective” becomes the intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book; or intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book or of; or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

The true “scientific” method is an intellectual process dealing with objective reasoning. This presupposes that subjective human reasoning can be eliminated from the process.

On the other hand, Catholics hold ‘faith’ in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith based on known attested revelations of God). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within our natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event, “to believe” is intellectual reasoning containing some element of faith. In the understanding of our faith “objective” is understood to mean an “absolute truth” as well as a tangible knowledge.

The quasi-science of metaphysics such as seen in “The Summa Theologica” by St. Thomas Aquinas start with the premise of intuitive knowledge of God’s revelations to man. Unlike most metaphysical approaches The Summa Theologica makes no claim to be based on pure science. The failure in the scientific approach is the failure to quantify the unknowable. Clearly, to presuppose that those things of faith can be scientifically studied is not only silly but could be dangerously foolish to the disposition of one’s soul. How can we scientifically measure and test, and come to know an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God? How will the created measure the creator to ascertain Truth; especially when the creator is all of absolute Truth?

The principles and tenets of the RCC are based on objective understandings of God’s revelations to man. Right reasoning requires by definition that dogma be immutable; as their founded on absolute Truth.

Therefore, as suggested here, to take a scientific approach to establish the limits of truth becomes beyond our ability to measure, test and analyze. By necessity the resulting science will be knowledge base wholly subjective truth.

Thus, taking a dogmatic approach to our supernatural knowledge provides right reasoned and tangible knowledge of God’s revelation to man.

Christian dogma only becomes hypocritical when used by the self-serving.

JoeT

Credendovidis:
JoeT777 : Not a pseudonym for Tj3 - Toms777, I hope? Hopefully you are the Joe I knew before on Answerway!

I am sure we both have a good idea of what "science" means and how it operates.
I am more worried by the flood of people on this board who have no idea how logic works, and who seem to be unable to see that whatever they believe is not reality just because they believe that.

I do not need science to lead me in the review of the religious scene.
Religion is a collective noun for all kinds of mythical unsupported beliefs that seem some people to help to go through life. Fine if they need that and feel happy with that, but for me no reason to consider it as world view.

You seem to agree with most of that where you mention "the quasi-science of metaphysics", but still you do not seem to have any problems with accepting an invisible deity sitting on a cloud having extreme interest in your and my sexuality...

I have no problem with religious dogma itself , as that is just BELIEF. As long as the believers of that dogma understand that it is dogma and not reality.

:)

So IF I made offensive comments in the past - for which IF that really happened I apologize - than that is a reason for you to make offensive comments now?

IF? Well then, IF you apologized, I accept your apology. But it sounds to me as though you pretended to apologize.


So this has nothing to do with your frustration to get all your arguments turned down for what they are : empty religious words loaded in extremely long replies to hide their emptiness ?

The offensive comments you made were a direct result of your frustration at being refuted.

Sincerely,

De Maria

JoeT777 : Not a pseudonym for Tj3 - Toms777, I hope?

I can vouch for that.

JoeT777 : Not a pseudonym for Tj3 - Toms777, I hope? Hopefully you are the Joe I knew before on Answerway!

I am sure we both have a good idea of what "science" means and how it operates.
I am more worried by the flood of people on this board who have no idea how logic works, and who seem to be unable to see that whatever they believe is not reality just because they believe that.

I do not need science to lead me in the review of the religious scene.
Religion is a collective noun for all kinds of mythical unsupported beliefs that seem some people to help to go through life. Fine if they need that and feel happy with that, but for me no reason to consider it as world view.

You seem to agree with most of that where you mention "the quasi-science of metaphysics", but still you do not seem to have any problems with accepting an invisible deity sitting on a cloud having extreme interest in your and my sexuality ....

I have no problem with religious dogma itself , as that is just BELIEF. As long as the believers of that dogma understand that it is dogma and not reality.

:)

Tell us how you believe logic works.

JoeT777 : Not a pseudonym for Tj3 - Toms777, I hope? Hopefully you are the Joe I knew before on Answerway!
Don't ever let Tj3 hear you say that! (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/religious-dogma-versus-scientific-method-251215-4.html#post1259377)


I am sure we both have a good idea of what "science" means and how it operates.
I am more worried by the flood of people on this board who have no idea how logic works, and who seem to be unable to see that whatever they believe is not reality just because they believe that.
No. I'm sure one of us doesn't have a clue as to what “science” means or for that matter how logic works.

