Science of Theological Taxonomy

[Neandertal Ned]

Biological taxonomy assumes and is designed to show so-called evolutionary relationships. Theological taxonomy neither assumes nor is designed to show so-called evolutionary relationships, yet all living things can be categorized and classified within a system of theological taxonomy.

The Science of Theological Taxonomy

The Kingdom of God on earth (Spirit and Science of Life) contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Man (Living Souls)
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Animals (Humans excluded)
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Plants
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Fungi
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Bacteria
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Minerals
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Molecules
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Atoms
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.


What do you think of the spirit and science of theological taxonomy?

In which kingdom do you belong?

Do you think that taxonomy is a science?

Can you find anything wrong with the spirit and science of theological taxonomy?

[McCulloch]

Since I don't want to make any claims that cannot be demonstrated to be true how about defining religion as that which can be believed in without having to demonstrate that it is true?

That which can be believed without demonstrating that it is true? You mean that the more gullible you are the more religious you are? After all, gullible people can believe more stuff than skeptics.

Or did you mean that which should be believed without demonstrating that it is true. Most philosophers call those things axioms not religion. And most religion does not start with axiomatic truths.

There are so many things that I cannot prove to be true that I simply categorize them as religion.

The things that I cannot prove to be true, I categorize as either axiomatic (assumed true without proof) or uncertain (may or may not be true). Most of religion falls into the second category. Faith, as I understand it, is attributing a greater certainty to specific assertions than is warranted by the available evidence.

As far as theology goes, one has to accept the possibility and premise that the human mind is not a physical entity and that there is something supernatural about it. There is nothing physical or natural about the human mind and it cannot be observed by physical means. Once you accept your mind as a mental and supernatural aspect of your being then you may take the first step into understanding what religion and theology is all about. How's that for Lesson One?

Really good, Thanks.

Except that neurology has gone a long way to show that the human mind is really a product of the human brain. Nothing supernatural about it at all. Must we accept Lesson One by faith?

[Neandertal Ned]

Understanding nested hierarchies would indicate an ability to think on the part of chimpanzees, would it not?

Yes, it would.

So in addition to thinking that you are an ape you think that real apes (chimps) can think. (About nested hierarchies, at least) Do you think that real apes (chimps) could possibly think that you are an ape too?

Yeah, I do believe that chimps may well think like humans. Nested hierarchies aren't exactly complicated.

True, but do you think that real apes (chimps, gorillas, bonobos, etc) would want to nest in a family of apes with you and your family? Where would you make your nest - in the wilds of Africa, Asia or in the zoo?

Classified by whom? Any why should I listen to that person?

That's what I want to know. Who in their right mind would call themself an ape? It's not normal.

Yeah, you did. Back up your claim - How do you know they laughed at us?

I just assumed it. You think chimps think - I think they laugh at you. When they scratch their heads it is because they can't figure out why you think you're an ape too.

Yeah, what is your point? I sense a non-sequitur coming: chimps may well think like humans, therefore chimps think like creationists.

I have no idea what chimps think. I didn't even think that chimps could think until you told me.

Because being more than just an ape, doesn't stop you from being an ape. This is basic nested hierarchy. You know like how a vehicle doesn't stop being a vehicle when it's a car.

But a car is no more than a vehicle, so how are you "more than just an ape?"

No. There is nothing that distinguishes me from apes, because I am fully an ape. But there is lots that is special about me that distinguishes me from non-human apes (and from other humans too, I understand nested hierarchy for one thing.)

Chimps understand nested hierarchies so what else distinguishes you from real apes?

I am not the subject here - statements percieved to be offensive are the subject.

So what's the object? Objections to offensive statements?

Yes, because what this particular blasphemous infidels says is backed up with scientific evidence.

