Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 229

Thread: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

  1. #121
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You claimed it by implication.



    To reiterate, faith is only directly relevant to theism not deism; the prime mover theory is a logical deduction. Though once again I get the distinct impression that your disdain for faith is another example of you holding your own psychology in contempt; your starting position is to treat it as an evolutionary mistake rather than a valid response. This sort of cynicism often leads people into disregarding entire fields of human learning on the basis of misplaced assumptions.
    Not a fan of implications nor assumptions like you make here, it's the cause of a majority of FUBAR (see link again) where I am concerned.

    Am I to understand that questioning the validity of a concept that is purely based on personal perception is considered cynicism? I am getting an inkling how Copernicus must have felt. Particular when it comes to the 'disregarding' part.

    I take it that this not the place to discuss my related opinion that without religion (institutionalized belief) we would have colonized Mars already?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    Gigantus, my argument isn't that most people are religious, therefore religion is true.
    It certainly looked like it. (see the overwhelming consensus, therefore my argument is true)
    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    It's that almost every human being in almost every culture possesses the sensus divinitatis, so if anyone is delusional or suffers from a cognitive malfunction, it's probably people who can't sense what everyone else has no trouble sensing. Now, personally I don't think nontheism is a cognitive malfunction, but I really get tired of the sense of intellectual superiority that many atheists exude, as if 99% of human beings in human history are blithering retards, while atheists are the few, the proud, the rational, the only human beings with a functioning brain. It's like a blind man calling 99% of humanity delusional for thinking they can see.
    Bit of a faulty argument - basing the validity of individual perceptions on a hypothetical sense isn't much different from saying 'it is because it is'. Your 'retard' side swipe seems to imply that I intended to ridicule the perception represented in the consensus rather then your premise that consensus is validation of the perception. I can assure you it was the latter, although ridiculing wasn't foremost on my mind. As I never labelled\described your stand point as delusional (just not supported by what I consider proof) your final argument is a bit out of line, wouldn't you think? How about: 'it's like a blind man asking for an explanation what seeing is'? 'Open your eyes' isn't very helpful then.

    Quote Originally Posted by chriscase View Post
    long post
    Appreciated, certainly way more eloquent then how I was trying to argue it. eg 'cognitive patterns' as lead in would have saved me some arguing. Gotta participate more often in discussions (outside the pit).
    Last edited by Gigantus; May 17, 2019 at 12:42 AM.










  2. #122

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Not a fan of implications nor assumptions like you make here, it's the cause of a majority of FUBAR (see link again) where I am concerned.
    Whether you're a fan of implications or assumptions is irrelevant; we rely on both in order to converse.

    Am I to understand that questioning the validity of a concept that is purely based on personal perception is considered cynicism?
    The cynical element is the prima facie assumption that the sensus divinitas is deceptive or false in its nature.

    I am getting an inkling how Copernicus must have felt. Particular when it comes to the 'disregarding' part.


    I take it that this not the place to discuss my related opinion that without religion (institutionalized belief) we would have colonized Mars already?
    Go ahead: I can always roll my eyes again.
    Last edited by Cope; May 17, 2019 at 02:25 AM.



  3. #123
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Well, from the very beginning Abel was accounted righteous before God, why? Because he presented to God a lamb offering pointing the way to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. He believed that the prophetic words laid out to his father and mother about one of her " seed " contending with Satan for the souls of men would come about and for that he was accounted righteous before God. The book to the Hebrews lists all those of the same accountability and belief/faith although in their time they never saw it, yet some or most gave their lives believing it. So where did that come from and why is it called faith? Well, the New Testament recollections tell us that Jesus used it frequently simply because no man could see God and live not in this world. Indeed we are told that true faith is a gift from God and is part of the regenerating process to enter heaven. No sinner has the ability to make that kind of decision, why? Because he or she is under condemnation, has no faith and can't have any until they hear the Gospel. Such is the power of sin however that most reject that same Gospel and can't therefore have saving faith. One can only be saved through Justification by Faith by believing that Jesus Christ is that Saviour and that only after a calling from God.

