The quagmire of life leaves much to be gained out of our input of energy into the construct of reality which we occupy. If the physical is temporary and the soul is forever, the software cannot be erased… the thought is what matters the most to the system. The Bible places Knowledge highest on the list of “things” to attain. The increase of knowledge, the gaining of wisdom can only increase the quality of life, or, at least the process of attaining and processing the information that we translate into “reality”…
The more we understand about our physical universe that we reside in, the more of an awareness of our own existence is developed. I believe less concentration should be dedicated to what we consider real and important. More should be focused on expanding the mind and the awareness that what is real in reality is a smoke screen or veil masking what is actually there. What we see is a pale reflection of the stark vivid reality that exists underneath the surface of particle physics that our mass is subject to.

Can’t knowledge can’t be expanded beyond a sociological God-creature…?

I hadn’t realized that I’d placed any predetermined stipulation on the expansion of knowledge… The point I was driving at was that the quest for knowledge should transcend any predispositions that we are subject too… social, mythical, academic, or religious… so to answer in short… of course

absoluteliquid wrote:
>I believe less concentration should be dedicated to what we consider real and important.

To the stars, we are atoms. To atoms, we are stars. There is nothing shameful in searching for that which is important to you, even if it is unimportant to others; importance is relative.

FiNiX wrote:
>> <i>absoluteliquid wrote:</i>
>>I believe less concentration should be dedicated to what we consider real and important.

To the stars, we are atoms. To atoms, we are stars. There is nothing shameful in searching for that which is important to you, even if it is unimportant to others; importance is relative.

erm…yes…ALL concentration should be dedicated to what we consider real and important…rb prepares to be the oft unemployed employers nightmare…

ratboy wrote:
>erm…yes…ALL concentration should be dedicated to what we consider real and important…

Speculation is sometimes required, but speculation should be based upon that which is definitely real.

FiNiX wrote:
>> <i>ratboy wrote:</i>
>>erm…yes…ALL concentration should be dedicated to what we consider real and important…

Speculation is sometimes required, but speculation should be based upon that which is definitely real.

deliciously arcane…

How would you define “definitely real?” If speculation is by its nature far from concrete, an abstract practice devoted to consideration of the unknown with insufficient knowns/facts to prove it, then why limit it to the “definitely” real?

We don’t speculate about the movements of the stars without a telescope. We don’t speculate about the outlook of the weather without tools to measure it.

To my knowledge, no speculation is without a point of reference; be it math, common sense or evidence. In the case of christianity, a book. The more tangible and definite the reference, the more accurate the speculation is likely to be.

a book…like The Golden Bough…Sir James George Frazer…comparative on myths…a must read…

Before the telescope, people did speculate about the movement of stars, by observation and theory. Before barometers and thermometers and the like, people did speculate about the weather, by observation and theory. Likewise, philosophical and religious thought predate tools and texts, and are likewise based upon human experience, observation, and theory. All are evidential.

Before the telescope, people did speculate about the movement of stars, by observation and theory. Before barometers and thermometers and the like, people did speculate about the weather, by observation and theory.

And that is all well and good, for those speculations had a definite reference points in reality; the movements of the stars as seen by the human eye; the approximate speed and direction of the wind; the look of the sky as seen from ground level.

However, the more reliable the evidence, the more accurate the speculation is liable to be; the telescope aided in more accurately theorizing about the movements of the stars (and helped to disperse the theory that earth lies at the center of the universe); the barometer and thermometer have improved our ability to predict the whether immensely.

gawd fini…you must be a trip to have in class…carry on

Religion and philosophy have “definite reference poitns in reality”—existence itself, human nature, human society, what ought we to do, unmeasurable realities (thought, imagination) etc.

Religions and philosophies rely on evidences, some of them spiritual or deific, yes, others logical and demonstrable. The more accurate the observations and evidences, the more accurate the “speculations” of philosophies and religions became and the better they are able to fulfill their purpose—explain realities, prescribe actions for healthy individuals and societies, etc.

So why persist in your false dichotomy? There is no valid criticism of religion and philosophy vs. science yet illustrated here.

Arandur wrote:
>Religion and philosophy have “definite reference points in reality”—existence itself, human nature, human society, what ought we to do, unmeasurable realities (thought, imagination) etc.

“What ought we to do” is a definite reference point?

So why persist in your false dichotomy? There is no valid criticism of religion and philosophy vs. science yet illustrated here.

“speculation should be based upon that which is definitely real.” That is my opinion.

The human experience of wondering/feeling a need to know many types of things is a reference point.

How would anyone have known much of what was “definitely real” unless they questioned?

Are you suggesting we shouldn’t entertain any philosophical questions because we can’t touch them with our fingers or see them with our eyes? We shouldn’t bother questioning how we ought to live, what things mean, or even have this conversation?

Off to class. See you later.

Arandur wrote:
>Are you suggesting we shouldn’t entertain any philosophical questions because we can’t touch them with our fingers or see them with our eyes? We shouldn’t bother questioning how we ought to live, what things mean, or even have this conversation?

We can theorize, but that’s it. If you want to get anywhere with it, you need evidence. The the more evidence the better. If you don’t, it’s just another idea.

And what do you mean by “get anywhere?”
Does the evidence need to be scientifically measurable? Hard science or soft science (soft=sociology and psychology for instance)? What is your threshold or definition of evidence? By my understanding, there’s plenty of evidence used in philosophical and theological arguments.

Arandur wrote:
>And what do you mean by “get anywhere?”

Figure anything out about the world. Theories are nice. For entertainment purposes. But if they aren’t true, they don’t do much else, and the more evidence, the more likely the theory will be true.

Does the evidence need to be scientifically measurable?

Depends on the theory.

Hard science or soft science (soft=sociology and psychology for instance)?

The definition of soft science is less evidence, more guesswork. Sometimes it’s the only way. Even then, however, claims should be backed by as much – if nothing else, circumstantial – evidence as possible.

What is your threshold or definition of evidence?

Again, it depends upon the theory that is being tested.

By my understanding, there’s plenty of evidence used in philosophical and theological arguments.

Sometimes. But remember, interpreting the evidence correctly is also half the trick.