Philosophy

[Scrotum]

I find it strange that a Christian based forum (i admit which is open for debate by scoffers) have a topic called "Philosophy-For the love of the pursuit of knowledge".

Is not Christianity's worst enemy knowledge?

In reality, to be Christian DEMANDS ignorans. Or am i wrong? (rethorical, no im not)...


No insult to the Owner of this Forum, but religion demands ignorance, and pursuit of knowledge is not possible because they would become atheist's. Worth debating perhaps ?

[Curious]

No insult to the Owner of this Forum, but religion demands ignorance, and pursuit of knowledge is not possible because they would become atheist's. Worth debating perhaps ?

Actually, to really be able to justify atheism you would need to already be in possession of all knowledge otherwise agnosticism would be the only logically consistent choice other than theism. If we had all the facts already, then pursuit of knowledge would be impossible as there would be no additional knowledge to pursue. While certain beliefs definitely require a degree of ignorance, others require an even greater degree of investigation and analysis.

[Scrotum]

Actually, to really be able to justify atheism you would need to already be in possession of all knowledge otherwise agnosticism would be the only logically consistent choice other than theism. If we had all the facts already, then pursuit of knowledge would be impossible as there would be no additional knowledge to pursue. While certain beliefs definitely require a degree of ignorance, others require an even greater degree of investigation and analysis.

A True Christian statement. No, you are incorrect im sorry.

By default, you are Atheist. As you are, by default, illiterate at birth. To claim Theism in any sort of way, you have to have a basis for it, Which does not exist (then there would be no atheists would it, idiots excluded).

[Arya]

I find it strange that a Christian based forum (i admit which is open for debate by scoffers) have a topic called "Philosophy-For the love of the pursuit of knowledge".

Is not Christianity's worst enemy knowledge?

In reality, to be Christian DEMANDS ignorans. Or am i wrong? (rethorical, no im not)...


No insult to the Owner of this Forum, but religion demands ignorance, and pursuit of knowledge is not possible because they would become atheist's. Worth debating perhaps ?

I would tend to believe that many religions would adapt a sense of ignorance of anything that is outside their particular belief patterns. In other words, they may be very ignorant of issues that fall out of their context of what their particular faith practices.

But I do not necessarily believe that to be Christian means to be completely ignorant of knowledge or being knowledgeable if I have understood your first two paragraphs correctly. But my experience with Christianity is that although this faith has pursued knowledge, or has specific knowledge of which I have learned from over the years (I am not Christian by the way but have found many of their teachings to be very sensible) the knowledge is limited only to what falls within their specific belief systems.

There are other faith systems that are not as structured, but I believe you are specifically focusing on Christianity here. There are many others on this forum who are more closely associated and knowledgeable on Christianity that perhaps can better respond to you than myself. But I wanted to add these thoughts to your post.

[Scrotum]

But I do not necessarily believe that to be Christian means to be completely ignorant of knowledge or being knowledgeable if I have understood your first two paragraphs correctly. But my experience with Christianity is that although this faith has pursued knowledge, or has specific knowledge of which I have learned from over the years (I am not Christian by the way but have found many of their teachings to be very sensible) the knowledge is limited only to what falls within their specific belief systems.

Wellm just to clearify, just take the fact that if you are Christian, you are first forced to discard certain Biblical references to accept the Fact that Homo Sapiens are decendant from Apes. Excluding Creationist on that point. But then we have hundreds of things, as the earth is older then 10 000 years also gives then a problem.

And not to try to insult Christians, which is quite hard to avoid concerning there beliefs, but they are forced to ignore reality, facts. Or they simple ignore things in the Bible, which is even worse, because then they pick and choose what they like, which is kinda strange if you have your certain religion.. Non?

[MagusYanam]

And not to try to insult Christians, which is quite hard to avoid concerning there beliefs, but they are forced to ignore reality, facts. Or they simple ignore things in the Bible, which is even worse, because then they pick and choose what they like, which is kinda strange if you have your certain religion.. Non?

I think here you are presenting a false dichotomy, or at least misrepresenting the theistic-evolutionist viewpoint. It's not that theistic evolutionists (like myself) are ignoring the Genesis narrative; personally, I treat the creation story as true myth, its importance lying not in its historicity but in its philosophical perspective. Myths have value - they are not historical, but then again are not meant to represent history; Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to deal with God's relationship to the world and particularly to man, also to deal with the nature of humanity. At least, that's how the rabbinic tradition deals with them.