  4. #124
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Whether you're a fan of implications or assumptions is irrelevant; we rely on both in order to converse.
    It's gonna be tedious to list everything that I didn't mean every time I post an opinion. Or to read any barely related hypothesis you may have based on what I omitted to list.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The cynical element is the prima facie assumption that the sensus divinitas is deceptive or false in its nature.
    I take it that's a yes? Apart from the fact that my argument was about 'hypothetical' (doubting it's existence, bolded for emphasis, the involved hyperlink does not allow colors) and not whether it's deceptive or false (I get that a sense can be deceptive, but how can a sense be false?) which would require to acknowledge it's existence.

    Eyes rolling - I take it you did not think the linked material responded to your post? I thought it rather fitted your last sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    So where did that come from and why is it called faith? Well, the New Testament recollections tell us that Jesus used it frequently simply because no man could see God and live not in this world. Indeed we are told that true faith is a gift from God and is part of the regenerating process to enter heaven.
    I am confused. Are you trying to re-affirm my assertion that faith requires unquestioning acceptance? The phrasing "..because no man could see God and live not in this world." is a bit archaic, would you mind to elaborate what you meant?
    Last edited by Gigantus; May 17, 2019 at 03:53 AM.










  5. #125

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    It's gonna be tedious to list everything that I didn't mean every time I post an opinion. Or to read any barely related hypothesis you may have based on what I omitted to list.
    It's an unavoidable hazard of debate I'm afraid - and it works both ways.

    I take it that's a yes? Apart from the fact that my argument was about 'hypothetical' (doubting it's existence, bolded for emphasis, the involved hyperlink does not allow colors) and not whether it's deceptive or false (I get that a sense can be deceptive, but how can a sense be false?) which would require to acknowledge it's existence.
    ??

    Eyes rolling - I take it you did not think the linked material responded to your post? I thought it rather fitted your last sentence.
    When you compared your frustrations to those of Copernicus, I realised the true extent to which I was beneath your towering intellect.

    I am confused. Are you trying to re-affirm my assertion that faith requires unquestioning acceptance?
    Faith is synonymous with trust; you can trust someone with good reason or not. It doesn't require "unquestioning acceptance".
    Last edited by Cope; May 17, 2019 at 04:04 AM.



  6. #126
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    I take it that this not the place to discuss my related opinion that without religion (institutionalized belief) we would have colonized Mars already?
    OMG! Without religion we would be still using longbows and spears!

    Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton (just to quote three pioneers of modern physics) were all Christians, they studied and taught in very Christian Universities, which were part of a very institutionalized political/social/cultural system based on Christianism.

  7. #127
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Gigantus,

    When Jesus said that if one, anyone, had faith the size of a mustard seed they could move mountains with that kind of faith. He knew no-one did have and that is but just one reason I believe that when a person is born again the faith of Jesus Christ is imputed to them showing that it was not any faith they had that saved them, rather His faith to go on the cross on their behalf. Therefore a new born again Christian will have doubts and the need for his or her faith to be strengthened continually the reason the Holy Ghost indwells them to give them that inner strength as was depicted in the gathering at Pentecost. Death from that point on meant nothing to them as many if not all gave up their lives in faith that they had a better place to go as one of God's own.

    Regarding God the Father, even the Son, but specifically the Father, He is a blinding Spirit upon Whom no man might look without being killed because of that Light that comes from Him and we can read that in certain cases when Jesus was glorified men couldn't look on Him for that same glory as the transfiguration depicts. The number of times men have fallen onto their faces in fear is well written of when they have met God, is well documented especially in the Old Testament and that being on meeting Christ. It is written that on the day Jesus Christ returns to finalise all things, everyone, the living and the dead, will fall on their knees to confess Him as Lord and God. Great fear will be as never seen before for He will appear as never seen before in all His glory to roll up and burn away this creation and bring in the new heaven and earth promised to all that have believed on Him upon which they will live with Him. The myriads of others will not see that, them being cast into eternal torment. We read that there won't be any sun moon or stars because God Himself will light that place where His own are going just as He lit up the world before the sun, moon and stars were formed. When that is all settled it is written that Jesus will hand back to the Father all power and authority that He had been given, remaining as the brother to all the adopted sons and daughters He saved at the cross.

  8. #128
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    ??
    Well, you used a hypothetical concept we talked earlier about to respond to my general question if questioning a concept based on personal experience is cynicism. Your answer was positive where I was concerned - guess I shouldn't have side tracked that in my opinion that for something to be deceptive or false it has to 'exist' in the first place, challenging the affirmation of said existence being what my question was about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    OMG! Without religion we would be still using longbows and spears!

    Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton (just to quote three pioneers of modern physics) were all Christians, they studied and taught in very Christian Universities, which were part of a very institutionalized political/social/cultural system based on Christianism.
    Looking forward how that holds up to my theory that the destruction of libraries and scientific material in general by overzealous Christians was one of the main reasons of the dark ages. Eg the total stagnation of human development for a considerable time. You must have also missed my Copernicus link ep1c refers to so gallantly. Additionally you also seem to be unaware that Galileo was as unpopular with religion as was Copernicus. Newton did not contradict an official position of the church (by then it was just as well that is was not an mortal offence any more to seek answers to 'unexplainable' phenomena other then 'deus io vult') so he thankfully could publish his findings without interference from the church. Not much of an argument for 'church supporting\enabling\furthering' knowledge I would think vis a vis my premise. That stance by religion has been toned down further significantly in recent times, alas it does not restore what was lost: Considering the exponential development of science (60 odd years from first flight to first step on moon) it would be save to assume that without the 'loss' of several centuries of development we very well could be sitting on Mars, sipping a synapse stimulating drink while detailing our assumptions.
    Last edited by Gigantus; May 20, 2019 at 12:17 AM.










  9. #129
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Double post to avoid mix ups.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Gigantus,

    When Jesus said that if one, anyone, had faith the size of a mustard seed they could move mountains with that kind of faith. He knew no-one did have and that is but just one reason I believe that when a person is born again the faith of Jesus Christ is imputed to them showing that it was not any faith they had that saved them, rather His faith to go on the cross on their behalf. Therefore a new born again Christian will have doubts and the need for his or her faith to be strengthened continually the reason the Holy Ghost indwells them to give them that inner strength as was depicted in the gathering at Pentecost. Death from that point on meant nothing to them as many if not all gave up their lives in faith that they had a better place to go as one of God's own.
    I understand this as being born with doubt and needing to shed doubt (aka questioning things) to be considered faithful. That would be a 'Yes, faith requires unquestioning acceptance', correct? It does however appear to be only be applicable to 'born again' Christians and not a general observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Regarding God the Father, even the Son, but specifically the Father, He is a blinding Spirit upon Whom no man might look without being killed because of that Light that comes from Him and we can read that in certain cases when Jesus was glorified men couldn't look on Him for that same glory as the transfiguration depicts. The number of times men have fallen onto their faces in fear is well written of when they have met God, is well documented especially in the Old Testament and that being on meeting Christ. It is written that on the day Jesus Christ returns to finalise all things, everyone, the living and the dead, will fall on their knees to confess Him as Lord and God. Great fear will be as never seen before for He will appear as never seen before in all His glory to roll up and burn away this creation and bring in the new heaven and earth promised to all that have believed on Him upon which they will live with Him. The myriads of others will not see that, them being cast into eternal torment. We read that there won't be any sun moon or stars because God Himself will light that place where His own are going just as He lit up the world before the sun, moon and stars were formed. When that is all settled it is written that Jesus will hand back to the Father all power and authority that He had been given, remaining as the brother to all the adopted sons and daughters He saved at the cross.
    I never had occasion to fear any god, deity or other belief constructs. Nor have I seen anything that indicates I should. I do however fear those that claim to act and interpret on their behalf.

    If any of this was in response to a less archaic explanation of the phrase I asked about then you totally lost me: responding with a sermon full of archaic phrases simply doesn't do the job.
    Last edited by Gigantus; May 19, 2019 at 11:45 PM.










  10. #130

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Gigantus, I think you'll like this site. It's a hardcore atheist debunking some popular myths about religion, such as the Dark Ages, conflict with science, destruction of libraries, and so on: https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/
    Last edited by Prodromos; May 20, 2019 at 02:10 AM.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  11. #131
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Gigantus,

    What most people see as faith can quickly be erased whereas the faith that Jesus imputes into the regenerate carries the whole weight of God which even for the regenerate is hard to appreciate, why? Because what they have been saved from still lingers in the memory. So, do I have blind faith? I only wish I did because I never see myself rising to the standards of Jesus. He never stumbled whereas I do and when that happens I have to get back to the cross to remember what He did for me. It's not therefore just the imputed faith given to me to believe I am saved, rather it's plus all the experiences that go along with it.

