[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]zippy: Time to take it back, and get back to our core beliefs.[/quote]
Curious what those core beliefs would be, perhaps making abortion illegal and forcing women to have children against their will, or perhaps introducing religion into science classes, or perhaps banning gays from marrying, or perhaps invading more countries that pose no threat to the US people other than for the larger US goal of dominating the geopolitical/power scale, or perhaps continuing the torture and detention of people without due process of law, or perhaps spying on americans in violation of and eviscerating the 4th amendment, and then passing a law that says, well that was ok. I’d like to know what, precisely the meaning of this statement is, particularly because all of the foregoing are positions of the current administration. This is a rhetorical question of course, since decisions are made in DC by those that can afford to sit at the table with a nice campaign contribution.

Just…curious….take a stab at it….

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]zippy: Okay, so back to Amazon, huh? I ordered the other two books today, and will check out Keating and Rice as well.

You’ll notice a distinctly evangelical flavor to some of the religious postings here and I have avoided responding with anything too “Catholic”.

I have been pondering a response to larrylujack’s postings that would reference Aquinas and the “Summa Theologica”, but most of the liberal/secular types here (like larry) hear “God” or “spiritual” and it creates a knee-jerk reaction that immediately closes down the dialogue. That insipid nonsense about seeing the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich was enough for me. “None are so blind as those who will not see”.

There is a very rich history in Catholicism regarding regarding scientific inquiry (both good and bad), as well as ontological and telelogical arguments involving Faith and Reason, but you have to be careful bringing that into play. Speaking ontologically, apparently Spirituality = Idiocy.[/quote]

sorry yer so thin skinned, but the reality is that someone did apparently pay 28k for the sandwich in question, which is why I mentioned it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]zippy: Okay, so back to Amazon, huh? I ordered the other two books today, and will check out Keating and Rice as well.

You’ll notice a distinctly evangelical flavor to some of the religious postings here and I have avoided responding with anything too “Catholic”.

I have been pondering a response to larrylujack’s postings that would reference Aquinas and the “Summa Theologica”, but most of the liberal/secular types here (like larry) hear “God” or “spiritual” and it creates a knee-jerk reaction that immediately closes down the dialogue. That insipid nonsense about seeing the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich was enough for me. “None are so blind as those who will not see”.

There is a very rich history in Catholicism regarding regarding scientific inquiry (both good and bad), as well as ontological and telelogical arguments involving Faith and Reason, but you have to be careful bringing that into play. Speaking ontologically, apparently Spirituality = Idiocy.[/quote]

sorry yer so thin skinned, but the reality is that someone did apparently pay 28k for the sandwich in question, which is why I mentioned it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]zippy: Okay, so back to Amazon, huh? I ordered the other two books today, and will check out Keating and Rice as well.

You’ll notice a distinctly evangelical flavor to some of the religious postings here and I have avoided responding with anything too “Catholic”.

I have been pondering a response to larrylujack’s postings that would reference Aquinas and the “Summa Theologica”, but most of the liberal/secular types here (like larry) hear “God” or “spiritual” and it creates a knee-jerk reaction that immediately closes down the dialogue. That insipid nonsense about seeing the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich was enough for me. “None are so blind as those who will not see”.

There is a very rich history in Catholicism regarding regarding scientific inquiry (both good and bad), as well as ontological and telelogical arguments involving Faith and Reason, but you have to be careful bringing that into play. Speaking ontologically, apparently Spirituality = Idiocy.[/quote]

sorry yer so thin skinned, but the reality is that someone did apparently pay 28k for the sandwich in question, which is why I mentioned it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]zippy: Okay, so back to Amazon, huh? I ordered the other two books today, and will check out Keating and Rice as well.

You’ll notice a distinctly evangelical flavor to some of the religious postings here and I have avoided responding with anything too “Catholic”.

I have been pondering a response to larrylujack’s postings that would reference Aquinas and the “Summa Theologica”, but most of the liberal/secular types here (like larry) hear “God” or “spiritual” and it creates a knee-jerk reaction that immediately closes down the dialogue. That insipid nonsense about seeing the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich was enough for me. “None are so blind as those who will not see”.

There is a very rich history in Catholicism regarding regarding scientific inquiry (both good and bad), as well as ontological and telelogical arguments involving Faith and Reason, but you have to be careful bringing that into play. Speaking ontologically, apparently Spirituality = Idiocy.[/quote]

sorry yer so thin skinned, but the reality is that someone did apparently pay 28k for the sandwich in question, which is why I mentioned it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]zippy: Okay, so back to Amazon, huh? I ordered the other two books today, and will check out Keating and Rice as well.

You’ll notice a distinctly evangelical flavor to some of the religious postings here and I have avoided responding with anything too “Catholic”.

I have been pondering a response to larrylujack’s postings that would reference Aquinas and the “Summa Theologica”, but most of the liberal/secular types here (like larry) hear “God” or “spiritual” and it creates a knee-jerk reaction that immediately closes down the dialogue. That insipid nonsense about seeing the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich was enough for me. “None are so blind as those who will not see”.

There is a very rich history in Catholicism regarding regarding scientific inquiry (both good and bad), as well as ontological and telelogical arguments involving Faith and Reason, but you have to be careful bringing that into play. Speaking ontologically, apparently Spirituality = Idiocy.[/quote]

sorry yer so thin skinned, but the reality is that someone did apparently pay 28k for the sandwich in question, which is why I mentioned it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6511148/

[larrylujack]

[quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable? And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.

[larrylujack]

[quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable? And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.

[larrylujack]

[quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable? And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.

[larrylujack]

[quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable? And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.

[larrylujack]

[quote=urbanrealtor]

Religious science and creationism are examples of attempts to explain quantifiable known data through the use of a model of the unknowable.
Putting that differently, you can’t explain quantifiable data with metaphysics and you can’t deny faith in a deity through astrophysics.

So Larry, I really think you are all wet on this. [/quote]

Why does there need to be an “explanation” per se of what is currently unknowable? And, what is unknowable changes over time: clearly what was unknowable 100 years ago is knowable now, as evidenced by the DNA as the genetic code, particle physics, to name a few. What is knowable 100 years from now, assuming the human race survives, will certainly be within the sphere of what is considered unknowable now. What I think I am reading, is that the absence of proof of non-existence of a deity viz astrophysics can in a sense be used to support existence of a deity? If my interpretation of your convoluted prose is accurate, I and most others in science would say that this is not a meaningful “model” to attempt to answer the unknowable if the goal is to actually seek knowledge: it is akin to throwing in the towel.

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So Larry, why can’t spirituality and science co-exist? Some of the world’s greatest scientists and thinkers were spiritual (notice I didn’t say “religious”) and used their scientific explorations as a means to not only better understand their world, but also as a means to seek God.

No less a luminary than Einstein said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are mere details”.

What I find offensive is the notion that somehow one cannot be spiritual and yet still be possessed of a brain. What’s up with that?

[/quote]
Never said they could not. In fact, the Monk Gregor Mendel discovered modern genetics. But, to assist in addressing your obvious confusion/consternation, religion/creationism is not science, they are two completely different animals. The difference is that science is based upon investigation/observation, forming hypothesis based upon testing/investigation, and then comparing or developing additional data in light of the hypothesis and refining or developing a new hypothesis as needed- this is the underlying basis of science. Faith, on the other hand requires no testing, just the mere belief in whatever and nothing more, which also requires overlooking the obvious inconvenient obsurdities (i.e, the earth is 6,000 years old, adam and eve started the human race, need I go on?).
The foundation of religion is based upon fear of the unknown such as death or an explanation of the unknown, such as weather. Science has brought humans out of the dark ages and many things that were not known when religion was formed are now known (no need to do a rain dance, etc.) But, if you want to worship a stone icon or a grilled cheese sandwich that has the image of the virgin Mary to get you through the day, knock yourself out, but please, it is absurd to conflate a scientist who personally believes in a religion or god with science.

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So Larry, why can’t spirituality and science co-exist? Some of the world’s greatest scientists and thinkers were spiritual (notice I didn’t say “religious”) and used their scientific explorations as a means to not only better understand their world, but also as a means to seek God.

No less a luminary than Einstein said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are mere details”.

What I find offensive is the notion that somehow one cannot be spiritual and yet still be possessed of a brain. What’s up with that?

[/quote]
Never said they could not. In fact, the Monk Gregor Mendel discovered modern genetics. But, to assist in addressing your obvious confusion/consternation, religion/creationism is not science, they are two completely different animals. The difference is that science is based upon investigation/observation, forming hypothesis based upon testing/investigation, and then comparing or developing additional data in light of the hypothesis and refining or developing a new hypothesis as needed- this is the underlying basis of science. Faith, on the other hand requires no testing, just the mere belief in whatever and nothing more, which also requires overlooking the obvious inconvenient obsurdities (i.e, the earth is 6,000 years old, adam and eve started the human race, need I go on?).
The foundation of religion is based upon fear of the unknown such as death or an explanation of the unknown, such as weather. Science has brought humans out of the dark ages and many things that were not known when religion was formed are now known (no need to do a rain dance, etc.) But, if you want to worship a stone icon or a grilled cheese sandwich that has the image of the virgin Mary to get you through the day, knock yourself out, but please, it is absurd to conflate a scientist who personally believes in a religion or god with science.

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So Larry, why can’t spirituality and science co-exist? Some of the world’s greatest scientists and thinkers were spiritual (notice I didn’t say “religious”) and used their scientific explorations as a means to not only better understand their world, but also as a means to seek God.

No less a luminary than Einstein said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are mere details”.

What I find offensive is the notion that somehow one cannot be spiritual and yet still be possessed of a brain. What’s up with that?

[/quote]
Never said they could not. In fact, the Monk Gregor Mendel discovered modern genetics. But, to assist in addressing your obvious confusion/consternation, religion/creationism is not science, they are two completely different animals. The difference is that science is based upon investigation/observation, forming hypothesis based upon testing/investigation, and then comparing or developing additional data in light of the hypothesis and refining or developing a new hypothesis as needed- this is the underlying basis of science. Faith, on the other hand requires no testing, just the mere belief in whatever and nothing more, which also requires overlooking the obvious inconvenient obsurdities (i.e, the earth is 6,000 years old, adam and eve started the human race, need I go on?).
The foundation of religion is based upon fear of the unknown such as death or an explanation of the unknown, such as weather. Science has brought humans out of the dark ages and many things that were not known when religion was formed are now known (no need to do a rain dance, etc.) But, if you want to worship a stone icon or a grilled cheese sandwich that has the image of the virgin Mary to get you through the day, knock yourself out, but please, it is absurd to conflate a scientist who personally believes in a religion or god with science.

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]So Larry, why can’t spirituality and science co-exist? Some of the world’s greatest scientists and thinkers were spiritual (notice I didn’t say “religious”) and used their scientific explorations as a means to not only better understand their world, but also as a means to seek God.

No less a luminary than Einstein said: “I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are mere details”.

What I find offensive is the notion that somehow one cannot be spiritual and yet still be possessed of a brain. What’s up with that?

[/quote]
Never said they could not. In fact, the Monk Gregor Mendel discovered modern genetics. But, to assist in addressing your obvious confusion/consternation, religion/creationism is not science, they are two completely different animals. The difference is that science is based upon investigation/observation, forming hypothesis based upon testing/investigation, and then comparing or developing additional data in light of the hypothesis and refining or developing a new hypothesis as needed- this is the underlying basis of science. Faith, on the other hand requires no testing, just the mere belief in whatever and nothing more, which also requires overlooking the obvious inconvenient obsurdities (i.e, the earth is 6,000 years old, adam and eve started the human race, need I go on?).
The foundation of religion is based upon fear of the unknown such as death or an explanation of the unknown, such as weather. Science has brought humans out of the dark ages and many things that were not known when religion was formed are now known (no need to do a rain dance, etc.) But, if you want to worship a stone icon or a grilled cheese sandwich that has the image of the virgin Mary to get you through the day, knock yourself out, but please, it is absurd to conflate a scientist who personally believes in a religion or god with science.

[Author]

Posts