the 19th century accord between science & church

[charles brough]

The end of the Age of Enlightenment meant a time of ""The Accord and shifting the focus of social scientists towards reconciling science and the old WV religious system. This meant that the blatant non reconcilable differences in the two belief systems had to be minimized. So, social theorists subconsciously reworked both into a single closed system of thinking and did it so well that their effort has been, until now unnoticed.

The doctrines of Christianity had ceased to be relatively accurate well in the last half millennium. Thus, its doctrines could never actually be reconciled with science. Reforming Christianity was impossible; what would be left if all its “miracles” were removed? Old religions only die a long and slow natural death. The effort of the Accord could only achieve an illusion of compatibility by compromising both. For Christianity to accommodate required it be "liberalized." The result was the creating of "liberal Christians," those of the upper and middle income classes who were skeptical of “miracles” but, even so, worshiped Jesus Christ in their Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and other such mainline churches. But by allowing science to compromise the faith, secularized Christians stripped the "Holy Scriptures" of their supposed inerrancy, and turned the old faith into a pallid, diluted thing. This served to further weaken the social bond, demote the faith's moral authority, and encouraged the growth of materialism, sensualism and crime. For the next century and a half, Fundamentalist Christianity was pushed to the fringes of public opinion.

What the compromising did to the old faith was no worse than what science did to itself. In order for science to appear reconciled with even a liberalized Christianity, social science theorists were compelled to unknowingly use the twenty-one Appendix-listed word-tricks when interpreting their data. They and the clergy both knew that, for the benefit of society, the public must not realize that either their faith or their science was being compromised. In order to protect and preserve the social bond, social theorists had no choice but to use the stratagems as an integral part of the very methodology of social theory."" ---chapter 12, "Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History."

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is incorrect.

[Magyar]

well, I'll just work on this,
The doctrines of Christianity had ceased to be relatively accurate well in the last half millennium

Just exactly WHAT do you imagine - other then obvious stuff like water is wet - Xian fairytales to be accurate about? Yes I know that xian delusionists fantasize about how their great woo reveals all kinds of stuff, but this isn't based in reality.

So until you resolve this everything else after is just a pile of warm steaming flop

[charles brough]

well, I'll just work on this,


Just exactly WHAT do you imagine - other then obvious stuff like water is wet - Xian fairytales to be accurate about? Yes I know that xian delusionists fantasize about how their great woo reveals all kinds of stuff, but this isn't based in reality.

How would you put it? They claim their faith is "the Truth" and I say there is no such thing. One belief can only be more or less accurate than the other.
Science is ACCURACY, not "Truth," as "truth" is only a Biblical concept. Evolution is the most accurate theory, as is all science. The myths of Christianity are zillions of degrees less accurate than science, but even so, they are more accurate than the animisms of Shinto and Lamaism.

Seems to me it is unscientific to see the world as "good" or "bad," "true" or "false." All is relative.

[ImaginalDisc]

How would you put it? They claim their faith is "the Truth" and I say there is no such thing. One belief can only be more or less accurate than the other.
Science is ACCURACY, not "Truth," as "truth" is only a Biblical concept. Evolution is the most accurate theory, as is all science. The myths of Christianity are zillions of degrees less accurate than science, but even so, they are more accurate than the animisms of Shinto and Lamaism.

Seems to me it is unscientific to see the world as "good" or "bad," "true" or "false." All is relative.

Animism is more false than Christianity?

*Puts on pondering hat.*

No, I'm still not quite grasping that. A magical man who lives in the sky makes as little sense as magical men who live in rocks.

Also, I think you don't quite understand what "theory" means in a scientific context.

[sleepy_lioness]

This analysis completely fails to recognise that fundamentalism is a modern thing, as much a product of the Enlightenment as is scientific method. A Whiggish narrative of progress from "fundamentalist" Christianity to modern liberalism is historically incorrect and, moreover, plays into the hands of reactionary religionists (ie, most of them) who think that everything used to be lovely, society and simplistic literalist Christianity used to be one, until modern science diluted everything.

In fact, medieval Christianity was in many ways far more subtle than modern Christianity. To generalise hugely, literal interpretation of Biblical narratives was frequently disparaged in favour of allegorical and moral approaches which far outstrip many modern "liberal" approaches in leaving behind the literal meaning of the texts. The very idea that a text had a simple meaning that could only be read one way is unthinkable before the Enlightenment.

