Interesting article but, as you indicate, it is just someone’s opinions on what they think an agnostic is. I call myself an agnostic, however I do not agree with everything stated here.

Logos I believe, refers to the written word Moiraine. It is the "root word for LOGIC" as well. "Rhema" is the spoken word of speech. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Most certainly. Of course I have. That's what I've been saying all along.

There are different types of prayer yes, with different sucesses.

One can assess the success of each by comparing the Word of God to the effects in peoples lives, the way people pray to the effect in their life, the way oneself prays and it's effect. The effects of intercession against self prayer. The effectiveness of communal prayer. The effects and differences between petition, praise, prophetic prayer, and the continuance of faith.

Observances of the material world in general, compared against the bible, or ones own inner self, and others inner selfs can result in the realisation that it is somewhat futile to pray that God will remove someones free will for example.

"God, make him love me" is not effective prayer, as deduced from those realisations. ;)

[ 01-28-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Most certainly. Of course I have. That's what I've been saying all along.</font>[/QUOTE]What method of science did you use?

Most certainly. Of course I have. That's what I've been saying all along.</font>[/QUOTE]What method of science did you use?</font>[/QUOTE]The same methods I'd use in studying sociology, anthropology, geography, psychology or astronomy. Observation, comparision and testing the results against further observation and comparison.

Thats imposable Yorick. You cant test and retest independently from the origanator the theory imposed. You are talking about faith. How can I test your faith going on just your words or writings?

My faith is the RESULT of those observations and comparisions Kathen. The RESULT.

I never said I was just comparing the writings in any case. I examine the writings of the Bible, Qu'ran, Buddhist thought, Taoism, and Confucianism. I examine the physical word of the earth and visible stars. I examine peoples spoken and written testimonies and visible effects, experiences in my own life, historical writings about human societies and my own personal experiences in a variety of human societies.

I am observing and analysing these and comparing them against other with a logical and scientific approach, no different to a psychologist or sociologist for example would. My field of observation is larger than a psychologists though.

THe RESULT of these observations, comparisions and analysis is my faith.

That doesnt make it scientific. I need to be able to test your analysis and theory myself and come up with the same conclusions, before you can it a scientific approach. You are talking phylosophy. Read up on Imperical Science.

You CAN test my analysis and theory yourself. It would be a large undertaking for you and substancial life change but you CAN do it. Plenty of people HAVE come up with similar conclusions to me through similar approaches. We test it against each other. Some examine different evidence, but we use the same method.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Some are limiting science to chemistry, physics and biology. In this case a narrow definition leads to a particular way of thinking, as language shapes thought.

It's like the narrow view of "culture" leads one to feel that they have no culture or that popular culture is not culture.

One needs to step back and look at things laterally, and that includes examining what definitions one is using and whether those definitions are restricting ones ability to ascertain knowledge. Restricting science.

Conscience, prescience, ominscience. All are based on the root word SCIENCE being "a state of knowing". "Scientific thought" is thought based on a "state of knowing", not merely a collection of chemical experiements.

Similarly faith is not the exclusive domain of religions. We excercise faith everyday, in small and large portions. Narrowing the defintion of faith leads one to closing off self-understanding and understanding how similar we are as people.

I would guess you and I are not so different Kathen. We have just come up with different conclusions given the experiences we have been given.

You are married to a Mormon. You do not share the Moprmon worldview. With all respect to Larry and Lady Aberdeen, neither do I. You've chosen atheism, I've chosen my interpretations of Christianity.

Differing conclusions does not mean we have different mindsets. What creates difference can be the RESULT of our conclusions.

But vive le difference. We then get to assess the others experience of life and compare it against our own, furthering the advance of knowledge. Knowledge of what this life is all about.

You can, using the Imperical scientific method, test the theory of evolution, witch is my beleaf system. NOBODY can Impericaly test faith. As I said, you are talking phylosophy. Not science. There is a fine, but definete, line there.

I quote myself.

