Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 13, 2017 13:20:46 GMT
CB: Your point is irrelevant as this fact was never in dispute. I was addressing my point, which you seem to be ignoring or challenging the validity of.
So your point is that religion never says anything 'clearly'? Not even through distinct commandments?
Incidentally as far as subjects of a practice not rendering an honest opinion of their belief system goes, I would argue the opposite: that it is best to ask those who profess something first as to what they mean, at least before substituting one's own preferred interpretation, as it is reasonable to presume that they would likely know best. In the case of the Klansman, one can see, yes, that they unlikely to see their practices and beliefs as sometimes reprehensible. But that blindness it is not the same as he or her being able to articulate what their creed teaches, only perhaps being wrong, or deluded about KKK's (moral) worth. And if one believes (as I do) that morality is ultimately subjective, anyway...
The difference is that, arguably, one is most likely to get a better idea of what a belief system stands for by initial asking the adherents. For instance those who have insisted in the past that atheism is a 'religion', I can direct to American Atheist and how in actual fact they describe themselves on their website.
That is a non sequitur. Science is not comparable to religion because science is the process by which one gains knowledge.
Never the less disagreements, whether of the quibbling nature or more serious are common within religion and science. It is also odd to imply that we don't gain knowledge from religion - unless you therefore think that religion 'teaches nothing', which I still wait to hear lol
Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge or facts.
I can see what you mean, but religious belief does contain some facts and knowledge. The fact that scripture exists for instance. The knowledge that the Qu'ran contains teachings. And so on. It is the respective value placed upon any range of them - and then of the ultimately unknowable too - which is of significance to faithists.
Scientists do not “quibble” over models or theories; ... there is nothing to “quibble” over because there are no “interpretations” to the scientific method. At the end of the day, and idea is either scientific or it isn’t. When it comes to unscientific opinions, then whether or not it’s worth quibbling over had to do with how the person quibbling feels about what they are discussing, or rather how important it is to them.
www.theage.com.au/news/national/2500-scientists-1200-pages-and-one-quibble/2007/02/02/1169919533976.html
blogs.royalsociety.org/history-of-science/2014/08/13/catalogue-of-quibbles/
I choose not to do that [quibble] with religion because it’s pointless.
And yet here you are, still quibbling, on a second religious noticeboard thread with me.
I ask questions and point out facts. Beliefs and opinions which are debatable I don’t see worth arguing. But that’s me!
The view that religion does, or does not teach anything, is something of an opinion my friend.
With respect to my overall point (which I think I’ve made) any religion (in this case Christianity) that has so many wildly different interpretations, based on so many different understandings of the bible cannot be reasonably said to be “clear” by any objective means. I don’t know how to explain it any “clearer” than this. You’re free to disagree or agree.
I get that, but still don't know if you think it teaches anything. But I guess you 'don't do' opinions any more...