| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:30 am Post subject: The human community of doubt |
 |
|
The community of doubt
| Joseph Ratzinger on the human community on doubt wrote: |
| No one can lay God and the Kingdom on the table before another man; even the believer cannot do it for himself. But however strongly unbelief may feel itself thereby justified it cannot forget the eerie feeling induced by the words "Yet perhaps it is true." That perhaps is the unavoidable temptation which it cannot elude, the temptation in which it, too, in the very act of rejection, has to experience the unrejectability of belief. In other words, both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief, if they do not hide away from themselves and the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape doubt and belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other through doubt and in the form of doubt. It is the basic pattern of man's destiny only to be allowed to find the finality of his existence in this unceasing rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and uncertainty. Perhaps in precisely this way doubt, which saves both sides from being shut up in their own worlds, could become the avenue of communication. It prevents both from enjoying complete self-satisfaction; it opens up the believer to the doubter and the doubter to the believer; for one it is his share in the fate of the unbeliever, for the other the form in which belief remains nevertheless a challenge to him. |
All those who assert that they know or are certain of one side or the other are just trying to convince themselves . . . repeatedly.
Doubt is the natural disposition of both believer and non-believer. Doubt is a wonderful thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PRagic
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sure, unless you arm a bunch of doubt and provide that swarming mass of idiocy a leader with a cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaelambling
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Location: Paradise
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PRagic wrote: |
| Sure, unless you arm a bunch of doubt and provide that swarming mass of idiocy a leader with a cause. |
I think that rather proves that doubt is the de facto standard amongst human beings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Yet perhaps it is true." |
This could apply to absolutely anything that a person could care to believe in.
I believe the moon is made from cheese. "But that is absurd!", you would most probably reply. "Oh but don't forget the eerie feeling induced by the words, yet perhaps it is true", I would retort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| michaelambling wrote: |
| PRagic wrote: |
| Sure, unless you arm a bunch of doubt and provide that swarming mass of idiocy a leader with a cause. |
I think that rather proves that doubt is the de facto standard amongst human beings. |
Doubt really is a new thing for humans. Our ancestors survived by seeing things where there was nothing, rather than not seeing things where there was something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a world of difference between Yet perhaps it is true and Yet perhaps it is false.
In religion, doubt is a threat. In science, it is necessary for progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let there be no doubt - materialistic goals are essentially nonsense.
Godless science is making progress toward what? Knowledge that can easily be converted into power to control (and kill) others?
Arguably, the gene pool is pretty screwed up, and scientists - perhaps descended from the Asstechs - will do their level best to clean it up with chemicals... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Let there be no doubt - materialistic goals are essentially nonsense.
Godless science is making progress toward what? Knowledge that can easily be converted into power to control (and kill) others?
Arguably, the gene pool is pretty screwed up, and scientists - perhaps descended from the Asstechs - will do their level best to clean it up with chemicals... |
I'm quoting this to say, just don't do it. Don't respond. There is no point. He is a troll and this post screams that he wants to derail the thread. Do everybody a favor and ignore it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:19 am Post subject: Re: The human community of doubt |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
All those who assert that they know or are certain of one side or the other are just trying to convince themselves . . . repeatedly.
. |
Anyone would be wrong to say they are absolutely 100% certain one way or the other. I think it is just normal however to not doubt things that are extremely unlikely or likely.
In theory, you should doubt everything, but is it possible for people really do that? In other words I would agree with Racetraitor and say that belief not doubt is the natural state of being for humans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Let there be no doubt - materialistic goals are essentially nonsense.
Godless science is making progress toward what? Knowledge that can easily be converted into power to control (and kill) others?
Arguably, the gene pool is pretty screwed up, and scientists - perhaps descended from the Asstechs - will do their level best to clean it up with chemicals... |
That a system of examining causality excludes those modes of causality which are entangled with intent does not make it materialistic in the sense which you are implying, RTeacher. It would only cease to be science did it include those modes of causal analysis.
It does not mean that it is godless, or theological. Those two words just don't belong in the system anymore than a spark-plug belongs in a milkshake.
Science cannot evaluate final causes, or even deal with them. For what does the universe exist? Intent is properly removed from the process, as it should be.
Science produces a categorically small, well-defined and highly reliable body of knowledge. What falls outside of this body cannot be called knowledge in the same way, if at all. But that does not mean that Opinions, faiths or philosophies which do not meet the scientific standard of knowledge are without value.