Kathen, in accepting parts of evolution you are excercising faith. Evolution is a THEORY, by definition an unproven idea. It is not a THEOREM. THere are vast amounts of the theory that are not quantifiable. The single largest being YOU WERE NOT THERE TO SEE IT HAPPEN.

So for starters all your information is at least second hand or speculations on archaeology.

Secondly evolution theory is not a grand unified theory. It has no answers to the meaning of life, the existence of the soul, morality, no solutions to internal phychological issues, no self betterment principles. A CHristian CAN be an evoltuionist. The answers of evolution are the HOW, not the WHO or WHY. It in NO WAY conflicts with religious thought. If eventually proven true beyond doubt, it would merely provoke a readjustment to certain theological thinking, not the dismantling of it.

Can you not see this?

I can't believe you guys have spent all this time arguing over what is really seen, academically, as a simple distinction: "hard" sciences and "soft" or "social" sciences. My college had three "divisions." Div. 1 was "arts," Division 3 was "sciences" (math, physics, chemistry, biology), and the middle division, divison 2, was "soft" or social sciences (economics, sociology, religion). Isn't that really what we're talking about?

That's what I've been saying Timber.

But it's more than that. Accepting theology as a science clearly involves something more for those who don't. Whatever it is I don't understand it.

Remind me again why we have the separation of church and state... ;)

Exactly!!! I live by hard science, literal testable IMPERICAL science. Not "soft" science, witch relies on phylosophy, faith, whatever. Can you not see this Yorick? This is what I have been saying all along. IMPERICAL science has no room for faith or phylosophy.

[img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

Exactly!!! I live by hard science, literal testable IMPERICAL science. Not "soft" science, witch relies on phylosophy, faith, whatever. Can you not see this Yorick? This is what I have been saying all along. IMPERICAL science has no room for faith or phylosophy.</font>[/QUOTE]AAAARRRGGHH!

FAITH IS THE RESULT! Faith and science are not opposites! Each use the other! Man this is frustrating Kathen!

I HAVE FAITH, and I USE SCIENCE!

You are telling me you're without faith? Fine. You say you rely on science? Fine. DON'T tell me what I do! I use both. They interweave and assist each other. HArmoniously. When I discover aspects of chemistry or biology I gain understanding of the Trinity for example. Triunity.

I use the science of psycholgy to understand myself. I use sociology to understand humanity. I use economic science to get ahead financially, I use theology for life/relationship enhancement, I use geography and biology to enhance my appreciation of the planet, and increase my theology.

Conjoinment, not seperation!

Shheesh!

You don't? Fine. DON'T PRESCRIBE YOUR REALITY AND METHODOLOGY ONTO ME.

[ 01-28-2003, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[quote]

Quote:

Exactly!!! I live by hard science, literal testable IMPERICAL science. Not "soft" science, witch relies on phylosophy, faith, whatever. Can you not see this Yorick? This is what I have been saying all along. IMPERICAL science has no room for faith or phylosophy.

Wait a second! [img]smile.gif[/img] It would be a mistake to classify Social sciences such as sociology and anthropology as 'soft'. The reason why they differ from say chemistry or biology is because they are concerned with the study of groups of people, society, and development of culture --- but this is done using the scientific method.

Lets not get embroiled in semantics. Theology does not use the scientific method. Sure this is arguable, but if you got 100 clerics and 100 scientists and they took a vote they would agree with this.

Are you indicating that if evolution were proved, that would still not disprove the existence of a god?

If this is what you are saying, then what part in human creation did god have a hand in? If it is proven that we developed through a natural evolutionary process, then there was no greater power involved. Right?

I guess I am confused by what you are saying here. [img]graemlins/confused2.gif[/img]

This debate has been going on for centuries, Yorick. I have not told you how to do things, or believe. All I am saying is that the farther you get away from Imperical scientific method the closer you are to phylosophy. You dont need to get frustrated with me Yorick. I have kept my cool here, and still have respect for your veiws, I just dont agree. We are once again at a standoff, and I need to go to bed, so I can work tonight. I will be back on either this afternoon or tomarrow morning. Goodnight, and lets cool off for now.