Given this interpretation of the creation narrative I see no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

[palmera]

By default, you are Atheist. As you are, by default, illiterate at birth. To claim Theism in any sort of way, you have to have a basis for it, Which does not exist (then there would be no atheists would it, idiots excluded).

I disagree here. You are nothing but alive by default. At birth an infant does not deny the existence of a supreme being. If there is a supreme being it might be argued that an infant is at closest communion with that presence. Also, the analogy between being atheist and illiterate at birth doesn't hold water as the two are comlpetely different things having nothing to do with one another.

Your view of Christianity in this post is narrow- you're arguments suggest that to be Christian is to be a fundamentalist in Biblical interpretation. Further, religion, in this case Christianity does not require ignorace, nor is a belief in Christianity necessitated by it. While certainly fundamentalist belief systems allow for one to be swallowed in dogma, it is a mistake to assume that this is an intrinsic part of religion. Rather it is an intrinsic part of human nature.

No insult to the Owner of this Forum, but religion demands ignorance, and pursuit of knowledge is not possible because they would become atheist's.

This argument is every bit as fundamentally narrow in thought as those held by fundamentalist Christians.

Biologically we are set up for ignorance- our senses prohibit us from taking in everything we see feel taste touch and smell at one time because we would be overwhelmed- we are incapable of taking in all we experience at once.

And not to try to insult Christians, which is quite hard to avoid concerning there beliefs, but they are forced to ignore reality, facts. Or they simple ignore things in the Bible, which is even worse, because then they pick and choose what they like, which is kinda strange if you have your certain religion.. Non?

Again, you assume this is part of Christianity when it is more a part of being human. Those involved in practices of all sorts, be they religious or scientific all pick and choose to make their perceptions of the world fit. In fact, you do this very thing in your argument by not attending to the complexity of Christian practices and beliefs. The human tendency to use what information we are given (or what we believ in) and mold it to our own perceptions of the world is inherent in us from the beginning- I contend that the goal of religion, be it Christianity is similar to that of science and other paths- that is to open the mind to the reality beyond our own perceptions. The success with which this is accomplished is measured by the individual, not the practice or belief system.

[Scrotum]

I disagree here. You are nothing but alive by default. At birth an infant does not deny the existence of a supreme being.

Incorrect, lack of belief, not denial of anything. Sorry.

Also, the analogy between being atheist and illiterate at birth doesn't hold water as the two are comlpetely different things having nothing to do with one another.

Incorrect, because either you get indoctrinated to believe in a God, or you lack the intelligence to see that its not logical to believe in a God.

[QED]

I think here you are presenting a false dichotomy, or at least misrepresenting the theistic-evolutionist viewpoint. It's not that theistic evolutionists (like myself) are ignoring the Genesis narrative; personally, I treat the creation story as true myth, its importance lying not in its historicity but in its philosophical perspective. Myths have value - they are not historical, but then again are not meant to represent history; Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to deal with God's relationship to the world and particularly to man, also to deal with the nature of humanity. At least, that's how the rabbinic tradition deals with them.

Given this interpretation of the creation narrative I see no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

But surely theism is all about man as a special piece of Gods handiwork? Isn't our high status (ultimate status) built into the very fabric of Christianity? (For me this is the biggest give-away of all. I can't believe that we are the most advanced lifeform in the universe nor that evolution would be incapable of producing some creature far more worthy of all that theologians bestow upon us). If so this is contradicted by evolution. Evolutionists know that there is nothing pre-ordained about the arrival of our species and that future contingencies might easily supplant our species with something better adapted to whatever environment emerges.

[palmera]

Quote:
I disagree here. You are nothing but alive by default. At birth an infant does not deny the existence of a supreme being.


Incorrect, lack of belief, not denial of anything. Sorry.

Quote:
Also, the analogy between being atheist and illiterate at birth doesn't hold water as the two are comlpetely different things having nothing to do with one another.

Incorrect, because either you get indoctrinated to believe in a God, or you lack the intelligence to see that its not logical to believe in a God.

Atheism is defined both as the denial of God and/or the lack of belief. You did nothing to refute what I said, but rather chose to argue against one definition of atheism- what about the argument itself? Secondly, what about my argument against your anology was incorrect? My argument is right on point and you again did nothing to refute it.

If one is necessarily indoctrinated to believe in a God, who indoctrinated the first person? One's belief in a God goes beyond the capacity for one to reason or one's indoctrination. The premise of your arguement is flawed if you define religion solely in terms of logic and reason; you're denying the complexity of the issues here rather than attending to them.