  12. #132
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,096
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    @Prodromos

    Always appreciate sources - the more of them the greater the chance of a more informed opinion.

    The site itself had me cringe at it's title but at least it tries to give references to the statements it makes. Nicely detailed about the question how many scrolls the Alexandria library might have contained and how many other libraries there might have been plus a relative small disclaimer re the Alex lib destruction by Christians by way of 'Sagan had it from Gibbons who had an axe to grind' (didn't know that 'Contact' was based on a book by Sagan, nor how it's relevant). I was generally disappointed because it is missing the author's 'this is my take on what happened to all the stuff that I just extensively confirmed existed at one point'.

    It was a bit painful trying to extract actual info from in between the disdainful and ridiculing commentary in the two one hour movies regarding the dark ages so I stopped about 5-10 minutes in. I freely admit to a block when it comes to being ridiculed for my arguments while bringing forth arguments to convince me otherwise. It does not further a discussion and simply detracts from the argument made (and I am not bothered to figure out if the ridicule is about my stance or if a perceived weakness of the counter argument necessitated the ridicule).
    Last edited by Gigantus; May 20, 2019 at 04:24 AM.










  13. #133

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Well, you used a hypothetical concept we talked earlier about to respond to my general question if questioning a concept based on personal experience is cynicism. Your answer was positive where I was concerned - guess I shouldn't have side tracked that in my opinion that for something to be deceptive or false it has to 'exist' in the first place, challenging the affirmation of said existence being what my question was about.
    You asked: "Am I to understand that questioning the validity of a concept [the sensus divinitatis] that is purely based on personal perception is considered cynicism?"

    The answer to this is no. The questioning of a "concept" is not cynicism; the cynicism is in your prima facie assumptions about the "concept" itself. That is to say, you probably concluded what the sense of divinity is not prior to investigating what it is.



  14. #134

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    The site itself had me cringe at it's title ...
    Why did you "cringe" at my site's title? It's a site dedicated to how some atheists get history wrong, it's aimed at atheists and it's written by ... an atheist. So, "History for Atheists". What else do you think should I have called it? And what the hell is wrong with that perfectly accurate and succinct title for a site about history ... for atheists?

    but at least it tries to give references to the statements it makes.
    "Tries"? Pardon? I support every single thing I say with either references, quotes, summaries of scholarship or a combination of those elements.


    Nicely detailed about the question how many scrolls the Alexandria library might have contained and how many other libraries there might have been
    Gee, thanks.

    plus a relative small disclaimer re the Alex lib destruction by Christians by way of 'Sagan had it from Gibbons who had an axe to grind'
    Again, pardon? What does "a relatively small disclaimer" mean here? Are you sure you know what the word "disclaimer" means?

    I was generally disappointed because it is missing the author's 'this is my take on what happened to all the stuff that I just extensively confirmed existed at one point'.
    I would have thought it was pretty obvious that I can't give a "take" on that because we simply don't know. We do know that books in the ancient world were expensive, rare and fragile. So it is pretty obvious, in general terms, the tiny number of copies of those texts that were lost disintegrated over time and not enough copies were made to preserve them.

    It was a bit painful trying to extract actual info from in between the disdainful and ridiculing commentary in the two one hour movies regarding the dark ages
    "Movies"? What?

    I freely admit to a block when it comes to being ridiculed for my arguments while bringing forth arguments to convince me otherwise.
    That seems to be taking things rather personally. I can't see how I could be "ridiculing" you, given I didn't know you even existed until this morning. The fact that that the claim that "the destruction of libraries and scientific material in general by overzealous Christians was one of the main reasons of the dark ages" is not accepted by modern historians and represents an outdated nineteenth century polemical cliche that historians have been working for about a century to debunk. If you think all those historians are wrong and the outdated view is correct, perhaps you should start another thread to put your case and then we can see if it stands up to detailed, well-informed critical scrutiny.
    Last edited by TimONeill; May 21, 2019 at 02:13 PM.

  15. #135

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    I was going to reply to some of Chriscase's epistemological assertions back some pages ago, but I kinda got lost in the middle with University assignments and looking for another job, so I would have to say that I kinda lost the train of the conversation here.