OK , lets agree to disagree, just to keep it civil [img]smile.gif[/img]

This is just my opinion, but I think that science and faith can cooexist, however by their very definition must they remain separate in practice. I guess there is an assumption---a leap of faith as it were ;) that it is possible to understand our reality, environment, universe, ect without using theological explanations.

[ 01-28-2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

OF COURSE NOT!!!!

I have only said this three billion times or so.

Evolution is concerned with the HOW, not the WHO or WHY.

Under evolution theory a creator is still necessary to
a) Initiate life. Animation. To suggest that a single speck of dust suddenly became alive by chance without a Creator directing it is to believe in theoreticaly extreme odds.
Akin to someone winning the lottery 20 times in a row. THeoretically possible, but which if it occured would be presumed to have someone behind it

Darwin himself surmised that God breathed life into that first single celled being. An athesitic evolutionist is following the theory without the theorists cause for existence.

b) Perpetuate existence. Maintaining the energy that holds atoms together and stopping the universe from flying apart.

c) Guiding evolution. Design is evident in the human hand. In the human voice. Evolution may provide a "history" of such development. Like seeing a songwriters scetchbook, a painters trial and error, a mathemeticians working out. Evolution, if true, shows the process.

As I stated Evolution is not a "Grand Unified Theory." It holds no answers to the meanings of life. One needs to look elsewhere for that.

Note on the soft sciences. They do not use much of the scientific method. Supply/Demand for instance has never been empiracally proven, and when it seems there are holes in the model we hypothesize to fill in the gaps: e.g. a "Dutch Tulip Bubble" or a "Housing Market Bubble." Both of these are reasonable means of explaining deviation from the expected model, of course, but they are not empiracally testable.

Note: a chemical reaction will run the same way each time. Now, if your science background is weak, you may remember lab experiments where different results were reached and think this statement untrue, but I assure you all of those different results were the product of external influence, such as human error. A sociology focus group study, on the other hand, will NOT necessarily come out the same way each time. It's not empiracally proveable.

Darwin was born in 1809 Kathen. That's less than 200 years. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

My frustration with you is that I'll state something with an argument behind it, and you'll state the same sentance as before my argument, with no argument other than a "this is how it is, period". ;) Well, at least you did with that last post. :D

Whatever... ;) Have a good afternoon. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Unless it does come out the same way each time.

Ah! But you have answered your own question. Religion is based on the assumption that there is a point to existence, a ‘meaning of life’ – theology also makes this assumption.

Science (with all it’s subcategories) DOES NOT make this assumption.
This is the difference.

Unless it does come out the same way each time.</font>[/QUOTE]AAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH - UUUUUUUUNNNNNNN........ *pop* [img]graemlins/microwave.gif[/img]

Sorry my head exploded. I'll come back later when I've picked my brains off the floor.

Not all religions provide a meaning for life Esquire. Not all religions have the assumption there is a meaning. In any case, there is a difference between "Religion" and "Faith". I was talking about "Faith". Most specifically MY faith.

Faith can lead to the discovery of a meaning for ones own life, and the meaning for life in general, but one does not have to possess a desire to know the meaning of life to have faith, nor have faith to desire an answer to the meaning of life.

Unless it does come out the same way each time.</font>[/QUOTE]AAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH - UUUUUUUUNNNNNNN........ *pop* [img]graemlins/microwave.gif[/img]

Sorry my head exploded. I'll come back later when I've picked my brains off the floor.</font>[/QUOTE]LOL. Well think about it. If seven thousand focus groups all did result in the same conclusion, that would be emprirically provable wouldn't it.

The simpler the question, the greater the likelihood such a situation would occur.

If "Do you believe you are alive" is answered yes by every focus group, it could be logically concluded through empirical assessment that humans believe they are alive.

Yea quite correct, sociology is all about identifying general patterns in the behaviour of particular individuals. Of course studying groups of people is alot differnet than say, studying gravity ;) Sociology as a dicipline has progressed quite a bit in the last hundred years, and does a good job of explaining how and why societies work the way they do.