Modern "liberal" Christianity is also a complicated beast. One weirdness of it is that many ideas which were considered "liberal" in the nineteenth century, such as a Hegelian working out of God's plan in history and among the nations, came in the twentieth to be seen as highly conservative. Even the attitude to text is ambiguous. Modern "fundamentalists" don't necessarily read the Bible simply - they pick and choose. Indeed, their very idea that the Bible is a whole and doesn't contradict itself is a dogma, as Gadamer pointed out, and thus their claim that all their ideas are Bible-based is incorrect.

I could go on. But the main point is that the history of Christianity and secularism is far, far more complicated than in that simplistic analysis.

[charles brough]

Animism is more false than Christianity?

*Puts on pondering hat.*

No, I'm still not quite grasping that. A magical man who lives in the sky makes as little sense as magical men who live in rocks.

Also, I think you don't quite understand what "theory" means in a scientific context.
If something is "false," how can something else be "more false?" It is not a matter of "true" or "false" but what is the more accurate.

Christianity is a more accurate view of the real world than animism in that the latter uses "spirits" to "explain" everything. In Christianity, the "spirits" in it are used to "explain" only what its much smaller pantheon specifically deals with. This goes back to Tyler and is not mainstream only because it deals with the inequality of religions, and that is anathema now ("politically incorrect") since our secular system is trying to bind or bond the whole world of religions into a single economic community of nations.

Sure, I know the way the world "theory" is used in science. How about you putting it into words?

[ImaginalDisc]

If something is "false," how can something else be "more false?" It is not a matter of "true" or "false" but what is the more accurate.

Christianity is a more accurate view of the real world than animism in that the latter uses "spirits" to "explain" everything. In Christianity, the "spirits" in it are used to "explain" only what its much smaller pantheon specifically deals with. This goes back to Tyler and is not mainstream only because it deals with the inequality of religions, and that is anathema now ("politically incorrect") since our secular system is trying to bind or bond the whole world of religions into a single economic community of nations.

Sure, I know the way the world "theory" is used in science. How about you putting it into words?

That doesn't make any sense. None of what you said does.

A) A belief in a mystical man who watches every sparrow fall, who made light before making the sun, who is both one person and three different people and had to kill himself to make himself forgive us of the sin two mythical ancestors made of disobeying an order before they knew right from wrong makes just as much sense as a belief in magic people who dwell in lakes and rocks.

2 + 2 = God is just as wrong as 2 + 2 = Kami because the correct answer is 4.

B) ". . .since our secular system is trying to bind or bond the whole world of religions into a single economic community of nations." This is something either you made up or accepted out of credulity. There is no such thing as a conspiracy of secular evil-doers who are attempting to mash all religions into a "single economic community of nations," mostly because those words just don't go together that way. Just because someone's an atheist doesn't mean they're part of whatever fictional Illuminati you think exists.

Just because someone supports a more integrated global economy that doesn't mean they're an atheist. Just because someone's an atheist that doesn't mean they like globalization. If you could do me the favor of clarifying your fears, I could do a better job of allaying them.

C) A theory is a well supported comprehensive explanation of the causes of related natural phenomena. A theory is not some sort of guess, nor is it tentative. It is the best explanation for which there is supporting evidence. Give me a theory rather than scripture any day. Asking "Why does this theory have credibility" leads you to fascinating evidence to explore, and if you can find some which contradicts it, you'll be lauded, rather than branded a heretic and murdered for the crime of thinking.

[charles brough]

That doesn't make any sense. None of what you said does.

A) A belief in a mystical man who watches every sparrow fall, who made light before making the sun, who is both one person and three different people and had to kill himself to make himself forgive us of the sin two mythical ancestors made of disobeying an order before they knew right from wrong makes just as much sense as a belief in magic people who dwell in lakes and rocks.

2 + 2 = God is just as wrong as 2 + 2 = Kami because the correct answer is 4.

B) ". . .since our secular system is trying to bind or bond the whole world of religions into a single economic community of nations." This is something either you made up or accepted out of credulity. There is no such thing as a conspiracy of secular evil-doers who are attempting to mash all religions into a "single economic community of nations," mostly because those words just don't go together that way. Just because someone's an atheist doesn't mean they're part of whatever fictional Illuminati you think exists.

Just because someone supports a more integrated global economy that doesn't mean they're an atheist. Just because someone's an atheist that doesn't mean they like globalization. If you could do me the favor of clarifying your fears, I could do a better job of allaying them.

C) A theory is a well supported comprehensive explanation of the causes of related natural phenomena. A theory is not some sort of guess, nor is it tentative. It is the best explanation for which there is supporting evidence. Give me a theory rather than scripture any day. Asking "Why does this theory have credibility" leads you to fascinating evidence to explore, and if you can find some which contradicts it, you'll be lauded, rather than branded a heretic and murdered for the crime of thinking.