I do not need science to lead me in the review of the religious scene.
Religion is a collective noun for all kinds of mythical unsupported beliefs that seem some people to help to go through life. Fine if they need that and feel happy with that, but for me no reason to consider it as world view.
Based on what I've read here, I'd suggest that science is your religion.

You seem to agree with most of that where you mention "the quasi-science of metaphysics", but still you do not seem to have any problems with accepting an invisible deity sitting on a cloud having extreme interest in your and my sexuality ....
You've read my comments with a subjective eye. What was said is that metaphysics is a quasi-science because to even begin any treatise, rightly or wrongly, a modicum of “faith” is required.

I have no problem with religious dogma itself , as that is just BELIEF. As long as the believers of that dogma understand that it is dogma and not reality.
Once again, Right Reasoning would dictate the converse of your statement especially when it concerns RCC dogma. Spritural Truth is found in the dogma of the Church.


When "science" by its very nature, presupposes that subjective human reason can be eliminated, what transpires instead is rationalism; the absence of faith; the principle of accepting reason as the “supreme authority.” Arriving at basic truths by reason alone, unaided by experience or tradition, leads to a truth subjective to the human will. Such tenets based on rationalism ignore God's truth establishing their own subjective truth. Actions are taken based on “good” conscience without reason being properly founded in the “absolute Truth” of the Church. John Wycliffe, Jon Hus and Martin Luther were the first to place rationalism above the absolute truths of the Church. Their error has been multiplied tens of thousands since 1520.

The French Revolution is another good example of Rationalism run amuck. Thousands of Catholics were martyred along with their Bishop. The good intention was “freedom”. I contend that it was freedom from religious truths is what was being sought. Anarchy and immorality was worshiped instead of right reasoning.

The revolution outlawed the Jesuits, confiscated the property anybody remotely loyal to Rome's Church. The Mass was mocked during the French Revolution also. The revolutionaries thought themselves to be in the ultimate Age of Reason; the “Church of Notre Dame de Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason [not the Eucharist] was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes.” What actually came to the French was godless socialism; they were so successful that Lenin once remarked that he modeled the Communist horror on the French Revolution.


As with the French in 1792, in certain "science" based faith todaywe see disrespect for an adherence to a moral certitude. God is missing in “rational” daily thought (secularism). Truth becomes “relative” as “reason” becomes justification. Both are opposed to God's word being truth, and His redemptive forgiveness.


Relativism in theology is the idea that all points of view are equally valid – this is the source of the rationalist's tolerance of immorality. The argument usually takes the form; “one religion is as good as another;” The notion is terribly illogical. Given any two denominations both hold mutually contradictory fundamental truths (if they didn't obviously they wouldn't be different denominations), thus both can't be true. One or both must be wrong. Being in error can't represent God's reveled truth. We can conclude that this particular religion in error and as such not true; after all, God doesn't teach error, right? It would be equally unreasonable to assume that one god would reveal schizophrenic and contradictory truths to varying groups.


The notion of an identical god by different names is the product of scientific rationalism; the absolute authoritative sovereignty is found within the individual and the individual maintains autonomy over human reason. The rationalist's mindset allows the individual the independence to judge the relativity of God's truth; i.e. “it's good for me but it may not be good for you” or vice versa; thereby denying the absolute truth of God's word. Furthermore, a congregation of like-minded rationalists allows complete independence of any moral standard that doesn't emanate from within the congregation. An entire society of rationalists, by definition, must ultimately become a secular atheist society. After all, if all moral truth is relative then no one truth can be held absolute except for that which the individual ultimate judges to be true. Such a society's moral fabric is reduced to immoral activities justified on what feels good; “everybody does it” or “you're a sinner therefore I can mock God.”


Following their own will, scientific rationalists reject authority; be it government or God – have you noticed that nearly all the activists are rationalist liberals. Without authority every individual is free to make private judgment on matters of faith, morals or law. A society built on this principle depends utterly on the tolerance of error. Nature teaches that things not built on a proper foundation will fail. Similarly, will find this rationalism will decay, first into a toleration of immorality, then festering in disrespect for law and order, and ultimately turning into cankerous anarchy.