[ 01-28-2003, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

I agree with this, is it not possible that there is no meaning to life. What if we are a by-product of some alien experiment; there is not too much meaning to that life. That may seem kind of silly to some, but there are people who believe this is true. In this scenario the only higher power would be a more advanced race of beings. Maybe god like, but certainly not omnipotent.

I realize this is just a hypothetical situation, it dose however bring up another point; even if it is far fetched. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry Yorick, you can't prove something on the basis of probability. You can't prove something by intuition, however many peoples intuition have been taken into account. Its quite strong evidence for the existance of something, but it cannot be proven this way. Just to give you an example - Fermat's Last Theorem. No one could find any numbers that would disprove it, not even in the whole scope of human comphrehension. That did not mean, however, that it had been proven. It meant we were fairly sure, but not certain. We couldn't be certain Fermant's Last Theorem was correct until some really heavy duty maths had been carried on on it, not because it was likely to be false or because we had seen it to be false - but because it was possible for it to be false.

The same applies to empirical evidence of peoples view of religion. A recurrence cannot under any circumstances be considered proof - as long as the possibility of a counter example exists (never mind actually finding it...) nothing can be proven. What you are talking about is something having a high empirical probability of recurrence, not something being empirically proven.

I agree with this, is it not possible that there is no meaning to life. What if we are a by-product of some alien experiment; there is not too much meaning to that life. That may seem kind of silly to some, but there are people who believe this is true. In this scenario the only higher power would be a more advanced race of beings. Maybe god like, but certainly not omnipotent.

I realize this is just a hypothetical situation, it dose however bring up another point; even if it is far fetched. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]The Meaning of Life is easy, that's 42. The hard part is knowing what the real question is!

Seriously I do not need a outside observer (ie creating power, all powerful god, alien masters, etc..) to give my life meaning. My life has meaning because I give it meaning. If someone feels they are leading a meaningless life then they should re-examine their goals and vaules [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sorry Yorick, you can't prove something on the basis of probability. You can't prove something by intuition, however many peoples intuition have been taken into account. Its quite strong evidence for the existance of something, but it cannot be proven this way. Just to give you an example - Fermat's Last Theorem. No one could find any numbers that would disprove it, not even in the whole scope of human comphrehension. That did not mean, however, that it had been proven. It meant we were fairly sure, but not certain. We couldn't be certain Fermant's Last Theorem was correct until some really heavy duty maths had been carried on on it, not because it was likely to be false or because we had seen it to be false - but because it was possible for it to be false.

The same applies to empirical evidence of peoples view of religion. A recurrence cannot under any circumstances be considered proof - as long as the possibility of a counter example exists (never mind actually finding it...) nothing can be proven. What you are talking about is something having a high empirical probability of recurrence, not something being empirically proven.</font>[/QUOTE]Barry, I didn't use the words "empirically proven" I said "logically concluded through empirical assessment". ;)

Edit: Actually I did earlier in the post.

THe point I was making is that IF hypothetically a question was found that 100% of every human ever asked was found to be the same answer, then a logical conclusion based on empirical assessment can be drawn.
I mean of course the only thing truly absolutely provable is that one is aware, but outside that there are relative assumptions that can be made. Such as Timbers own unproven conclusion that at least one wacky kook would asnwer "no". That is of course speculation at this point, however logical it may be.

Are we sick of this yet?? [img]tongue.gif[/img] I think we've gone so far up our ar$es we've come out our mouths again.

[ 01-28-2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[quote]Originally posted by Rokenn:

Quote:

Originally posted by homer: [qb] My life has meaning because I give it meaning. If someone feels they are leading a meaningless life then they should re-examine their goals and vaules [img]smile.gif[/img]

Awesome. [img]smile.gif[/img]

*puts brain back in head through left nostril*
But, Yorick, you're simply wrong regarding this. Even your "are you alive question," 'cause I assure you at least 1 wacky kook will answer "NO." On the other hand sodium bicarbonate can't just *decide* not to fizzle.

HOLD THE PRESSES!! Yorick agreed with an atheist! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I'm saying IF! IF all humans answer yes.