Do you think Islamists are going to believe in what you call "scientific evidence" any more than I do? What if they are Islamic Creationists and think Darwinism is the work of blasphemous infidels?

http://harunyahya.com/en/Dunyadan-Yanki ... amic_World

[Neandertal Ned]

Since I don't want to make any claims that cannot be demonstrated to be true how about defining religion as that which can be believed in without having to demonstrate that it is true?

That which can be believed without demonstrating that it is true? You mean that the more gullible you are the more religious you are? After all, gullible people can believe more stuff than skeptics.

Or did you mean that which should be believed without demonstrating that it is true. Most philosophers call those things axioms not religion. And most religion does not start with axiomatic truths.

Whatever. You have an analytical system for understanding and classifying mental (metaphysical)phenomena such as beliefs and I am not going to argue against it if you are comfortable with it. All I am concerned with is whether or not we can speak of anything other than physical phenomena and if so, what do we call it, how do we describe it and what sort of reality does it have. I want to distinguish between that which is physical and that which can be said to exist only in the mind. So, with this in mind, let us proceed.

There are so many things that I cannot prove to be true that I simply categorize them as religion.

The things that I cannot prove to be true, I categorize as either axiomatic (assumed true without proof) or uncertain (may or may not be true). Most of religion falls into the second category. Faith, as I understand it, is attributing a greater certainty to specific assertions than is warranted by the available evidence.

Ok. that is reasonable.

As far as theology goes, one has to accept the possibility and premise that the human mind is not a physical entity and that there is something supernatural about it. There is nothing physical or natural about the human mind and it cannot be observed by physical means. Once you accept your mind as a mental and supernatural aspect of your being then you may take the first step into understanding what religion and theology is all about. How's that for Lesson One?

Really good, Thanks.

Except that neurology has gone a long way to show that the human mind is really a product of the human brain. Nothing supernatural about it at all. Must we accept Lesson One by faith?

Now we come to what I am interested in and what is referred to as The Abstract World of Ideas, Concepts, and Propositions contained in Einstein's Gulf.

http://www.icr.org/article/einsteins-gu ... -cross-it/

I reject the proposition that the mind is just a product of the brain, even though there is no doubt that a brain and nervous system is required for human consciousness to exist in the physical world. I can well understand how and why neurologists choose to lay claim to the domain of the human mind since neurology and psychiatry are very lucrative professions and if they can convince others that they and they alone are qualified to be experts on the mind, all the more business for them and those who deny any other status for the mind. If the mind is reduced to a "product" of the brain, then everything else that can be perceived and conceived of can also be reduced to a "product" of the brain. Instead of saying that something only exists in your mind, we would have to say that it only exists in your brain, and since the brain is a physical organ, it too would only exist in the brain, which doesn't seem to make much sense to me. How about you?

[Bust Nak]

So in addition to thinking that you are an ape you think that real apes (chimps) can think. (About nested hierarchies, at least) Do you think that real apes (chimps) could possibly think that you are an ape too?

Yes I do think that some non-human apes could possibly think of human as variations of themselves.

True, but do you think that real apes (chimps, gorillas, bonobos, etc) would want to nest in a family of apes with you and your family? Where would you make your nest - in the wilds of Africa, Asia or in the zoo?

I don't see the relevance of you questions other than as insults.

That's what I want to know. Who in their right mind would call themself an ape?

People who accepts evolution and its implications.

It's not normal.

What's your point? It's not normal to refer to the sun as a fusion reactor. It's not normal to refer to gasoline as hydrocarbons. It's not normal to refer to dogs as canines. It's not normal to refer to mules as hybrids. It doesn't stop any of these from being true.

I just assumed it. You think chimps think - I think they laugh at you. When they scratch their heads it is because they can't figure out why you think you're an ape too.

Well, label your assumptions accordingly.

I have no idea what chimps think. I didn't even think that chimps could think until you told me.

Then why would you assumpt they are laughing at us?

But a car is no more than a vehicle, so how are you "more than just an ape?"

