nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 316:
Line 316: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Opposition to classroom prayer (view source)
Revision as of 13:19, March 10, 2008
, 13:19, March 10, 2008→Basic Problem: There's plenty of evidence
Whew! I hope I have expressed myself adequately, and apologize for any verbosity. I find exactness a trying standard sometimes, I must admit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:01, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Whew! I hope I have expressed myself adequately, and apologize for any verbosity. I find exactness a trying standard sometimes, I must admit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:01, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:1. What exactly does "rule by religion" mean? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theocracy Merriam-Webster] lists "theocracy" as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided". An example of a theocracy was Israel prior to the time of King Saul. There was no civil government, and God was considered the "ruler", albeit speaking through prophets. "Deocracy" was not found by [http://www.onelook.com/?w=deocracy&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a OneLook].
: "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to the ''establishment'', that is, that the government can't establish a "state religion", which is a religious ''organisation'' run by the state. This was the issue in Britain, where the head of the Church of England was (and still is, technically), the monarch, so the ''civil government'' ran the church. So it meant that the government could not run the church; it didn't mean that the government couldn't recognise ''Christianity'' (a set of beliefs, not an organisation) as correct.
: 2. Lot's of things are not ''empirically'' provable, as you later acknowledge. How do you ''empirically'' prove when you were born? Or that World War I happened? Or that the water in my kettle boiled at 100 degrees Celsius last Thursday? The first two are "proven" by ''historical'' evidence (e.g. eyewitness accounts recorded in documents). The last is "proven" by inference from what we ''do'' know, that water normally does boil at 100 degrees Celsius. Similarly, God can be "proved" by (a) historical documents (e.g. the Bible) and (b) inference (everything that begins has a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore the universe had a cause. For a number of reasons including that the cause had to be outside of the space-time continuum, the cause must be something that we would label "God"). Did we ''empirically'' prove God? No. Did we "prove" God by other means that we accept as being sufficient in other cases? Yes.
: "Faith" is trust ''based on evidence''. Christianity has ''evidence'' in support of it. Perhaps your beliefs are purely based on faith without evidence, but mine are not.
: "''"The truth," as you put it, is not a certainty for everyone.''": Truth is truth regardless of what a person believes.
:4. "''Obviously the teacher cannot "force anyone to believe." But that's an illogical way of looking at the matter.''": Try telling that to all the bibliosceptics who have accused me of "forcing my beliefs" onto them simply because I argued my case on an Internet forum like this!
: "''the only way freedom of religion would be violated would be the teacher "forcing [someone] to believe," ... would [be] ... a teacher who was also a priest leading the class in Mass, administering communion, and reading the Annals of the Jesuit Register.''": No, that's not the only way at all. Forcing someone to believe would be punishing them for not believing, as happens in some cultures when people convert to Christianity.
:5. "''..."truth" was a word seldom used.''": Okay, substitute "fact" if you prefer. And think about ''how'' it is taught, not what words were used to explain it.
: "...''your "truth" is likely not the truth of even a simple majority of Americans. Unless, of course, you speak very vaguely.''": I think you overstate how "vague" it has to be. Agreed that the more detail you get into, the more points over which there will be disagreement, but I would say that there is more ''agreement'' than you are indicating.
:6. "''If it is religion, then objective "truth" cannot be achieved.''": Why not? More specifically, why can't we be ''at least'' as certain of God's existence as we are about the bit of information about Augustus that you mention?
: "''Indeed, I would be insulted if someone claimed to find God under a microscope.''": I'm not sure that I'd be "insulted", but I certainly wouldn't accept it, because God is not material. But I would ''expect'' that someone could find evidence for God under a microscope. Or telescope. Indeed, the Bible tells us that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."
:7. "''I really think I know what sense I meant it in a little better than you do... ''": I can, of course, only go on what you said, rather than what you were thinking. And it is clear from what you ''said'' that you were talking about ''scientific'' evidence.
: "''When the term is used colloquially, it is generally understood (at least by most people) to mean "established by reasonable evidence to a degree consistent with the unusualness of the claim," or something similar.''": Saying that you were using the term colloquially is inconsistent with the claim that you were making and which I was replying to: "''And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong.''". If you mean "proven" in the sense that you now describe, then I've described such proof above. The fact that you didn't know of it is neither here nor there.
: The bulk of paragraph 7 is explaining that there are other "proofs" than empirical or scientific proof, a claim that I totally agree with. So I'll skip all that.
: "''But this rational process does not work for God, because the best "evidence" for God is individual faith.''": On the contrary, as I have pointed out above, there is good ''actual'' evidence for God, and plenty of it.
: "''God does not bow to dance before our rationality...''": ''Our'' rationality? Where do you think we got rationality from? From the ''rational'' God! God has provided us with evidence for His existence, and we would do well to recognise that.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
== Quote Mined ==
== Quote Mined ==