Any reasonable scientist will fully acknowledge that there are important studies which do not qualify as scientific knowledge, and which do not produce scientifically acceptable knowledge.
This is the one distinction philosophers wish theologists would more commonly understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that it is pointless to argue about what is inconceivable, but I think that unless we - in the scientific sense - assume that there is an inconceivably powerful, intelligent, and eternal Supreme Being from which everything else has emanated, then we run the grave risk of progressing very far in the wrong direction.
Although I more-or-less understand your description of "pure science", in practical terms we can understand that there are not nearly enough ethical safeguards to prevent scientific advancements to be used to bring about widespread destruction on a variety of fronts...
I think that a "God-centered" science would be more inclined to respect all forms of life as sacred and defer to the original designs in nature - which may serve purposes beyond our present grasp of reality (in the ultimate sense.)
Of course, such a God-centered science would have to be nonsectarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice. Welcome to about 50 pages of the same argument again and again and again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
I agree that it is pointless to argue about what is inconceivable, but I think that unless we - in the scientific sense - assume that there is an inconceivably powerful, intelligent, and eternal Supreme Being from which everything else has emanated, then we run the grave risk of progressing very far in the wrong direction.
Although I more-or-less understand your description of "pure science", in practical terms we can understand that there are not nearly enough ethical safeguards to prevent scientific advancements to be used to bring about widespread destruction on a variety of fronts...
I think that a "God-centered" science would be more inclined to respect all forms of life as sacred and defer to the original designs in nature - which may serve purposes beyond our present grasp of reality (in the ultimate sense.)
Of course, such a God-centered science would have to be nonsectarian. |
I agree that we need ethical safeguards. But, RTeacher, I cannot see how there can be a god-centered science. (Note: please don't quote to form your argument or point. I prefer to speak to you. It's more interesting that way.)
There can be god-centered ethical systems, and systems of "knowing." But these are categorically different.
Science is simply a method. You can test various ideas with the method, and others not. People may even try to use science to prove god. That's fine. But until god has met the standards of science--which mean that by the concept of god, we can make accurate predictions--, god cannot be a foundation in science. A hypothetical idea he may be, but not a constituent part of the theoretical body.
Scientists may make ethical considerations based on their relationship with the concept of god. That is fine, so long as they keep it personal. If they deduce demonstrable things by that concept, which prove to have accurate predictive power, then they may extend by that virtue alone demands on the practices of others.
But, until the concept of god can accurately and reliably predict phenomenae, it is unethical to by that concept place ethical demands on others.
There are scientific theories and evidences by which one may construct ethical demands which do not rely on the concept of god.
Again, the concept of god may be involved in a scientist's personal practice; but that concept should not be allowed to interfere with the practice of science. Only thus can science be non-sectarian and free of prejudice.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the Vedic model is correct and we are all constituted to be eternal servants of God, that includes all individuals who are scientists, too.
God's position is to enjoy unlimited varieties of service.
People stuck in the materialistic bodily conception of life shouldn't be regarded as being very advanced in knowledge when they're actually serving material illusion (maya) instead of serving God.
Because scientists are relatively very intelligent and influential, I think it's important that they become conversant with the basic principles of spirituality in order to progress their own work in an enlightened way - and inspire others.
I think the tendency is to put material science on too high an intellectual pedestal. Philosophy is at least as important.
Technological advances are very impressive, but they need to used in a way that's ultimately beneficial for everyone.
Maybe an enlightened dictator would be able to see to it that both science and spirituality progress in a complementary way.
I'm up for a new line of work ...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| In religion, doubt is a threat. |
I have the Pope saying otherwise. So, bullshit.
| JMO wrote: |
I think it is just normal however to not doubt things that are extremely unlikely or likely.
In theory, you should doubt everything, but is it possible for people really do that? In other words I would agree with Racetraitor and say that belief not doubt is the natural state of being for humans. |
It is normal to accept things as given, and we should not truly doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow. However, its remarkable that many humans will consider, at some brief moment in their lives, that the sun could not come up tomorrow.
Belief takes a great deal of effort. The many rituals of the religious should show that there is a thick edifice of habit, ritual, and customs bolstering their belief. Because everyone, on some significant level at varying degrees in their lives, doubts the existence of God.
Everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