Some cars are sports car and some are 4X4, some are for pleasure, some are for work, some are for commute. "Only" a vehicle unduly dismisses the importance of some cars.

Chimps understand nested hierarchies so what else distinguishes you from real apes?

Lots of things distinguishes you from non-human apes. Lack of fur being the most visible one.

So what's the object? Objections to offensive statements?

We are the object - we are discussing offendive statement.

Do you think Islamists are going to believe in what you call "scientific evidence" any more than I do?

No, I don't.

What if they are Islamic Creationists and think Darwinism is the work of blasphemous infidels?

Then they won't listen.

[Neandertal Ned]

So in addition to thinking that you are an ape you think that real apes (chimps) can think. (About nested hierarchies, at least) Do you think that real apes (chimps) could possibly think that you are an ape too?

Yes I do think that some non-human apes could possibly think of human as variations of themselves.

So chimpanzees, gorrillas, orangutans and bonobos might also think that they are human since you think that you are one of them. Interesting.

I don't see the relevance of you questions other than as insults.

Why do you interpret and take questions about nested apes as insults? You said that people cannot feel offended if no insult was intended. Are you insinuating that it is my intention to personally insult you? I don't understand how anyone who calls themself an ape could possibly be insulted by being compared to one.

People who accepts evolution and its implications.

Does that mean that people who know next to nothing about evolution or don't believe that they are apes are abnormal and of unsound mind?

What's your point? It's not normal to refer to the sun as a fusion reactor. It's not normal to refer to gasoline as hydrocarbons. It's not normal to refer to dogs as canines. It's not normal to refer to mules as hybrids. It doesn't stop any of these from being true.

All of the above are normal science though, and normal people have neither need nor reason to believe otherwise or to deny what is normal. Normal and reasonable people though, can deny they are apes, and claim that it is abnormal to call oneself an ape.

Well, label your assumptions accordingly.

We both should. I assume that chimps laugh at you when you assume that you are an ape. Saying that all humans are apes is just an assumption.

Then why would you assumpt they are laughing at us?

Well, you assume you're an ape and that everyone else is too, so why can't I assume that all apes laugh at you? Do you have a monopoly on assumptions?

Some cars are sports car and some are 4X4, some are for pleasure, some are for work, some are for commute. "Only" a vehicle unduly dismisses the importance of some cars.

So you think you are more important than other apes? What makes you more important than bonobos? Are you going to claim that humans are more important than orangutans? Why? What makes you or other humans so special? After all, you think that chimps can design phylogenetic trees and find their appropriate branch and nested hierarchy in it.

Lots of things distinguishes you from non-human apes. Lack of fur being the most visible one.

Well, I can always put on a fur coat or ape costume and waddle around like an ape. I can even swing on a tree branch, scratch under my arms, and wonder what happened to my tail. How could you tell that I wasn't a real ape?

We are the object - we are discussing offendive statement.

Are we discussing offensive statements objectively or subjectively?

[McCulloch]

I want to distinguish between that which is physical and that which can be said to exist only in the mind. So, with this in mind, let us proceed.

That which can be said to exist only in the mind is abstract. Let us proceed then.

Now we come to what I am interested in and what is referred to as The Abstract World of Ideas, Concepts, and Propositions contained in Einstein's Gulf.

http://www.icr.org/article/einsteins-gu ... -cross-it/

I reject the proposition that the mind is just a product of the brain, even though there is no doubt that a brain and nervous system is required for human consciousness to exist in the physical world. I can well understand how and why neurologists choose to lay claim to the domain of the human mind since neurology and psychiatry are very lucrative professions and if they can convince others that they and they alone are qualified to be experts on the mind, all the more business for them and those who deny any other status for the mind. If the mind is reduced to a "product" of the brain, then everything else that can be perceived and conceived of can also be reduced to a "product" of the brain. Instead of saying that something only exists in your mind, we would have to say that it only exists in your brain, and since the brain is a physical organ, it too would only exist in the brain, which doesn't seem to make much sense to me. How about you?