    But nonetheless, let me make some observations based on some posts here, particularly by @Prodromos and others.

    I see that the old venerable medievalist ThiudareiksGunthigg is back here, this time using his real name.

    Funny enough, I became religious and turned into an Ultramontane for some time thanks to my deep interest in medievalism. But now I'm far more liberal.

    ==================

    First, let's tackle the point of "Science".

    What people call "Science" today and nowadays, esp. when referring to these discussions, is not really "Science" as the Medievals and early Moderns understood it.

    Actually, it would not be called "Science" for the thousand year stretch between Charlemangne and Napoleon, to be even safer.

    What people call "Science" nowadays, is a pale shell of what used to be denoted as "Science" in the Middle Ages.

    It is basically an abstract Newtonian-Cartesian quantitative reductionist frame gone mad, even beyond its obvious limitations that have been breached fully a century ago.

    I mean, one of the first people to evdenounce these limitations was JW Goethe, one of the great figures of German idealism. His Farbenlehre stands as a direct refutation of disembodied Cartesian rationalism, and the atomistic/quatitative framework that reduced colour to particles without regard to its inate quality as colour.

    Other critics of Mechanism, Rationalism, the Cartesian subject/object dichotomy have already been cited by me, they include Maritain, Tomas Melendo, Heidegger, and whatnot.

    I have already critiqued this consistently and concisely in my original post, but let's repeat it again.

    When Guenon, Heidegger, his epigone Derrida, the Iranian ideologue and thinker Fardid, etc... critique the so-called "Metaphysics of Presence", they are in fact aiming at a deconstruction of Western rationalistic process.

    Western rationalistic process mentality would not be possible without the especifically Latin and Christian cosmology developed during the Middle Ages, which confused by means of Analogy of Entity the disciplines of theology and ontotheology, ontology as theology.

    In sum, what the West conceives as Science is purely and simply technique, applied in an exponential fashion. But that in itself, as Heidegger writes, this was a result of the ontotheological process through which the West underwent. This ontotheological process involved a gradual confusion between Being and entity, assimilated them both in a reified frame, and finally culminated with Cartesianism as a science that reduced human cognition from questions about Being (ergo, metaphysics, ontology, etc...), to questions about objects in space.

    In sum, Fardid's critique is very concise: the West no longer talks about Being, about the Real as "Real", but only about objects in space. About certain conditioned individual perspectives, which overrun their logical and ontological trustworthiness and value.

    That's why there's an immense gap in the understanding of the world of the postmodern mentality, and the mentality that existed in the Medieval West, Byzantium, etc...

    In other words, what the "Scientific Revolution" did was to basically dramatically alter our perception, changing *EVERYTHING* into a tabula rasa, into a res extensa, and ignoring the vast world of natural realities, aspects, etc... that either transcended the level of superficial tangible matter, or were irreducible to some abstract quantitative frame like qualia, essences, substances, forms, and whatnot.

    So basically, one can say that modern "Science", far from being a full discernment of the nature of things, in fact is a science that dedicates itself almost completely towards the measurement of objects in space, for the sake of technological control. They seek only to grasp at the most immediate and easily quantifiable aspects of so-called "extended" matter, without going anything further.

    So what's really in here, is that modern science constitutes a gross materialization that seeks an understanding merely at the level of substance, while ignoring anything beneath it, leaving form, essence, qualia, Beigness, etc...

    The ancient understanding of things was radically different. Ontotheology was first and foremost concerned with finding the Being of beings, by SEEING, and not just GRASPING at things. It sought the Naturing nature, the NATURA NATURANS, and not just to control the NATURA NATURATA, the manifested, visible, side of nature.

    While I'm not fully Aristotelian per se, it's easy to understand that Heidegger's critique is very concisive. It's easy to grasp this by comparing post-modernism with Platonism, for instance.

    In Platonism, we have a fully developed cosmology which sought the adequation of man with the full possibilities of the human intellect, and the divine realities that are perceptible.

    In postmodernism and modern mechanistic philosophy, what we have instead is an empty husk where the quantitative methodology is applied indiscriminately, Being is neglected for the sake of techne, and questions of truth are effaced for the sake of questions utility. This brings in nihilism.