You still don't understand? I would try again, but there is one basic problem holding you back. You are thinking in terms of "right" and "wrong," "truth" and "false." Is it so hard to understand that there is no such thing? ALL we "know" is only MORE OR LESS ACCURATE than what we "knew" before. If you cannot get that, there is no use my responding to A-C.

The relativity of Truth began to be perceived by Einstein in 1905 (the relativety of knowledge). Between 1920 and 1930, it was noted in a host of different science fields by top notch experts in them that there was no "Truth" in their field (would you like to know their names?).
Unfortunately, too many people were unable to adapt to it so that there has been a lot of confusion ever since.

How do you define "truth"? You do need an answer because you did use the word "wrong," for example. To most people "truth" is only a word they use for what they want others to believe.

[tomwaits]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2141248d292bc09273.jpg

[charles brough]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2141248d292bc09273.jpg

I looked at http://encyclopediadramatica.com/LOL_WUT

The explanation for what it was supposed to mean was inexplicable. What IS it supposed to mean? I noticed the word "fag" in the "explanation" but am not sure that was't just part of the gibberish.

[Terry]

The end of the Age of Enlightenment meant a time of [...] methodology of social theory."" ---chapter 12, "Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History."

Do you have any comment on this chunk of text that you appear to have pasted into a number of different forums net-wide?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I looked at http://encyclopediadramatica.com/LOL_WUT

The explanation for what it was supposed to mean was inexplicable. What IS it supposed to mean? I noticed the word "fag" in the "explanation" but am not sure that was't just part of the gibberish.

It basically means you've been pwn3d.

[charles brough]

It basically means you've been pwn3d.

It seems you and Tomwaits have problems in communicating except in slang or symbolism and made-up words. I would hope someone can carry on a constructive discussion without making a big ego thing out of it. How about someone dealing what my last post instead of dropping pictures around? The world is a bit complicated to try to limit one's communication to pictures.:)

Don't you think?

[tomwaits]

What I think is that I'm in ur base, killing ur d00ds. It's all explained in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0) helpful video.

[charles brough]

Do you have any comment on this chunk of text that you appear to have pasted into a number of different forums net-wide?

Yes, I am all over the forums. Under "humanpurpose" in Google, there are over 2,000 posts in my name---not one mention of one of my books in any of them. Since then, I have posted more. Mention of my book has only occurred a few times where appropriate.

By the way, are those your legs that show under your name? :)

charles

[drkitten]

Yes, I am all over the forums.

I'm so sorry.

I hope this doesn't negatively impact your career.

You know, the next time a prospective employer searches the Web and finds all this gibberish published under your name....

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It seems you and Tomwaits have problems in communicating except in slang or symbolism and made-up words. I would hope someone can carry on a constructive discussion without making a big ego thing out of it. How about someone dealing what my last post instead of dropping pictures around? The world is a bit complicated to try to limit one's communication to pictures.:)

Don't you think?

I'd love to deal with your last post, if only I (or anyone) could figure out what it said.

[drkitten]

The relativity of Truth began to be perceived by Einstein in 1905 (the relativety of knowledge).

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong. As in, more wrong than Christianity and Animism put together. The "relativity of Truth" was part of the discussion behind the entire "problem of induction" of Hume, et al., and originated well before that (look at Leibniz's formulation of identity in observables, for example).

And what Einstein perceived was specifically not "the relativity of Truth"; indeed, the whole theory of relativity is specifically a description of "the truth," but a more complex truth than had been considered by Newtonian physics.

Since you can't get the basic historical facts right, I see no reason to take your incoherent musings at all seriously.

[charles brough]

I seems that a number of you definitely dislike me but are totally unable to explain why because you cannot figure out what I write. (?!)

I find spiritual gibberish all the times in the forums, but even though I do not know what it says---as "spiritual" words have no meaning to me---I go to other posts rather than become rude, demeaning and abusive.

I won't ask what is wrong with the several of you because I am taking this thread of my e-mail notification list. . .

Have a good day. :)

[tomwaits]

I find spiritual gibberish all the times in the forums, but even though I do not know what it says---as "spiritual" words have no meaning to me---I go to other posts rather than become rude, demeaning and abusive.

Are you admitting that what you wrote was "spiritual gibberish"?

[drkitten]

I seems that a number of you definitely dislike me but are totally unable to explain why because you cannot figure out what I write. (?!)

I thought I explained quite clearly why I dislike your writings. They're incorrect in the few areas where they are decipherable.

I have no opinion about you personally.