Don't you think that it is somewhat disingenious to take a statement made by a great thinker who did not believe in any kind of personal god and use it, ripped out of context, to lend his name to an argument for your own personal god?

I personally do not see that this gulf is unbridgeable. Cats, for example, have an abstracted view of reality, albeit much simpler than humans. When they see prey escape into a hole, in their brains, they maintain an abstract, unseen version of that prey and predict its possible actions. It is all a matter of degree. To jump from the level of abstraction achievable by humans directly from inert matter, would seem to be impossible. But to evolve this ability from the abilities of the other apes, is not so much of a stretch.

Today everyone knows, of course, that the mentioned concepts contain nothing of the certainty, of the inherent necessity, which Kant had attributed to them. The following, however, appears to me to be correct in Kant's statement of the problem: in thinking we use with a certain "right", concepts to which there is no access from the materials of sensory experience, if the situation is viewed from the logical point of view. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all- when viewed logically- the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. This is not so easily noticed only because we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf- logically unbridgeable- which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions. Thus, for example, the series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences. But there is no way in which this concept could be made to grow, as it were, directly out of sense experiences.

This quote has more to do with Einstein's disagreement with the principles of quantum physics than theology. By the way, Einstein was wrong. He was discussing the ideas of Kant, Bertrand Russell, Leibniz and Hume. Not Paul and Aquinas.

In summary the reason Einstein so resisted the philosophical implications of quantum theory (the observer alters the observed) was because it puts the cart before the horse, or, more accurately in this context, it puts man's present understanding prior to the world itself. And that world, unlike man's changing views of it, isn't subjected to the whims of current scientific theory. Perhaps this is why Einstein resisted the vast majority of his colleagues who accepted the idea that what quantum mechanics presented was the limits of what could ever be known. Einstein's underlying metaphysic was that science was an attempt to bypass man's limited understanding over time and hence to make an interregnum theory final was to ignore both history and reality.

[Bust Nak]

So chimpanzees, gorrillas, orangutans and bonobos might also think that they are human since you think that you are one of them. Interesting.

what I had in mind was chimpanzees etc, may think of humans as chimpanzees etc. as opposed to thinking themselves as humans.

Why do you interpret and take questions about nested apes as insults?

Because it implies my family and I are less than human. We don't nest, only non-human apes do.

You said that people cannot feel offended if no insult was intended. Are you insinuating that it is my intention to personally insult you?

No, I didn't say people cannot feel offended if no insult was intended. I said it's irrational to feel offended if non was intended. I also said that feeling offended doesn't make a statement an insult. Have said all that. I am insinuating that your intention was to insult me.

I don't understand how anyone who calls themself an ape could possibly be insulted by being compared to one.

That has been explained to you over and over again. It's the context and intention that makes it an insult.

Does that mean that people who know next to nothing about evolution or don't believe that they are apes are abnormal and of unsound mind?

No.

All of the above are normal science though, and normal people have neither need nor reason to believe otherwise or to deny what is normal. Normal and reasonable people though, can deny they are apes, and claim that it is abnormal to call oneself an ape.

Normal science just don't pop up in everyday conversation that much. It's abnormal to say that solid objects is mostly empty space. So what?

We both should. I assume that chimps laugh at you when you assume that you are an ape. Saying that all humans are apes is just an assumption.

I do try and label my assumption. All humans are apes aren't labelled as an assumption because it is not an assumption.

Well, you assume you're an ape and that everyone else is too...

No, I don't. I concluded that all humans are are apes, from the biological definition of great apes.

so why can't I assume that all apes laugh at you? Do you have a monopoly on assumptions?

Well you can assume whatever you want. I am asking why you did because it didn't make sense.

So you think you are more important than other apes? What makes you more important than bonobos?

I do think I am more important than other apes. In short, because I am me.

