Trying to extract meaning or purpose from nature is what philosophy is all about.
Trying to impose meaning or purpose on nature is what theology is all about.
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008, 5:56 am | 
Philosophy, Theology | 
RSS feed
| 
Respond | 
Trackback
29 November 2008 at 12:32 pm
As a free-thinker myself, I wonder why it is that even though all species of life on earth are both male and female in nature, mankind continues to think of God as being only male. It makes so much more sense to me to consider that God is most likely both male and female. This led me to the idea that God didn't “create” the universe, like some fantastic magician, but rather GAVE BIRTH to the universe. That means that we are God's descendants; and it also means we have unlimited potential. Please take a few minutes to look at my website: http://www.newperspectivenow.com and consider a new point of view about who we are and why we're here!
11 June 2008 at 1:53 pm
So science and philosophy are in league, you might say. One material, the other ideal, both aspire to extract meaning from nature without imposing meaning in the process. A problem with science, and maybe therefore philosophy is when it tries to go beyond observation and recording “purpose” and moves into theory, (supposal purpose).
And when scientists and philosophers and those who read them, forget, ignore or never studied the research, but embrace the theories, you have… a shallow adherence and acceptance of “truth” only as complete as the theory that came out. Sounds vaguely familiar… Sounds like… the common atheist's view of religion.
If an atheist truly embraces the “universal negative”, as it were, then there is no room for theology, philosophy or even science. Universal is universal.. infinitely so in its purest sense, then there can be no meaning in anything material, known, or assumed. It is all, and must always be, suspect and questioned.
An honest physicist will tell you that even observing an atomic particle seems to (theory, of course) alter its behavior. The same is true of anthropology, biology or any other study where observer cannot avoid contact either with their hands or their minds.
For me your quotes, in light of what you've promoted of atheism elsewhere, raised two very difficult to resolve logical problems for the atheist, through reason of course – nothing spiritual about this paradox.
1. Whether atheism is a philosophy, a science or, God forbid – a religion, you cannot mathematically answer anything, only question all (universal, ad infinitum) answers…
2. Science/philosophy, (with theories and theories about theories all hung together and relying on each other), are highly lauded by many if not most atheists as valuable holy scriptures and traditions. So the paradox inlaid is: “does not your definition of theology (we can safely, semantically leap to 'religion' here) apply directly to philosophy and science when even theories are an imposition of meaning?”
I'd appreciate hearing your ideas about this.
11 June 2008 at 10:53 am
So science and philosophy are in league, you might say. One material, the other ideal, both aspire to extract meaning from nature without imposing meaning in the process. A problem with science, and maybe therefore philosophy is when it tries to go beyond observation and recording “purpose” and moves into theory, (supposal purpose).
And when scientists and philosophers and those who read them, forget, ignore or never studied the research, but embrace the theories, you have… a shallow adherence and acceptance of “truth” only as complete as the theory that came out. Sounds vaguely familiar… Sounds like… the common atheist's view of religion.
If an atheist truly embraces the “universal negative”, as it were, then there is no room for theology, philosophy or even science. Universal is universal.. infinitely so in its purest sense, then there can be no meaning in anything material, known, or assumed. It is all, and must always be, suspect and questioned.
An honest physicist will tell you that even observing an atomic particle seems to (theory, of course) alter its behavior. The same is true of anthropology, biology or any other study where observer cannot avoid contact either with their hands or their minds.
For me your quotes, in light of what you've promoted of atheism elsewhere, raised two very difficult to resolve logical problems for the atheist, through reason of course – nothing spiritual about this paradox.
1. Whether atheism is a philosophy, a science or, God forbid – a religion, you cannot mathematically answer anything, only question all (universal, ad infinitum) answers…
2. Science/philosophy, (with theories and theories about theories all hung together and relying on each other), are highly lauded by many if not most atheists as valuable holy scriptures and traditions. So the paradox inlaid is: “does not your definition of theology (we can safely, semantically leap to 'religion' here) apply directly to philosophy and science when even theories are an imposition of meaning?”
I'd appreciate hearing your ideas about this.