Do You Believe In Scientism?

[Bertrand Russell White]

Paul is about as complex. And it's hard to argue that he was a fictional character. Most people would agree he wasn't We don't know that Jesus was uneducated. Unlikely to any great degree - such as able to write. If he was and he could write, then surely something from his hand would have survived. We know virtually nothing about his background. Correct The birth stories are surely the least reliable parts of the gospels.

 

[AV1611VET]

If he was and he could write, then surely something from his hand would have survived.

John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Too bad they didn't record what he said.

 

[hedrick]

Unlikely to any great degree - such as able to write. If he was and he could write, then surely something from his hand would have survived.

Let's use Paul as a crosscheck. It appears that he taught the gospel in the churches he founded. We don't have that in writing, nor is there any reason to think that he wrote it. The only writing we have from him was when he wanted to communicate with churches in a different location. Even then, someone else wrote the letters for him. It appears he could write, but not necessarily very well. We know he had a good religious education, and his thought was complex. Nor do we have much else in the 1st Cent other than letters from the major Christian leaders, and most of those are not genuine.

Jesus' teachings are not as complex as Paul's. Each Gospel, of course, puts its own interpretation on them. What we have is a combination of Jesus' teachings and later interpretations. That complicates things. But what Jesus likely taught doesn't seem as complex as Paul's letters taken as a whole.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad they didn't record what he said.

Why?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Let's use Paul as a crosscheck. It appears that he taught the gospel in the churches he founded. We don't have that in writing, nor is there any reason to think that he wrote it. The only writing we have from him was when he wanted to communicate with churches in a different location. Even then, someone else wrote the letters for him. It appears he could write, but not necessarily very well. We know he had a good religious education, and his thought was complex. Nor do we have much else in the 1st Cent other than letters from the major Christian leaders, and most of those are not genuine.

Jesus' teachings are not as complex as Paul's. Each Gospel, of course, puts its own interpretation on them. What we have is a combination of Jesus' teachings and later interpretations. That complicates things. But what Jesus likely taught doesn't seem as complex as Paul's letters taken as a whole.

Let's use Paul as a crosscheck. It appears that he taught the gospel in the churches he founded. We don't have that in writing, nor is there any reason to think that he wrote it. The only writing we have from him was when he wanted to communicate with churches in a different location. Even then, someone else wrote the letters for him. It appears he could write, but not necessarily very well. We know he had a good religious education, and his thought was complex. Nor do we have much else in the 1st Cent other than letters from the major Christian leaders, and most of those are not genuine.

Jesus' teachings are not as complex as Paul's. Each Gospel, of course, puts its own interpretation on them. What we have is a combination of Jesus' teachings and later interpretations. That complicates things. But what Jesus likely taught doesn't seem as complex as Paul's letters taken as a whole.

Paul did write some of his letters and some he didn't. There are letters attributed to him that are now doubted by much of scholarship to have been his. I doubt that many people's sermons were probably written at the time because people heard them in person and many people were not literate. I'm not sure when this became more of a standard practice. The biggest problem is we really don't have much information and evidence to make definite conclusions. It is too bad most scholars and people don't admit this.

 

[jayem]

I haven’t read all 100+ posts in this thread. This may have already been addressed. Good science doesn’t claim to be infallible. If evidence shows that a scientific explanation is in error, it will be corrected. In this respect, it’s by far, intellectually superior to religious belief. Which will virtually never admit that its doctrines and tenets are mistaken.

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

I haven’t read all 100+ posts in this thread. This may have already been addressed. Good science doesn’t claim to be infallible. If evidence shows that a scientific explanation is in error, it will be corrected. In this respect, it’s by far, intellectually superior to religious belief. Which will virtually never admit that its doctrines and tenets are mistaken.

Yes, if the body of evidence in an area and/or other related evidence from other areas in science shows an explanation is in error science works to correct it. Religion may occasionally abandon certain doctrines and tenets (although either say they weren't crucial to their beliefs or just not admit they ever were that important) but key beliefs will never be abandoned no matter how much evidence accumulates against them. Often religion works on lack of evidence. Such and such important doctrine or tenet can't be disproven because there can't be found enough evidence to deny them no matter how unlikely they are.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Why?

Would be cool.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too bad they didn't record what he said.

My guess is that He wrote the Ten Commandments twice; just like His father did twice.

 

[tharkun73]

Purely for completeness sake, and so I can openly dodge the obvious 'shifting the goalposts' exposure, (due to my using the simplified 'rock' example), I offer this load of total gobbledygook as an example of someone who appears to be seriously attempting to argue that the value of pi is 4, thus demonstrating the different way his mind works in coming up with an alternate value of pi.

Be warned! Miles Mathis is a reknowned web crackpot .. but his 'proofs' are not simply identified as frauds from casual perusal. This post might be better off being a separate thread in the Non-Mainstream forum, actually.

MIles posits that pi = 4 in kinematic situations only, not geometric ones. You can keep 3.141 for measuring areas, etc. He has simply restated what is already widely accepted as the Manhattan Metric, and shown how it applies to curvilinear motions. When you do that, kinematic pi does = 4. Most people who criticize his derivation have not comprehended it or dismissed it out of hand.

 

[tharkun73]

Too bad they didn't record what he said.

Jeremiah 17:13 - "LORD, you are the hope of Israel; all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the LORD, the spring of living water."

When Jesus stooped in the dirt and started to write, every knowledgeable Jew would have gone to this verse in their head. Jesus pulled a remez on them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

SOURCE

Do I believe in 'scientism'? ....nah.

 

[SelfSim]

MIles posits that pi = 4 in kinematic situations only, not geometric ones. You can keep 3.141 for measuring areas, etc. He has simply restated what is already widely accepted as the Manhattan Metric, and shown how it applies to curvilinear motions. When you do that, kinematic pi does = 4. Most people who criticize his derivation have not comprehended it or dismissed it out of hand.

As I said .. crackpottery at its finest.

I might add self-aggrandizing to that list as well.

 

[SelfSim]

Do I believe in 'scientism'? ....nah.

Not even sometimes?

I'm disappointed to see you ruling out that mode in your thinking(?)

 

[tharkun73]

As I said .. crackpottery at its finest.

I might add self-aggrandizing to that list as well.

Have you actually read his papers and comprehended his argument?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not even sometimes?

Oh, like anyone, I have emotional moments of felt nihilism. .... But then, I remember everything I've ever read, heard or otherwise studied.

I'm disappointed to see you ruling out that mode in your thinking(?)

I'm sorry you're disappointed to see me holding off the Abyss the way I do, Selfsim.

 

[SelfSim]

Oh, like anyone, I have emotional moments of felt nihilism. .... But then, I remember everything I've ever read, heard or otherwise studied.

I'm sorry you're disappointed to see me holding off the Abyss the way I do, Selfsim.

Hmm .. I though it was a Void .. now you seem to be onto the Abyss!
What next?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm .. I though it was a Void .. now you seem to be onto the Abyss!
What next?

I was being metaphorical. I guess you're not into metaphor?

 

[SelfSim]

I was being metaphorical. I guess you're not into metaphor?

Hmm .. I think I can handle metaphors(?)
Only to the extent of avoiding crakpottery though