Are you going to claim that humans are more important than orangutans?
Why? What makes you or other humans so special? After all, you think that chimps can design phylogenetic trees and find their appropriate branch and nested hierarchy in it.

Yes, humans are more important than orangutans. Humans are special because that's the species I am.

Well, I can always put on a fur coat or ape costume and waddle around like an ape. I can even swing on a tree branch, scratch under my arms, and wonder what happened to my tail. How could you tell that I wasn't a real ape?

I can't - you ARE a real ape. I can however tell that you are not a non-human ape quite easily though, by looking for features that are unique to human.

Are we discussing offensive statements objectively or subjectively?

I am discussing offensive statements objectively - what makes a statement an insult, doesn't depend on subjective perception but on context and intention.

[Clownboat]

That's what I want to know. Who in their right mind would call themself an ape? It's not normal.

Who in their right mind... let's think about this.
You seem to look at the people on this planet as all different and possibly not all equal. You see Christians, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Asians ect...

Us, on the other hand.
We see that we are all equal and members of the great ape family together.

Who's in there right mind here? Who's view is more accepting of our fellow humans and promotes acceptance of our fellow humans? Which view is more likely to cause dissension between people of other religions and races? Which view does not require belief in a bronze age religious book that cannot be shown to be true?

And you ask us about who is in their right mind.

I think they laugh at you. When they scratch their heads it is because they can't figure out why you think you're an ape too.

Exactly one sentence later!...

I have no idea what chimps think. I didn't even think that chimps could think until you told me.

Don't you love irony and inconsistency?

[Neandertal Ned]

That's what I want to know. Who in their right mind would call themself an ape? It's not normal.

Who in their right mind... let's think about this.
You seem to look at the people on this planet as all different and possibly not all equal. You see Christians, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Asians ect...

I am a realist.

Us, on the other hand.
We see that we are all equal and members of the great ape family together.

Sounds like a new religious vision of a united humanity to me. Do you accept donations or are your doctrines supported by the government?

Who's in there right mind here?

Good question. How would you know that you are in your right mind?

Who's view is more accepting of our fellow humans and promotes acceptance of our fellow humans?

Certainly not someone like Dawkins. Do you accept your fellow humans as they are or do they all have to become apes like you in order to be gathered into the fold?

Which view is more likely to cause dissension between people of other religions and races?

One thing is for sure. Your view causes dissention between people no matter their race or religion.

Which view does not require belief in a bronze age religious book that cannot be shown to be true?

Your view. It only requires belief in stone age humans and apes becoming humans once upon a time in Africa long before your mythical bronze age.

And you ask us about who is in their right mind.

I did. And your answer is?

[Brian Of Nazareth]

That's what I want to know. Who in their right mind would call themself an ape? It's not normal.

Who in their right mind... let's think about this.
You seem to look at the people on this planet as all different and possibly not all equal. You see Christians, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Asians ect...

I am a realist.

Us, on the other hand.
We see that we are all equal and members of the great ape family together.

Sounds like a new religious vision of a united humanity to me. Do you accept donations or are your doctrines supported by the government?

Who's in there right mind here?

Good question. How would you know that you are in your right mind?

Who's view is more accepting of our fellow humans and promotes acceptance of our fellow humans?

Certainly not someone like Dawkins. Do you accept your fellow humans as they are or do they all have to become apes like you in order to be gathered into the fold?

Which view is more likely to cause dissension between people of other religions and races?

One thing is for sure. Your view causes dissention between people no matter their race or religion.

Which view does not require belief in a bronze age religious book that cannot be shown to be true?

Your view. It only requires belief in stone age humans and apes becoming humans once upon a time in Africa long before your mythical bronze age.

And you ask us about who is in their right mind.

I did. And your answer is?

I have to ask - which sciences do you agree with Ned? Has science acheived anything or should we go back to small farming villages with a ducking stool for witches in the local pond?