I would like to suggest that faith is a component in the intellect's movement “to know.” Speaking of spiritual matters, we can reason rightly with our intellect to come to know in two ways. The first is objective; we can measure and analyze such matters revealed by God. The second is subjective. It is in this subjective element of our intellect that faith works in. It is, as it were, insight or a special knowing given as a grace to know God's Truth. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (i.e. what is faith but belief in that which thou seest not?), St. Augustine. It's through the harmony of both objective and subjective reason that we come to know a spiritual truth to be tested by analysis and demonstration. Just as it is through the harmony of scripture and tradition of the RCC that we can, in as much as the human nature can, come to know the Truth that is God.

JoeT

Don't ever let Tj3 hear you say that!
Once again : you have not answered to what I asked : are you or are you not Tj3-Toms777 ? Or are you perhaps Joe of Answerway ?


No. I'm sure one of us doesn't have a clue as to what “science” means or for that matter how logic works.
In that case you have no idea a clue as to what “science” means or for that matter how logic works.


Based on what I've read here, I'd suggest that science is your religion.
As I have stated many times before : science can not be anyone's religion. Science is based on OSE. Religion is based on dogma.

I have warned before on this board that I will not react to more than 2 or 3 paragraphs of replies. Posting these near-endless replies is wasting time and unnecessary complicating communications. If you can not state your ideas in compact format, than I will restrict my replies.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Once again : you have not answered to what I asked : are you or are you not Tj3-Toms777 ? Or are you perhaps Joe of Answerway ?
I am JoeT777. I am not Tj3, Toms777 or Joe of Answerway. No doubt they will take offense knowing that you think I'm one of them.



In that case you have no idea a clue as to what “science” means or for that matter how logic works.
Have it your way Einstein.



As I have stated many times before : science can not be anyone's religion. Science is based on OSE. Religion is based on dogma.

Stating it a thousand times won't make it right resoning.


I have warned before on this board that I will not react to more than 2 or 3 paragraphs of replies. Posting these near-endless replies is wasting time and unnecessary complicating communications. If you can not state your ideas in compact format, than I will restrict my replies.
My thoughts were in a concise format. Too bad you didn't understand.

JoeT

I am JoeT777. I am not Tj3, Toms777 or Joe of Answerway. No doubt they will take offense knowing that you think I’m one of them.
Was that now so difficult to answer first time? Why did I have to ask that again and again and again?


Have it your way Einstein.
Albert, Arik, Isaac, Bob, or another one?


Stating it a thousand times won’t make it right resoning.
No, that is correct. Thousand times does not make it any more valid than once.
But I have to repeat that here on this board because people like you seem unable to understand it from one only post...


My thoughts were in a concise format. Too bad you didn’t understand.I replied to three paragraphs. I see you can not count neither...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

May I suggest to you the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.

Religious dogma's are established opinions. Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church. Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

In science there are no dogma's : everything is open to discussion, to check and test, to change and upgrade. And Objective Supported Evidence is at the basis of that process.

Frequently I see statements here in posts like :
- In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality.
- Ask any scientist... if something better comes along they will abandon their current view in a heartbeat.

Such statements can never be made by persons who have a good idea of the Scientific method. They are completely misrepresenting the reality and the Scientific method, as they suggest that science is unreliable because of that checking, changing, and upgrading.
And always they are made by people who stand behind loads of religious dogma's.
A rather hypocrite position, of course !

Note that in science a Theory is as near as one can go to reality, and unlike what we mean with a theory in normal daily life (which in science carries the name (hypo) thesis : something between a claim and a Theory).

From me you may believe whatever suits you. But why not support your own world view or discuss the positives and negatives of your own views, instead of attacking by misrepresentation any opposing views?

For me religious dogma seems a strong negative, as it stiffles any debate on the real basis of and for belief and religion.
For me the Scientific Method is a great good, as it ensures that the current position in any scientific position is as near as possible to the latest available, checked, and tested information.

So what is better , more reliable, and more honest ???

A world view based on beyond-discussion dogmatic claims?
or
A world view based on one or more scientifically tested and re-checked thesis and Theories?