    Postmodernism itself is merely cocnerned with superficial questions of episteme alone, since it has lost the possibility to even define what is knowledge in the first place. What is "knowledge" according to postmodernity? Getting stuck in a solipsistic echo chamber, and being unable to define what "truth" is, because "Truth" is primairly the byproduct of the analysis of Being qua Being, and not the study of objects in space. But since modern epistemology denies that we are able to grasp effectively at reality, but only at some sort of individual projection, we have the effective obliteration of all genuine questions of meaning and any genuine ontology in favour of a science that prizes only technique.

    And the triumph of this technique becomes the primary illusion that puts men in a trance, and blinds them as to the limitations of the so-called technological age.
    Last edited by Marie Louise von Preussen; May 21, 2019 at 03:40 PM.
    "Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."

    - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)

  16. #136

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Actually, let's just say one more thing about this.

    No actual science is a science without its underlying *philosophy* of science. And this is as true today as it... ever... was.

    All true natural science also has as a foundation the natural philosophy behind it. The naturphilosophie of the German idealists, for instance, even though German idealism wound up a gross failure.

    So the main thing is... Heidegger's thought, constitutes the Destruktion of the fallacious underpinnings through which Scientism has tried - in vain - to solidify itself as an unquestionable process of pure quantity and pure mechanistic relations.

    So the main issue at hand is... Without the underlying adequate and solid natural philsoophy, "Science" remains a fragmented field that can perhaps go no further than its own specialized measurements.

    And this is precisely what I've been talking about: the Western naturphilosophie that opens the possibility of its own destruction by the forces of technique is totally wrong and nihilistic. It perhaps can be described summarily as such:

    "The modern emphasis is less on a broad empiricism (one that includes passive observation of nature's activity), but on a narrow conception of the empirical concentrating on the control exercised through experimental (active) observation for the sake of control of nature. Nature is reduced to a passive recipient of human activity. "
    In other words, the modern Science is concerned with the control, and not the insight into things.

    Modern Science constitutes, broadly, in the hierarchical inversion. For the ancients, Techne as a form of wisdom had a tertiary and even quaternary role, behind the knowledge of Being as Being, of Morality, Ethics, and Virtue.

    But Modernity, has totally destroyed these hierarchical layers of knowledge and stuck only with techne. It thus constitutes a perfect inversion of values, and the main receptacle through which an entire civilization became nihilistic in the first place. And this doesn't erase the fact that it still, constitutes merely a subjective projection of the gestalt, the consciousness of the West-European mentality, and not an universal statement of man's progress.

    ... Now, is ontotheology the answer for all of this? Primarily, no. Because, some of Kant's and Heidegger's critique remain valid, even though most of Kant is BS once we take off the Cartesian underpinning beneath it.

    BUT, a fact of the matter remains clear, that ontotheology and many bits of Aristotle's nature philosophy remain a valid insight that is superior to anything the moderns can produce on the matter. In fact, Aristotle's Physics remain as good as ever, and we're even unconsciously chained to it in many bits of our own current Science - such as in our conception of time.

    What remains valid, is that the Ancients tried to SEE things - thru the lens of ontotheology in one instance, but also thru other means - while the Moderns only seek control. And insofar as they're incapable of seeing, except thru the eyes of denatured quantity, the Moderns don't posess anything that can truly be called "Science" in the first place, only techne, and technology, and that the confusion between Science and Technique is one of the great unconscious evils of our time.
    "Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."

    - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)

  17. #137

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    It is true that modern science has a more restricted scope, but by restricting itself, modern science can achieve more in its.admittedly limited scope.

    I don't think that is wrong, it is just like one person to specialize in studying one particular field, like just choosing to study killer whales, and not.all whales or mammals, as long as you don't lose sight that there is more out there then what you chose to study. S in can't tell you the meaning of life, but it can tell you how life arose. Problem is that some scientist like Dawkins lose sight, and think the material world is all there is. I remember reading John Meier's book "A Marginal.Jew", and he said it was beyond the scope of a historian to say whether miracles happen. A historian could answer the question whether people believed miracles happened, but to say whether they did or not is beyond the historian's scope. Since science deal with the study of the natural world, questions of the supernatural is beyond their scope to answer.

