jcb2354

Which of these statements do you agree with and why:

We can know all that is knowable.

We cannot know all that is knowable.

Please explain why you think so, that's what makes it interesting.

This was an accident but it proved interesting.

I made a post in R&S, a bit long, but with a definite point, mentioning several times not to make a mistake in my point.

19 answers in 20 min, all but two were angry, condescending and all but one totally missing the point and focusing on what I said was not the point.

Moved the exact same post to the Philosophy section

4 answers in 20 min, all reasonable and calm, all understanding the point and responding with rational answers. (not that I agree with the answers they all gave, but they were intelligent and on the point.

Given these facts, what conclusion(s) could you draw?

I posted this in the religion section and not one person got the point. I am hoping for better results here.

Much has been said on YA about proving things (i.e. God) using Science. Many other forms of proof are dismissed because they are do not fall under the same concrete form of evidence as science does.

To this I disagree.

Science assumes that science is true. (i.e. The Scientific Method is assumed to derive an accurate picture of the universe) but there is no scientific evidence to prove that scientific evidence is true. Although that sound circular it is not, it makes the point the we start by assuming that science works to understand what it is intended to understand and work from there.

This is not bad or wrong, it is necessary.

You might say that science has proven itself to be true by constant usage, again I disagree. When we find something that disagrees with our ideas we assume that science still works and we rework our ideas, again on the assumption that science works. (again, this is necessary). There are many 'mysteries' of science, which we are still seeking answers because we assume that science works and the problem is that we have yet to find the answer.

Now, finally, my point. If we come to admit that we use science as evidence, based on the assumption that science works (which, again, is necessary) then why do we discount other branches of philosophy and reasoning because we have no proof that they work? Would it not make more sense to assume, as long as they are logical and sound, that they have the possibility of being as useful as science in the realms that they are set up to investigate?

Again (because I know someone will miss it) I am not downplaying science, I am asking why other branches of investigation are not allowed the same consideration?

Much has been said on YA about proving things (i.e. God) using Science. Many other forms of proof are dismissed because they are do not fall under the same concrete form of evidence as science does.

To this I disagree.

Science assumes that science is true. (i.e. The Scientific Method is assumed to derive an accurate picture of the universe) but there is no scientific evidence to prove that scientific evidence is true. Although that sound circular it is not, it makes the point the we start by assuming that science works to understand what it is intended to understand and work from there.

This is not bad or wrong, it is necessary.

You might say that science has proven itself to be true by constant usage, again I disagree. When we find something that disagrees with our ideas we assume that science still works and we rework our ideas, again on the assumption that science works. (again, this is necessary). There are many 'mysteries' of science, which we are still seeking answers because we assume that science works and the problem is that we have yet to find the answer.

Now, finally, my point. If we come to admit that we use science as evidence, based on the assumption that science works (which, again, is necessary) then why do we discount other branches of philosophy and reasoning because we have no proof that they work? Would it not make more sense to assume, as long as they are logical and sound, that they have the possibility of being as useful as science in the realms that they are set up to investigate?

Again (because I know someone will miss it) I am not downplaying science, I am asking why other branches of investigation are not allowed the same consideration?

In my opinion, too much time is spent arguing over whether works (obeying the Law) is needed to be saved (not that it saves, few believe that) but if you say you are a believer do you have to obey the laws and if you don't then you are not a believer.

This leads to a new form of legalism, now you are judged if you are Christian or not by which laws you obey. If we cannot obey them all (which is a question for a later date) then we must choose which are the 'important ones' others must obey, or how many times before it is a 'continuous sin' so you aren't/weren't a believer. Or we can say forget the law, I'm saved by grace and I don't need to worry about it. (which leads to it's own obvious problems).

What if we looked at it this way instead.

Do you want to go to heaven?

Now, heaven is where God's will is willingly done by all, that is what makes it so heaven(ly) So is your will to do God's will, if so, shouldn't you be starting to try to do God's will now?

This becomes a salvation of transformation. As we desire God's will more and more in our lives we, by the work of the Spirit and willing actions on our part, (another topic for later) become transformed into people who naturally do God's will.

Notice here that 'salvation' becomes an attitude of the heart. Works becomes a natural outflowing of the changed life, but one that is best noticed by the person who's life is being changed. It allows for failure because transformation is a lifelong process, but it also requires a constant searching of the heart for those areas that still have not been changed. No judging others, no trying to figure out who is the 'real christian' by their behavior, which can be easily faked. Those who say, "I desire to follow, but here is where I need to grow" are considered believers, those who do no are not.

It seems too simple to me so I appreciate your comments.

All to often in YA I have seen questions that are based on serious misconceptions in multiple areas, especially in R&S. Do others see this also, and if so, how do you (or do you) respond? Does the length of the post matter to you (I will not post more than I am willing to read).

I realize that many trolls will put things out that are so far out, but sometimes they seem honest questions.

My understanding about 'freethinkers' is that the are free to think unhindered by the trappings of religious dogma, in doing so they have rejected all 'religious dogma' and refuse to consider it. But in that statement they have set limits and boundaries on their thought. If they are going to be called 'free thinkers' wouldn't it make more sense to start with all thoughts on the table and not limit thinking from the beginning?