Science Doesn't Work

[Lord Emsworth]

I'd say this reflects trying different theologies with theories that don't fit the universe well enough.

But what if I have a glittery theology with a theory big enough for everything (including science, QM, philosophy, psychology, etc.) that you haven't tried yet? Precisely because you've prematurely written off religion because you've hastily generalized, you've closed yourself off emotionally and ideologically from even considering seriously this idea. That goes for every theology and philosophy and belief system for everything.

No, sorry. Theology/religion is different. These theories (if you really want to call them that) aren't really aimed at the crop of the cream in terms of intelligence and education, but rather at everybody in general. And as such, they are inherently insufficient to function as a working explanation for anything. It stands to reason, if even the crop of the cream in terms of education and intelligence is fit to grasp the universe. The hoi polloi, never.


And there's really no way to tell the working theologies from the not working ones; they all kind of work. They all give people an illusion of understanding stuff, amongst other things. But that is it.


There's really no need to try them all, or something.

 

[Received]

No, sorry. Theology/religion is different. These theories (if you really want to call them that) aren't really aimed at the crop of the cream in terms of intelligence and education, but rather at everybody in general. And as such, they are inherently insufficient to function as a working explanation for anything. It stands to reason, if even the crop of the cream in terms of education and intelligence is fit to grasp the universe. The hoi polloi, never.

You're claiming that this is inherent to religions, rather than extrinsic to them, i.e., people with ulterior motives use religion in the way you say.

And there's really no way to tell the working theologies from the not working ones; they all kind of work. They all give people an illusion of understanding stuff, amongst other things. But that is it.

There's really no need to try them all, or something.

If you define your criteria for what work means here, you have no problem.

 

[variant]

You're claiming that this is inherent to religions, rather than extrinsic to them, i.e., people with ulterior motives use religion in the way you say.

Do you have some counter examples?

If you define your criteria for what work means here, you have no problem.

His point (unless I am reading him wrong) seems to be that 'work' is ill defined in the first place.

 

[Received]

Do you have some counter examples?

Oh, I don't know, my religion. Or Willardian theology, or Kungian theology, or Eckhartian theology. All of these theologies entail skepticism as a value, and as such aren't inherently pushing stuff on people like Emsworth says. And let's not forget that "religion" here is meaningless without specifying one's particular religious or denominational perspective.

His point (unless I am reading him wrong) seems to be that 'work' is ill defined in the first place.

So much the worse for the ill-definers.

 

[variant]

Oh, I don't know, my religion. Or Willardian theology, or Kungian theology, or Eckhartian theology. All of these theologies entail skepticism as a value, and as such aren't inherently pushing stuff on people like Emsworth says. And let's not forget that "religion" here is meaningless without specifying one's particular religious or denominational perspective.

What would you say these theologies are aimed at?

So much the worse for the ill-definers.

From my perspective you are one of them.

 

[Received]

My reasoning that science and religion have remarkably different processes? Start at the beginning of my posts and read.

Been there, done that. "Remarkably different processes" is a vast overstatement. If you'd read my posts I think you'd get that point. And that, you know, I'm not literally comparing religion and science so much as how it's fallacious to reject all varieties of a species just because one variation of it doesn't strike your fancy.

I am asking you to expand what you mean because what you presented was vague and useless.

I think you're presenting me with fluff, so elaborate if you wish.

What theological ideas are "good selection of serious and good theological ideas" and why.

Look, I'm happy to do this, but I'm not going to if you make presuppositional statements that wipe off any possibility of you changing your mind, such as, "Please elaborate what a "good selection of serious and good theological ideas" is, other than vague and useless." "Other" is the operative word here.

Religious ideas are correct because they appeal to human sensibilities?

Reasoning is good I'll agree, you should definitely do that.

Wompwomp.

I'm talking theory, variant. Theory is narrative, not necessarily about truth. We're down, as humans, with whatever explains stuff we know the best. That's what I'm talking about.

I find your standard vague enough to be functionally useless so I asked you to give a few examples.

Try this one:

X = "there is a god" what are Y and Z?

My point is it doesn't matter, and I stated X Y and Z as a formula that anyone could plug anything into in terms of an agreed-upon standard. Asking what my standard would be is not relevant to the OP.

 

[Received]

What would you say these theologies are aimed at?

The opposite of Ems' post.

From my perspective you are one of them.

I'm not aware of a reasonable requirement apropos this thread to have a need to define them here.

 

[variant]

I'm not aware of a reasonable requirement apropos this thread to have a need to define them here.

It's a word in the thread title.

 

[Received]

It's a word in the thread title.

Which ain't literal.

 

[variant]

Been there, done that. "Remarkably different processes" is a vast overstatement. If you'd read my posts I think you'd get that point. And that, you know, I'm not literally comparing religion and science so much as how it's fallacious to reject all varieties of a species just because one variation of it doesn't strike your fancy.

You've never given me a reason to think the processes similar and my experience is that they are remarkably different.

I can detail the key differences between scientific inference and theology if you would like?