  18. #138

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    No, rather, to be poignant about your remarks: modern science constitutes in a myriad of fragmented specialized fields. They're all locked up, and there's no genuine hierarchy or transcendence in them. Insofar as they try to answer questions related to the meaning and structure of reality, instead of contenting themselves with just measuring said aspects of such reality that are accessible to their instruments, they fail miserably.

    They cannot form a *genuine* synthesis, that is. They cannot go beyond themselves and their own narrow specializations. Also, we don't know, thru Modern Science, how life has emerged. We have only so far speculated about it, with unsatisfactory results.

    Whereas "Science", for Aristotle, meant something different altogether. The hierarchy of what constituted scientific knowledge during Medieval and Ancient times ran as follows: 1. Being qua Being, or ontology, or "Wisdom" in the sense of the discernment of the nature of Reality, 2. Morality, Ethics, Virtue, Man as a Social Being, 3. Techne.

    Whereas we have managed only to invert all genuine possibilities. We have ditched natural philosophy, we have ditched Being, and instead only talk about the control and manipulation of objects in space thru technique. This is, as per Heidegger, the great tragedy of fall of Western humanity and its cosmovision.

    It's not that ontotheology, or ontology in the Scholastic mould, was perfect. Some would say that even the original Scholastic thinkers avoided ontotheology, and that the first ontotheologian of the Western tradition was Duns Scot. That's perhaps, debateable, but anyway, Scholastic ontology still tried to find answers for basic and fundamental questions that we don't even deem legitimate anymore, because we're too deeply mired into the power of machines, into quantitative measurement, and into technology.
    "Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."

    - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)

  19. #139
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Looking forward how that holds up to my theory that the destruction of libraries and scientific material in general by overzealous Christians was one of the main reasons of the dark ages.
    Well, no, not at all! The concept of Dark Ages is an old, rusted historical tool belonging to the past, history is still in search of the reasons why the world of Late Antiquity vanished, but today, nobody on Earth still thinks it was due to the passage from Hellenism to Christianism. Nobody on Earth still thinks that the Dark Ages were an age of darkness.

    See the matter in this way: From the times of Alexander to the Fall of the West, in Europe, nothing happened in terms of scientific and technological advancement. The only true scientific and technological advances happened during the 2000 years following the birth of the man of Nazareth and his lunatic views for which the men, every one and all the men, are equal before God.

    I spent my life on this site, on IBFD Forum, complaining about the death of Flavius Claudius Iulianus and the final defeat of the last Pagans, but I was wrong, Christianism was not the beginning of the Darkness, it was just the dawn of a new world, this is what I've discovered reading Ammainus, Zosimus, Iulianus and all the great witnesses of the Fall!

    Believe me, because this is the legacy on this site of Diocle, the devout atheist: I still love and honour the memory of Diocletianus and his Great Persecution, as, I desperately hate the emperor Constantinus I, the bastard son of a Sicilian whore; for me, October 28, 312 is a day of true mourning, on that day, I would have been at Saxa Rubra fighting and dying with the Praetorian Guard engaged in its last battle against the damn son of the Christian whore, even when there was no more hope, even beyond that moment, nunc et semper: Death to the Christain atheists! Then, on 26 June 363, if I were there, I would have done everything to save Julian's life at Samarra, and perhaps I would have preferred to perish with him, on that damn sand, than being forced to see the triumph of the horrid squad of christian eunuchs who dared to call him "Apostata"! But today, .. I have to admit that the Dark Ages were not that dark, they were instead the beginning of a new age of light and progress for Europe and with her, for the whole world.

    Dark Ages! What a stupid name to designate the incredible roots of our modern Europe! It came from the restricted views of an infamous reactionary! Dark Ages, the only legacy of a miserable, protestant petty bourgeois, a true forger, who presented us the glorious birth of this continent just as an age of darkness and fear! Holy Heaven! When I think there is still someone sharing his poisonous fake views and following his miserable steps ..

  20. #140
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

    The difference between us who believe and those that don't seems to come down to history left in portioms by men of knowledge. I say portions because obviously their lives are short and their knowledge limited by circumstance. God however is all history. He knows the beginning from the end and nothing to date has not from His writings been wrong. In fact He told us the earth was round, gave us information as to how to use water medicinally and how to tend the land and work the seasons for a benefit for mankind which no-one then could visualise becoming the size it is today. Yes, there is much yet for science to discover but God created the means for these discoveries when He finished creating.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •