I put a lot of faith in my ability to reason about my feelings. My Ti is actually more developed than my Fe.
Duty, while I appreciate your side of the argument, I find it very irritating that everything I say is disregarded as "special pleading."
Firstly, I'm not pleading anything. I don't need to "plead" anything. There is no pleading. In fact, I could give really care less if you ever come to see eye-to-eye with me or not; it's just that I think it's very pretentious of you that you think that you can totally disregard this part of human nature, with all the people taking part of it and all it's flaws and benefit that, whether or not SHOULD be part of society, still IS. It seems pompous; it seems holier-than-thou; and it seems very one-track-minded.
Secondly, this is not "special." If you've read my past posts on different topics of spirituality, you would know that it is not solely for you or this argument that I say spirituality is a personal venture. It's not that I don't have evidence for it; it's that it's not concrete, it's not a visual phenomenon or a kinetic thing. And just as you said it gets irritating for you that people scoff at you because you say things that aren't religious, I live in a world when I'm scoffed at when I don't have proof via experimentation, previous expert opinions, and careful research, and it gets DAMN annoying. There is more to this world than just quantifiable things, and it makes it really hard to function trying to explain such an abstract thing to a concrete world.
As for the "prerequisites" -- I think that might be true. You have to have a basis is science before you can debate theoretical physics. You have to have a basis in religion and spirituality to do the same. I'm not saying that you don't know anything about religion -- don't accuse me of that -- but I am saying you have to come from the sense of your SPIRITUAL basis rather than your scientific one for what I was describing. Yes, it takes a whole different mindset to "feel" spirituality. And yes, with the major topic of evolution vs. creationism, it's perfectly good to come from a scientific viewpoint; but if you want to understand the how and why of creationism, you do have to shift gears. I could explain it to you; I could give you all the evidence. But I'm not going to; I don't have that sort of time or the will to go through and find sources and citations. The higher spirituality and the feelings and phenomenon associated ARE something you're going to have to do yourself, especially because it is more than just something that can be explained; it is personal.
Sorry if this sounds pretentious or elitist, but I've been searching and developing that spiritual side of myself for years, and I have so much other research and papers to write about that it's too much of a hassle to compile all of that for you.
So we should just "feel" our way through finding truth, making just political decisions, and figuring out the world? There is no truth in feelings, they are all based on subjectivity, so why do religions claim truth, and further, try to impose this on others and demand equal attention with reason when trying to teach truth to others.
I'll get back to you when I've assessed the truthfulness of that claim.For the last time, not everything has a truth to it! BLARG!
I'll get back to you when I've assessed the truthfulness of that claim.
Here is an interesting thought. What if both views are correct?
What if all life is actually evolving into a God who will then one day create a new universe by dying off in a big bang and the life that eventually results from his death will evolve into a God once again, over and over forever. Then the whole argument is reduced to a chicken or egg paradox where people wonder which came first, the God or life, but which has no answer discernible by the parameters of human conception.
These are good definitions. I would contemplate them awhile longer, but at first glance, they seem valid.Therefore we can probably define the following:
Religion: is a fixed or set of fixed doctrines
A scientific theory: is a fixed doctrine or set of fixed doctrines
Spirituality: is an action in which spiritual principles are compared and applied to the real world to test the application of a spiritual doctrine
Scientific Method: is an action in which scientific principles are compared and experiments done which to validate or invalidate a scientific doctrine (or theory).
No arguement here.Creationism is therefore a religious doctrine which has evolved out of both the principles of spirituality and scientific method. However it may be replaced in the future just as old scientific theories are updated to match applications of the scientific method to them.
Actually, I said mistranslated; though on the misinterpreted thought, to me, any 'interprtation' by one other than the mystic is a misintepretation, especially concerning mystic experiences. A mystical experience is distinctly personal and interior and can only be 'interpreted' by the one who experienced the event. How the mystic interprets one's own experience and what paradigm utilised, whether current or newly-consructed, is for the mystic to decide.If the other thing you propose is that the content from the bible was just 'misinterpreted', then who's to say that you can't just 'make shit up' and word it very vaguely so that it can be interpeted in any number of ways? Nostradamus did it and it worked, after all -- so do most clarivoyants and psychics.
I think that there can be a 'cross-over' of terms and theories if each party approaches from a position of acquiring knowledge and insight and not from a position of proof/disproof.Still the idea of using scientific principles to explain religion, and of using religious principles to explain science IS appealing...
Yeah, I have a feeling that something is a little bit 'off' about the definitions, but it's the closest I can get to expressing my thoughts at the time.These are good definitions. I would contemplate them awhile longer, but at first glance, they seem valid.
Yes, but keep in mind that a translation that is worded abstractly must still be interpreted, as most abstractions must. Which is why most legal definitions are worded without use of abstractions (unless the abstractions are defined), hence the reason why they're so long and boring. Look at the word eons for example, even this can be defined in a number of ways. I'm not saying that the idea of referring to an abstract translation and reexamining it is wrong, i'm simply saying that the probability is higher simply because the same trick of using abstract wording is employed by charlatans because of the malleability of using abstractions.Actually, I said mistranslated; though on the misinterpreted thought, to me, any 'interprtation' by one other than the mystic is a misintepretation, especially concerning mystic experiences. A mystical experience is distinctly personal and interior and can only be 'interpreted' by the one who experienced the event. How the mystic interprets one's own experience and what paradigm utilised, whether current or newly-consructed, is for the mystic to decide.
I like this because its similar to how brainstorming is used to create unique and helpful ways of dealing with things.I think that there can be a 'cross-over' of terms and theories if each party approaches from a position of acquiring knowledge and insight and not from a position of proof/disproof.
You have no idea what special pleading is. Go read up on it.
Duty said:So we should just "feel" our way through finding truth, making just political decisions, and figuring out the world? There is no truth in feelings, they are all based on subjectivity, so why do religions claim truth, and further, try to impose this on others and demand equal attention with reason when trying to teach truth to others.
Will finish later, cafe closing.
Yeah, I have no idea what the defined phrase "special pleading" is, and I have never even heard or come across it before. So before you assume I have, you might want to consider how I might define that myself if I haven't
The individual experience of the Scientist is focused externally and the tangible, whereas the individual experience of the Mystic is focused internally and the intangible.
I looked it up, and I could see what you were arguing. However, I still don't care very much. Sorry :B
If religion is so personal, internal and intangible, why do we let it have so much influence over the external and tangible world? You wouldn't like it if people started doing crazy shit in the name of the flying spaghetti monster would you? If people were made to feel guilt and shame for doing natural things like eating food (because the flying spaghetti monster said food before marriage is a sin) I bet you would rally against it because it makes no sense! So many people live repressed lives because of religion, I wish they would get their morals from philosophy, religion is irrelevant to everything. I'm tired of seeing widespread guilt, i'm tired of hypocrites, i'm tired of religious wars, I'm tired of people sticking to morals which harm those in the "out" group and i'm tired of people blowing themselves and others up in the name of the flying spaghetti monster (aka god).
Stick to your subjectivity, do whatever the spaghetti monster tells you, don't care anymore.
/rant