Look, I'm happy to do this, but I'm not going to if you make presuppositional statements that wipe off any possibility of you changing your mind, such as, "Please elaborate what a "good selection of serious and good theological ideas" is, other than vague and useless." "Other" is the operative word here.

My impression is that you are presenting me with vague and useless, it springs from the fact that you keep presenting me with lots of seemingly fluffy language and few specifics.

I would be genuinely interested to be wrong in this regard but...

I'm talking theory, variant. Theory is narrative, not necessarily about truth. We're down, as humans, with whatever explains stuff we know the best. That's what I'm talking about.

I think we have different ideas on the terms "theory" and "explains".

Specifically I expect my explanations to differentiate between what we can expect if they are true and what we can expect if they are unsupported, and for those two categories to be clear via the methodology I use to differentiate.

My point is it doesn't matter, and I stated X Y and Z as a formula that anyone could plug anything into in terms of an agreed-upon standard. Asking what my standard would be is not relevant to the OP.

I don't think it works, as I am having trouble thinking of a single example of what you are talking about giving me a standard answer on any given theological subject.

This would be a standard that doesn't standardize.

 

[variant]

Which ain't literal.

That's fine but you fail to have much of a point if you don't mean anything specific by 'work'.

 

[Received]

That's fine but you fail to have much of a point if you don't mean anything specific by 'work'.

So you're saying that if it isn't literal that there's no chance for substance?

 

[variant]

So you're saying that if it isn't literal that there's no chance for substance?

If your point depends on the idea of striving for 'work'-ability, yes, it's pretty important that you mean something specific.

I'm also noticing that you meant something very specific when you said science wasn't 'work'ing but can't give me that same kind of clarity when you refer to theology.

 

[Received]

If your point depends on the idea of striving for 'work'-ability, yes, it's pretty important that you mean something specific.

I'm also noticing that you meant something very specific when you said science wasn't 'work'ing but can't give me that same kind of clarity when you refer to theology.

Gee, I wonder what that means.

Now you're talking about specificity. What are your criteria regarding this, variant? IOW, what are you plugging into the words I'm using and how do you think they differ from mine?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You're claiming that this is inherent to religions, rather than extrinsic to them, i.e., people with ulterior motives use religion in the way you say.

What ulterior motives are you talking about?

But that aside, whatever your point, it is fairly irrevelvant. The crux is, religious/theological knowledge is too cheap. It has to be so cheap as to be able to cater to lots of people.

If you define your criteria for what work means here, you have no problem.

What does it mean, aside from the most trivial. Are you talking about those aforementioned ulterior motives?

 

[Received]

What ulterior motives are you talking about?

But that aside, whatever your point, it is fairly irrevelvant. The crux is, religious/theological knowledge is too cheap. It has to be so cheap as to be able to cater to lots of people.




What does it mean, aside from the most trivial. Are you talking about those aforementioned ulterior motives?

The ulterior motives refers to people who use religion in a "cheap" way like you talk about, which was part of the "extrinsic" argument of religion in contrast to your claim (as you've repeated above) that religion inherently has a bad deal packaged with it, such as by being "cheap".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The ulterior motives refers to people who use religion in a "cheap" way like you talk about, which was part of the "extrinsic" argument of religion in contrast to your claim (as you've repeated above) that religion inherently has a bad deal packaged with it, such as by being "cheap".

Mhm-hmm. I think that is irrelevant.

 

[variant]

Gee, I wonder what that means.

Now you're talking about specificity. What are your criteria regarding this, variant? IOW, what are you plugging into the words I'm using and how do you think they differ from mine?

You've decided to speak in vague generalities that you call "not literal" to make a point of some sort, but it is lost on me because you aren't really defining your key terms.

I mean that I understand exactly what you mean when you speak of an experiment reaching statistically significant results, and yet I have no idea what you are talking about with this X Y and Z idea.

This is because you have provided more specifications (technical standards) on the former.

On the latter I expected you to provide the same kind of information, (or some examples to illustrate what you mean) and yet you balk for some reason.

I wonder what that reason is?

So, do you intend to continue to hide behind semantics or do you actually want to explore the ideas you present?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

If your point depends on the idea of striving for 'work'-ability, yes, it's pretty important that you mean something specific.

I'm also noticing that you meant something very specific when you said science wasn't 'work'ing but can't give me that same kind of clarity when you refer to theology.

Much of the "workability" of biblical passages especially Jesus's metaphors have multi-scalar workability. They work energetically and physically and are designed to be heard be those with "ears to here" and pass over the heads of the obtuse.

For instance: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". But, a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair.

So let's look at it again; The rich man was told he must give all he had to the poor, for a rope to get through the eye of a needle it must untwist, unwind, and become a single strand again. It fit's perfectly. And that's just the physical interpretation.

The spiritual interpretation is this: The man who worships God is made rich in spirit. Rich in peace, joy, knowledge, compassion, wisdom, etc. This is what you must give away to the poor in spirit. That is taking care of the orphans (fatherless, guideless) and widows (husbandless, shepardless). That (imho) is turning water (truth) into wine (joy, good cheer) and washing your fellow man in the "blood of Christ".

 

[Received]

Mhm-hmm. I think that is irrelevant.

I think therefore I sham.