Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to The problem with the word "Theory"
I couldn't agree more, Gome...
I took no offense, and am delighted that this subject remains at the front of discussion on Bloggit.
posted by
arGee
on May 2, 2007 at 11:57 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee - no problem, in re-reading my earlier comment; I apologize if there
was an implied tone, I had not intended it.
The subject of that article is worth repeating. As I see more and more effort put into religious agendas that are in effect attempting to turn back the clock, these things are worth reiterating.
posted by
gomedome
on May 2, 2007 at 11:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: arGee - I'm quite familiar with that article you wrote last year
So there is...I had not clicked on that link in quite a while. Sorry for intruding into your thread with something that was already there!
posted by
arGee
on May 2, 2007 at 11:01 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee - I'm quite familiar with that article you wrote last year
If you will notice, there has been a link to it in the left hand column of this blog since you wrote it.
posted by
gomedome
on May 2, 2007 at 8:02 AM
| link to this | reply
I wrote an article last year, Gome...
That approaches this same topic from a slightly different aspect. It is pertinent to this discussion. Here is a link to that article:
What is a Theory?
posted by
arGee
on May 2, 2007 at 7:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - The "evolution" of God to singular that you describe can clearly
be seen in studying ancient history.
There is a recognizeable path of development for this construct from primitive peoples and their multiple dieties through to the paternal creator being of omnipotent power, to the additions of the holy spirit and prophet son incarnate as man. An objective study of this history (if that is possible) shows how the gods worshipped by our species grew from myths and the natural world around us.
posted by
gomedome
on May 2, 2007 at 6:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Tonyzonit - again I do not disagree with what you are saying
When you say: "They do, of course, regularly evoke some scientically established facts to bolster their arguments when it suits them." ....Usurp may be a better word than "evoke". Despite all that you say being fundamentally true, the problem of the ever growing modern day disconnect between common knowledge and ancient irrational religious beliefs still exists. Are those of us who do not subscribe to these irrational beliefs supposed to sit back and let the religionists impose their collective will upon our educational systems and society in general simply because they cannot help themselves? I don't think so. Where there is no effective method of deprogramming the brainwashed en masse, there is at least a point to presenting a rational perspective. That being in making it clear to those who would envelope my entire society in a one size fits all religious construct, that there are some of us who ain't buying it.
posted by
gomedome
on May 2, 2007 at 6:31 AM
| link to this | reply
and about monotheism?
the first word for god in the bible is a plural word: "Elohim", the same word used in the commandment, "Thou shalt have no other "elohim" before me."
which of course recognizes other gods, and makes YHVH also one of the "elohim"
modern Creation THEORY is based on medieval perceptions that are based on a feudal system in which the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS prevailed and where ONE and only one ruler was recognized, with the one ruler, the Pope, as the ONE AUTHORITY in religious matters; thus, God had to be ONLY ONE and no more because they needed the relating to autocracy in order to legitimize their governmental and ecclesiastical systems.
It would be assumed that this all was left behind with the Reformation and the advent of Democratic government.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 2, 2007 at 6:27 AM
| link to this | reply
electricity is a theory -- that's all that needs to be said about that.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 2, 2007 at 6:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Hi Gome
You are right, of course, but this type of approach will never change any believers' minds, just as Richard Dawkins' will not, because there is so much more to religion than creationism and its other beliefs for which there is no substantiating evidence. The sense of giving life a purpose, for example. Essentially, that purpose boils down to giving us eternal life in certain of these religions. But above all, they believe the Bible, the Koran, etc are the ultimate truth, a higher truth than any science, which to them is lumped into the pejorative word 'theory,' whereas their religious truth is far superior to even the best scientific theory, which is necessarily flawed because it is man-made. They do, of course, regularly evoke some scientically established facts to bolster their arguments when it suits them.
posted by
Antonionioni
on May 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM
| link to this | reply